home

Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon

Frank Rich writes up the Jeff Gannon story in his New York Times column. He lays it outin such a way that the MSM should now be ready to pick up the story. The primary issues are: how did this fake journalist get White House credentials to cover press briefings for two years (or more)? Did someone in the White House give him access to information about the Valerie Plame investigation?

Rich mentions the sex stuff, but it is relegated to this paragraph:

"Jeff" has now quit Talon News not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." If Mr. Guckert, the author of Talon News exclusives like "Kerry Could Become First Gay President," is yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases, that's not without interest. But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day.

Rich points out six other instances where the Bush Administration has used fake news to get its message out.

It is a brilliant strategy. When the Bush administration isn't using taxpayers' money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government. Paul Farhi of The Washington Post discovered that even at an inaugural ball he was assigned "minders" - attractive women who wouldn't give him their full names - to let the revelers know that Big Brother was watching should they be tempted to say anything remotely off message.

As to the Valerie Plame investigation:

Mr. Guckert has at times implied that he either saw or possessed a classified memo identifying Valerie Plame as a C.I.A. operative. Might that memo have come from the same officials who looked after "Jeff Gannon's" press credentials? Did Mr. Guckert have any connection with CNN's own Robert Novak, whose publication of Ms. Plame's name started this investigation in the first place?

There is something to investigate here, but it's the White House, not Jeff Gannon's sexcapades, legal or illegal. If it turns out Gannon got his press pass or information in the Valerie Plame case from a White House official he was intimitely involved with, then fine, that's a story. But again, the focus should be on the White House.

I also like the comparison Rich draws between Eason Jordan and Jeff Gannon:

Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances?

Update: Maureen Dowd covers Gannon today too, and should appeal to readers who are into the miltitary stud aspect of the story.

Update: So does Sidney Blumenthal with Midnight Cowboy in the Garden of Bush and Evil.

< Defending Lynn Stewart | Tenn. County Commissioner Gets His 15 Minutes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:05:30 AM EST
    The Daily Show spent the entire show on it and Catherine Cryer interviewed John Aravosis on Court TV. Maureen Dowd also writes about it. I think this one's got legs, and I'm beginning to think that it's only because of the salacious aspect. It makes me kind of ill, but the old saying holds true--sex sells.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:08:32 AM EST
    It's not just the sex, it's the UTTER naked pretense of this fake, unelected government by Bush. The mass media is a LAUGHING STOCK to more Americans than EVER since the invention of tv. Daily Show made quite a stab at covering the grotesque disconnect between Americans (who didn't drink the Kool-Aid), and the mass media. It's a Grand Canyon, and getting wider by the hour. It's time for Bush to resign. Nixon only made it three months, and he was actually reelected.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#3)
    by bad Jim on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:55:44 AM EST
    Stewart didn't spend the entire show on it; there was a bit about a new scent called "Cumming", with promise of body oil and hair products in the works.
    When the Bush administration isn't using taxpayers' money to buy its own fake news, it does everything it can to shut out and pillory real reporters who might tell Americans what is happening in what is, at least in theory, their own government.
    And
    Conservatives, who supposedly deplore post-modernism, are now welcoming in a brave new world in which it's a given that there can be no empirical reality in news, only the reality you want to hear (or they want you to hear).
    It is a puzzlement that Frank Rich, who does trenchant, original political commentary, is stuck in the Arts ghetto, while purveyors of utterly lightweight lifestyle fluff like David Brooks are featured on the editorial page.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#4)
    by john horse on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:39:36 AM EST
    I don't see why Gannon doesn't get hired by Fox. They have lots of people who aren't really reporters but play one on tv. On the other hand, the Daily Show has higher standards. They don't pretend they are anything but a fake news show.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lora on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:39:15 AM EST
    Frankly, I have no objection to the media shamelessly going into every lurid detail of Gannon's sex life and spreading it all over the air waves, newspapers, TV, radio, blogs, and magazines. Serves them all right. Look what they did to prez Clinton. If you dish it out....

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:46:35 AM EST
    I am still mystified as to why you feel the sex angle is not relevant. We still don't know (or frankly care) if he is married or has children. It was a WhoIs search (an Internet search) that turned up the links between Gannon/Guckert and the gay escort services. No one would have ever known or suspected Mr. Guckert's sexual preferences if he hadn't specifically chosen to prostitute himself on the Internet. The sex discussion is now about his PROFESSIONAL (prostitution) life, not his personal life. And in Bush's America where family values is trumpted, gay marriage is demonized, and national security trumps all, I believe it is relevant to question why a gay prostitute with a tax problem is shilling for the White House.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:56:24 AM EST
    et al - Rich missed the real headline: "No one caares." sob sob sob ;-)

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:59:56 AM EST
    Lora - Uh, you know what? Gannon isn't President. As a matter of fact, he isn't even in the administration. But, if you want to compate Gannon and Clinton.....

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#10)
    by DonS on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:53:32 AM EST
    "No one caares." sob sob sob says PPJ You wish. This thing stinks so bad, and has the markings of blackmail potential all over it. Whether the RW spin machine can keep the lid on is a fair question. But don't delude youself that this is just a lefty pipe dream.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#11)
    by DonS on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:55:37 AM EST
    "No one cares." sob sob sob says PPJ You wish. This thing stinks so bad, and has the markings of blackmail potential all over it. Whether the RW spin machine can keep the lid on is a fair question. But don't delude youself that this is just a lefty pipe dream. You RW tools have been so used to the faux press controlling the story that your have begun to believe your own invincible George hype.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:11:50 AM EST
    The sad part is, if it wasn't for the salicous sexual angle to this, no one would care. Person A: The WH planted a propaganda stooge in the press corps. Person B: So? Person A: He is a gay prostitute! Person B: Really! How interesting! Tell me all about it.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:18:42 AM EST
    Luv ya kdog. PPJ, seeing your whiny immaturity displayed above (when you can't spin the story to fit the world in your head, apparently) Makes me feel like an idiot for reading the rest of your posts looking for a logical angle. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#14)
    by DonS on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:19:24 AM EST
    Aint that the truth kdog. But it seems like we're getting to a point where even the MSM will find it hard to resist doing a feature story take on WH management of the message. No doubt it will be a quasi flattering take, but the more the scandals break into the open, the rot beneath will begin to be exposed.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:55:12 AM EST
    ...It's time for Bush to resign...
    ooooohhhhh hell no, unless "tricky dick II", goes first, else you know what you'd get, bushWorser with intelligence. "tricky dick II" the most dangerous man alive, he truly believes in his positions. bushco now just wants the power/money. the foundation of the reps is built on sand, hypocrisy/lies, the weight of truth will destroy their house of deception.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:57:34 AM EST
    DonS - The story has no legs and is goin no place. Blackmail? Who? Maybe a leftie blackmailing Gannon? DA - The fact that Rich wrote about it means nothing. He is a left winger who thinks he has a story. Let him waste his time. mfox -"whinning immaturity?" That's cute. I am immature for for pointing out that no one cares and that Gannon isn't president? Please. Can't you do better than that? Tell you what. The Repubs will trade a Gannon for a Rather and a Jordon any day of the week. And that is a fact.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#18)
    by nolo on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:31:50 AM EST
    Tell you what. The Repubs will trade a Gannon for a Rather and a Jordon any day of the week. And that is a fact. That's exactly the problem. That, and the fact you don't see the problem.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:48:41 AM EST
    nolo - No, I see the problem, and you are correct, it is a problem. Problem is that the problem isn't a problem to the Repubs, or at least as big a problem as the problem is to the Democtrats. As I recently commented, problem is that neither party can educate their members to quit doing and saying stupid things that causes problems. marty - Yes, the COMMENTATORS in Fox would pontificate, just as the COMMENTATORS in CNN defended Clinton. On the other hand, the NEWS side of both networks did a pretty fair job, outside of those throwing softball questions to Clinton. Why? They didn't want to be shut out of the political click. BTW - Weren't you the guys telling everyone that the fact that the Governor of NJ was gay and had a non-qualified gay in charge of security was no one's business? Now you complain that a REPORTER is gay and may have asked favorable questions? Gesh. Perspective?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:58:49 AM EST
    OK, genuinely being curious and not being snide now... PPJ, why don't you think this story matters? I haven't really been paying all that much attention to the sordid details (and I'm not comfortable with the sniggering over the sex) but... 1) With all the talk about security, and all the precautions this White House usually takes, why didn't they screen him better? 2) Did someone in the White House leaked classified documents to this guy? To compensate for political bias, I try substituting different presidents and political parties in my head... and it sounds really bad to me each time. So maybe people don't care, but I can think of a lot of things where people don't know much or don't care much, but it doesn't mean it's not important...

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 08:59:22 AM EST
    PPJ: You and lots of others cared when it was Monica in the peoples house. I think we should play by the Republicans own rules and use this. Demand investigations constantly. Beat the drums without stop.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    political discourse, should in theory, lead to political balance. that’s what the end goal should be from both sides. bill getting a bj, even in the white house, he lives there, is a personal family matter. gaining an unqualified entrance, and pushing propaganda, couple with possible security leaks. prioritize!!!

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    Rich: yet another link in the boundless network of homophobic Republican closet cases To borrow a word: Heh.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#24)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    webmacher- The reason PPJ thinks it's not a story is simple. He's a wingnut, and it might make his party's administration look bad. Ockham's razor (while apocryphal) at work. Just based off the reaction of the evangelical-types at work, the right is looking at some potentially serious damage control (my favorite comment was "great, another BJ-Billy type". Of course, wingnuts on the right want it to be about sex, and nothing else. This red herring is the only card the right has this time.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    This whole Gannon business is about as stupid story as I have ever seen. But the fallout from the story somehow manages to be even stupider. What, all of a sudden Gannon's so different from the other reporters, other outlets? Only Gannon kisses politicans' asses for access? Only Gannon... Oh, what's the use? I say fire em all.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    LoL - I've got a better comparison. What if Ward Churchill had a couple of gay porn websites registered to him (hotalmostIndiangaystud.com??). Would the right still be saying "his speech is the issue!!!"?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#27)
    by nolo on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:00:59 AM EST
    BTW - Weren't you the guys telling everyone that the fact that the Governor of NJ was gay and had a non-qualified gay in charge of security was no one's business? No.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:03:05 AM EST
    Glanton, I thought that a. gaining access to a White House Press Pass (try getting one under your real name!)and the fact that Bush (who only takes a few generally scripted questions)anointed him "one of the few to be called upon" (i.e. it isn't random) was the story. Am I mistaken? Does this happen all the time? Is Jeff Gannon in fact as much of a "journalist" as Eason and Rather?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    mfox: I'm going to stick my neck out at this point and say, he's at least doing as good of a job bringing substantive news to the American public as Eason, Rather, or any of the big guns in cable/print/network media. Yes, it's shady that he finagled a press pass. But since we seem to gave gone totally tabloid anyway, isn't Gannon in a way the perfect poster child for today's reporter? All spectacle, all style, no thought-provoking discourse. Show me why he's so qualitatively different from FOX or the _Washington Post_ or from Rich himself. Show me not in terms of credentials, but in terms of the junk being spewed out there all the time.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:47:17 AM EST
    And the Republic torque machine gears up again. It is almost cliche, but one wonders how much PPJ and his ilk are getting paid to stalk left blogs' comments sections. Posted by PPJ (aka Jim) at February 17, 2005 09:48 AM nolo - No, I see the problem, and you are correct, it is a problem. Problem is that the problem isn't a problem to the Repubs, or at least as big a problem as the problem is to the Democtrats. Because it is the Republics who have done wrong in this case. It's never a problem when they do what they accuse others of (or: it's okay to do anything if you're a Republic). As I recently commented, problem is that neither party can educate their members to quit doing and saying stupid things that causes problems. Tell you what - you start working on Delay, Frist, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and BabyDoc. When you get done with them there's a whole list of others who are now in power and should be dealt with first. Then you can come back and snark about Democratic problems, m'kay? marty - Yes, the COMMENTATORS in Fox would pontificate, just as the COMMENTATORS in CNN defended Clinton. LOL! Yet another torque, that the Conservative News Network is slanted to the left. Talk to us the next time Wolfie baby lobs those softballs at Guckert and Kurtz - just like he did the last time. Talk to us about how Aaron Brown says that the whole Guckert affair is a partisan liberal witch hunt. Keep on talking about it for the twelve years your side has focused on the Clenis. Then we can talk about whether CNN is liberal or not. When everyone buys into this sort of distortion of the truth, the Republics get to tilt things a little more to the right. Again. On the other hand, the NEWS side of both networks did a pretty fair job, outside of those throwing softball questions to Clinton. Why? They didn't want to be shut out of the political click. All those softballs - hours of pinpointing the exact spot where the dress was stained; days of commenting on 'how this will cause the moral decay of America'; but no mentions at all about all the Republics taking their mistresses to the impeachment hearings. Funny how that supposedly liberal network forgot to talk about that ad nauseum. Plus another little stiletto tossed into the argument. i don't remember a heck of a lot of softballs tossed to Clinton. I do remember Tim Russert constantly demanding more and more salacious details from Clinton and his staff, and his nonstop harping about the whole situation on broadcast, not cable TV. Funny how you never seem to get to discussing the harrassment of a sitting president by the opposition party and the mainstream media from 1993 to 2001. How much of that goes on these days, again? BTW - Weren't you the guys telling everyone that the fact that the Governor of NJ was gay and had a non-qualified gay in charge of security was no one's business? And weren't you guys the ones who said it would cause that gay governor to be more of a security risk because gays would be easier to compromise? Now you complain that a REPORTER is gay and may have asked favorable questions? No, we complain that a reporter with no reporting credentials using an assumed name was allowed within ten feet of the pResident. So he could lob softballs and deflect lines of questioning that the WhiteWash House didn't want the press to focus on. While legitimate journalists were blacklisted or refused passes in to WhiteWash House press briefings. Care to comment on that issue? Gesh. Perspective? Talk to us about perspective if the Guckert story goes on for two plus years and is hammered into the public consciousness for over half of the news cycle every day. Until then, perhaps you could try looking in the mirror?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#31)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:59:46 AM EST
    mfox: Case in point, look at election coverage by 'trained, seasoned journalists' for goodness' sake. Look at how prominent the gay marriage 'issue' really was. Did any newspaper break down issues that affect us directly, did they cover them at all? No, it was Vietnam and gays and TANG crap etc. No substantive foreign policy discussion, no health care discussion beyond inanely blaming lawyers for the evils of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. No talk of education, no serious discussion of deficits. No time for that, we're too busy selling papers and television ads. Yeah, let Gannon have a shot. He's interesting, he sells, look how much we've been talking about him on this site. Selling is all that matters. The bottom hath long been scraped.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    Apparently Rich missed the memo: 'N.Y. Times' Offers Correction on Maggie Gallagher Editorial. Rich says two have been syndicated newspaper columnists paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the administration's "marriage" initiatives. However, as that NYT correction makes clear, Rich is wrong. Should you trust what else he tells you? Also see "Left-Wing Activist Poses as Reporter At White House Press Briefings". Many of Rich's complaints apply to Russell Mokhiber as well, but where's his outrage about that?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:22:14 AM EST
    What if W is gay or bi and this was a cover to get G/G into the White House?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    Point well-taken, Glanton. My heart breaks but I cannot disagree. Also, to Lonewacko, thanks for finally coming up with a similarly left-leaing pseudo-impostor (is this redundant?) From Lonewacko's link:
    ...Several reporters pointed to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, who has been attending press events through a daily press pass for several years. Some say he is as partisan as Gannon in his questions, but often with a left-leaning approach. One reporter called him "the ideological flip-side of Gannon..."
    So, Gannon simply has a nom de plume as well as a nom de amour! Oy Vey! Note to Journalism students: Your entire degree and professional experiences don't matter - put the tuition money in a private SS account and start working on partisan soundbites!

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:55:36 AM EST
    Note to Journalism students: Your entire degree and professional experiences don't matter - put the tuition money in a private SS account and start working on partisan soundbites!
    sadly, sometimes; the truth hurts

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:33:10 PM EST
    (:Tom:) - Read "The Longwacko Blog's" comment immediately above. Then go beat your head on a sharp corner. It will make you feel better. As for the NJ deal... Not me, bobo. I was the one saying they should be forced to have an election rather than letting the Gov hang on until the Demo legislature could appoint someone. And you can't show otherwise. But the facts are that the Gov appointed the guy to a state position for more than $100K a year, a position that he obviously wasn't qualified for. And now you want to talk about an Internet Reporter who, if he was lucky, had a readership of 30 people, all Repub to start with. Aint the same when it comes to shame, don't ca ya know? adept - No, wingnuts are Repubs amd moonbats are Demos... I'm a social liberal. Now, if you try real hard you may be able to keep that straight. Now, would I like to know how he got a press pass? Hey, why not. My guess is he applied for one, listed Talon as employer, someone checked the website, say a "friendly" face and let him in. Now you may not like that, but I don't see any law broken, or, for that matter, any particular "political" rule broken. Or is it written somewhere that the Left controls who gets a press pass? That must be my Helen Thomas is still there. As I said, no one but the Left gives a flip. Repeat after me: Rather, gone. Jordan, gone.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    As for the NJ deal... Not me, bobo. I was the one saying they should be forced to have an election rather than letting the Gov hang on until the Demo legislature could appoint someone. And you can't show otherwise. The fact that you think we in NJ should have been "forced" to do anything tells me what a brownshirt you are.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:49:36 PM EST
    hardleft - As a person who paid for a journalism degree....let me spell it out. Don't. The hours are lousy and the pay is worse. You can make more money bartending at the local Holiday Inn. And to do better than that, you'll have to be in the top 1% of those who try. This is about the same odds as the average high school football player who you so urgently council to get an education in case they don't make it to the top. Even worse, the Internet is about to make your job mostly not needed, just as it wiped out travel agents and research assistants, and a bevy of other professions who needed millions, now need only two. Instead, become a plumber. The smell won't be as bad and people will always be glad to see you. Dearest No Name - Forcing political parties to have an election is "brownshirt?" Are you for real? You are against elections, but call me names?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    PPJ- You said- "My guess is he applied for one, listed Talon as employer, someone checked the website, say a "friendly" face and let him in." This doesn't account for the fact he was in press conferences in Feb., a month before "Talon" even existed. Like it or not, (yet another) something is rotten in Bush-mark. As for the wingnut/moonbat statements, I based it off what I perceived as your constant defense of even the most absurd GOP/Freeper talking points. If I was off target, I apologize. Have another troll cookie.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:49:54 PM EST
    Dearest No Name - Oaky, my guess is wrong. My point remains. Who cares?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    PPJ - Iust for argument's sake, since you've got the credentials, I'd love to see what happens if you apply for a White House Press Pass. Feel like tryin for the record?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:56:39 PM EST
    yeah that journalism degree, with the my opinion is just as right as yours, blogasphere growing, just might become a dinosaurs. Btw: me no journalist (is/it), surely that’s fairly obvious.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    You don't live in NJ. NJ state politics is none of your business. You can observe, you can criticize, applaud, etc, but keep your "forcing" to yourself. The matter was settled to the satisfaction of a majority of New Jerseyans. We will have our election in a lawful manner and not be "forced" by outsiders to do otherwise. To "force" is undemocratic and unAmerican.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    PPJ - Your hypocritical contortions are,if nothing else, mildly comical. But hey,nobody said it was easy being an errand-boy - I hope you,like Gannon and Hitchens and co. are at least getting paid.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:30:37 PM EST
    Posted by PPJ (aka Jim) at February 17, 2005 01:49 PM hardleft - As a person who paid for a journalism degree....let me spell it out. Don't. The hours are lousy and the pay is worse. You can make more money bartending at the local Holiday Inn. And to do better than that, you'll have to be in the top 1% of those who try. This is about the same odds as the average high school football player who you so urgently council to get an education in case they don't make it to the top. On the other hand, you could just try to (literally) be a whore for the junta. Look at how good it worked out for Guckert. And I read the Whacked-out posts. As you so crassly put it, "who caaares?". Maggie Gallagher was damaged goods long before her whoring for the junta came out. A single mom for ten years lecturing others on the immorality of being an unwed mother. Only a Republic can make those leaps of logic (cough) without their head exploding. And Russel Mokhiber is a leftist plant, and we're supposed to be outraged about him? Yet another typical Republic tactic - I might be bad, but so are you. I believe it said Mokhiber was a Nader supporter. Are you trying to say that anyone who isn't in lockstep with the Republics is a Democrat? Or that Mokhiber got to ask as many questions as Guckert? Or that Mokhiber had as much inside information as Guckert? It says in the post that he couldn't even get a hard pass - he had to be vetted in daily. Guckert did have a hard pass, under an assumed name, even before he became part of the Talon Republic Propaganda Service. And this is supposed to be some sort of comparison? LOL! And the facts in the Guckert case are still that an uncredentialed blogger, using an assumed name, got to within ten feet of the pResident to lob softballs at him and deflect lines of questioning that Putsch didn't have the sound bites memorized for. Funny how you seem to have ignored that, and immediately accused everyone on the left of going after him because he's gay. Just like you ignored Wolf's softballs to Guckert, and Aaron Brown's attempt to sweep this under the rug, on the supposedly liberal CNN. And Russert's continual harping about the Clenis on broadcast TV. And all the Republics bringing their mistresses to the Clinton impeachment hearings. Among so many other things that you'd need a whole investigative staff just to keep up with the dissembling. Do they surgically implant those blinders so that you are unable to see the truth? Or are they paying you that much per hypocritical lying comment on left-leaning blogs? At least Jeralyn gets some of that cheddar in an indirect third hand way - so some good is coming from it... Oh yeah, thanks so much for the suggestion that I take a sharp object and drive holes into my head. Is that some more of that famous compassionate conservatism I keep hearing about?

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#47)
    by Adept Havelock on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    -Tom. Just a thought, I like the notion of taking away two letters from the "Republics" as they enjoy calling the left the "Democrat" public, however, a thought popped into my head. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to refer to them as the "Publicans"? I seem to recall from sunday school many years ago that this was one of the names applied to the moneylenders and other worshippers of mammon that Jesus tossed out of the temple. I could be mistaken on that use of the name, it's been years since my early religous indoctrination.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:43:12 PM EST
    Adept: you may have a point. Publicans does roll off the tongue quite nicely. I used to use Repugnicants all the time because, well... they generally are. But Republics just seems to hit the right (pun intended) note. They favor the Republic style of governance. And I can't help but think about a scene in Mel Brooks' History of the World when one of the Senators of the Roman Republic makes an impassioned speech about helping those who are less fortunate, and the entire set of Republic Senators stands up and says f*(k the poor! every time I type Republic. The essence of their philosophy in so many ways...

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 06:05:17 AM EST
    Tom, Perhaps you need reminding - movies are not reality. Whatever scene you saw in the movie was just that - a scene in a movie. The fact remains - America is a republic. Grasp it.

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 08:46:38 AM EST
    Eclaire, you must be "claire" Your snark makes my stomach turn. What you said didn't even relate to Tom's comments - he didn't say it wasn't a republic, just mused on his PERSONAL abbreviation and shared an funny visual (BTW History of the World - Fantastic!). ...get thee to a nunnery!!....

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    New season of Real Time with Bill Mahr leads with questions about the "security breach" involved in, as Leslie Stahl put it, someone getting security (FBI, CIA) clearance with a press pass issued in a fake name; Senator Joe Biden, Former HHS Sec'y Tommy Thompson, and actor/comedian Robin Williams discuss it for a while, centering on why "the press" is not covering that aspect more and calling for a Congressional investigation into the security breach as such, as well as the various kinds of "leaks" (with all kinds of puns Mahr of course intends), where (whom) Gannon's "scoops" came from, etc. The comparison is not between Gannon's sexploits and Pres. Clinton's. The parallel is the way Gannon's inner-circle source or sources point up the dangerous incompetence of Pres. Bush's Republican White House and the "crimes" for which Pres. Clinton was impeached by Republican forces that got Bush "selected" (twice). The disparity is: why were Pres. Clinton's putative "crimes" the subject of impeachment hearings that were covered incessantly by the MSM and Pres. Bush's real crimes against humanity (such as preemptive war begun under "false premises" leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths) ignored by the same MSM? The Gannon "security breach" is the "tip of the iceberg." (The show will be repeated throughout the coming week.)

    Re: Perspective: Frank Rich on Jeff Gannon (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    Don Cheadle has arrived on Bill Mahr's show, so they're talking about his movie concerning Rwanda (talking about human rights abuses and genocides). In the meantime, a few mins. ago, the Wash. Post updates with "Jeff Gannon Admits Past 'Mistakes,' Berates Critics," by Howard Kurtz, Saturday, February 19, 2005 here.