The surprise to me isn't that the MSM has paid so little attention to this but that they paid any attention at all. The 1990s told us that journalism in America was not healthy -- the NYT with the Wen Ho Lee and Troopergate stories was signaling that they had changend. The 2000 election pushed it all closer to the point of not return. The post-2000 election told me that it was over. The MSM was so completely corrupted by then that nothing short of a rightwing meltdown will change it.

Democrats and the left keep thinking that all we have to do is give them stories that on their face call for being covered. Forget it -- unless we give them the smoking gun, the dead body and the perpetrator in handcuffs and photographic evidence of the shooting, they will do whatever it takes to shut down anything from the left.

We have blogs, Air America, sometimes the Daily Show and that's about it -- well, except for the truth which will one day reassert itself.

Get pictures of Gannon sneaking into the WH or Rove's house after hours and they might consider running it.

Why aren't the DC police going after Gannon for solicitation? Surely the most Democratic enclave in the country could at least do this.

Does everyone now understand why I completely lose my mind about the American media once a quarter, rant and rave and swear and even excortiate a decent journalist when they happen to wander by, just becuase I've finally got a filthy American journalist in my sights?

The Republicans always get a pass while Democrats and liberals get crucified in the press. I'm screamingly sick of it and it's done enormous damage to this country.

Look what the press did to Al Gore, a decent man who never was a serial liar until the GOP Media decided to trash election 2000 with that gross fiction. That was six years ago and I have not forgotten a day of it. If the press had just been fair and shown Bush to be what he really is Gore would have walked through that election, instead of having it stolen from him.

I could go on and on and on. It drives me crazy, and there is no lower form of life in my book than an American journalist. Around 20 I trust, the rest are pure scum. They're killing this country.

I believe it was yesterday morning that I saw Nora O'Donnell on the NBC morning program interview G/G. He looked puffy and like he hadn't been sleeping well lately. But Nora fudged on Mr. G's internet appearances - merely saying that he had posted "pornography" on the web and completely ignoring the prostitution/pandering bombshell. In fact, she looked like she had to swallow hard each time before saying the "P" word, which reference she made two or three times in the 3-minute piece. But that's more than I've seen or heard from ANY of the MSM on this growing story. Go figure.

MSM= IOKIYAR

Recommend:

Mark Crispin Miller Examines Mainstream Media's Blind Eye Towards the Gannongate Sex Scandal

BuzzFlash: Is it possible that, if the truth about the gay randiness in the modern Republican homophobe party got out to the red state believers, there might be a pitchfork rebellion against Rove, Bush and their homophobe hypocrites?

Mark Crispin Miller: Yes.

>

I think it's important, every time we run into a political conversation over the next couple of weeks, to say: "Man, what's the deal with that prostitute in the White House?"

Trust me, people will say "what the Hell are you talking about?"

"If Gannon’s sexual proclivities somehow helped him to obtain access, that ought to be investigated. But until there’s proof, the mainstream media are right to tread lightly."

Very funny, Dan Kennedy. Nice way to cover your ass, wise guy!

Another voice from the corporate press calling for an investigation -- but only if there's "proof." If there was "proof" why would anyone even need an investigation? How does one obtain "proof" of anything without an investigation?

This is the kind of Catch-22 thinking that's standard operating procedure in the toadying corporate press now that they have a Republican president to serve and protect.

Thanks to the grossly corrupt Fourth Estate, there is no scandal too small for a Democrat and no scandal at all - ever - for a Republican.

Aside from their role in protecting King Bush, here's the real problem they have with Propagandagate: The corporate press has played the part of willing propagandist on behalf of the RNC for so long that they can't cover a major propaganda story without implicating themselves.

Responsive to Matt Davis, I had an interesting give-and-take yesterday with my barber, a rather right-of-center (but not far right) individual. As I was getting ready to leave the shop, I asked my barber if he had heard about a gay prostitute who over the course of the last couple of years had been able to routinely obtain White House press credentials and cover presidential press conferences. At first, my barber’s jaw simply dropped, and then he expressed his disbelief in a “never with my President Bu$h” sort of way. I suggested that he check the story out on the internet, and I even wrote the name “Jeff Gannon” on one of his business cards so he could go home and check it out. As I left the shop, he was still muttering something about when was I going to tell him the punch line.

As I further reflected on this exchange, it occurred to me that what I had observed from my barber was simply a natural, uncoached reaction that one might expect from most anyone, be they conservative, moderate or liberal, upon learning that such a low-life could obtain such ready access to the highest levels of power in our government. It further occurred to me that an unintended consequence of the stifling of this story by the SCLM is that the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Nasal Hazels of the world have felt no compulsion to broach the story on the air. As a result, right wingers find themselves without a meaningful source of “talking points” on this story, and are being forced to think for themselves – a hellishly scary prospect for those of a right-wing bent under the best of circumstances.

My conclusion: It really doesn’t matter whether the SCLM ever picks this story up and runs with it. The story is out there, it is absolutely true and undeniable, and particularly for so long as the true basis for Guckert/Gannon’s ready access to the White House remains unexplained by Bu$hCo (which is likely to be a good long while), it can be brought up at any time to embarrass the Bu$h administration and those among your conservative friends who support him (So, Sam, ol’ buddy, what is it that this Gannon guy’s got on President Bush, anyway? Ooops, careful, I didn’t mean to make you choke on your beer). So, Bloggers, keep this story alive, and to hell with the SCLM. The longer they ignore it, the better it will get.

redstater -- thanks sharing that with us. We can keep this alive and it does have shock value.

Maybe we need a one page summary with pictures to hand out when someone questions the veracity of it.

The story needs a picture....Gannon and whomever...there has to be a disgruntled security guard or WH intern that knows something...something that shatters the "moral values" b.s. of the admin....keep digging folks..gotta be there somewhere...G/G didn't get his passes by being a wordsmith!

The point of know return. (My apoligees to old Kansas fans) Thanks to the internet and progressive bloggers there is too much on this story now. The truth will come out. Remember that Watergate happened in June, 1972 and didn't become the issue that would bring down a president for almost a year.

I cant't believe all of this concern about Gannongate when there is a rock threatening to destroy Malibu.

I'm in the process of reevaluating magazines I subscribe to (I'm a magazine junkie) and not renewing some as I see fit.

First on the list to go was Newsweek, which I've subscribed to for at least 15 years, possibly much longer.

Next will be The New Republic; I can't abide Martin Peretz and Peter Beinart.

I'm seriously considering dropping The New York Times Book Review, which I've subscribed to for probably 30 years. I simply don't want to subsidize the likes of Judith Miller, et al.

For the present, I'm sticking with The Atlantic and The New York Review of Books.

As a former magazine editor, I can tell you that high subscription cancellation rates are a serious matter. You can't imagine how much it costs to recruit a replacement subscriber. It's much, much cheaper to keep what you've got than beat the bushes for new subscribers.

When my supervisor today said something like "thanks to Al Gore for inventing the internet" I started in on "he didn't really say that though he was instrumental blah blah blah" and went on to how the White House trashing was in the news so much but when it was debunked, that was on page 16 in small type and by the way had he heard about Guckert/Gannon, no? well let me tell ya....
My supervisor, who is Republican I'm sure, but moderate, got up and said "I don't trust any of those people." So there you go, any rightie brings up Clinton or anything they think the lefties do wrong, just bring up Guckert, and yep, like the above commenter wrote, it's like they're caught with their pants down....so to speak.

My supervisor got up after I finished telling him all about it, he listened quite alertly actually.

The most honest coverage I have seen outside of the lefty blogosphere is "http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43031" at, of all places, WingNut Daily.

Sharon: My supervisor, who is Republican I'm sure, but moderate, got up and said "I don't trust any of those people."

Have had the same response from moderate GOP to any information that I have tried to offer them. It's like they have no ability to read and evaluate information for veracity/validity and can't imagine that anybody else can either. It's one reason why I get disturbed when leftie bloggers are not careful with facts and make no effort to verify them. On the Propagannon investigation, people quickly began repeating that Bruce and Bobby Eberle were brothers based on speculation and not fact (it's still unknown if they are even related). And if I see one more person say that Dina Powell HR in the WH is married to a GOPUSA director, I'm going to scream -- it's not true.

there has to be a disgruntled security guard or WH intern that knows something...something that shatters the "moral values" b.s. of the admin

You've got got a guy who advertises himself as a blanket for rich guys, getting in AF-1, and getting loving looks from the chimporer during press conferences. What more "moral value" shatterer do we need? From the pictures I saw of him, Gannon never wore a blue dress.

So, what would it cost to hire an email spa**er to send an email with the subject line "Read this If You Support President Bush," and a message saying "Search for Jeff Gannon on the Internet"? Could we just hit reply all on the sp*m we get and accomplish the same thing free of cost?

Would it not be fun if Jeff decided he could make millions of dollars by selling his story and telling all? Oh nuts, I'm sure he has gotten the head of a horse in his bed already.

Is Ann Coulter a Male Prostitute?
February 25th, 2005 : Filed by ~A!
Ok, so now that I have your attention….

Has anyone read this latest article by good old dragon lady? If nothing else, she’s good for a laugh. In this assorted amalgam of shit, Ann Coulter goes on and on about a myriad of things, saying that Guckert/Gannon is no worse than Randi Rhodes, who uses a pseudonym in place of her last name for privacy reasons.

Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon’s real name is “James Guckert.”
... Air America radio host and “Nanny” impersonator “Randi Rhodes” goes by a fake name, and she won’t even tell people what her real last name is. (She says for “privacy reasons.” That name must be a real doozy.) As Insideradio.com describes Rhodes, she refuses “to withhold anything from her listeners” and says conservatives “are less likely to share such things.” How about sharing your name, Randi? We promise not to laugh.

Ok, I’ll bite, you horrible fiendish cackling harpy. Randi Rhodes isn’t asking the president questions and holding herself out as an objective journalist. She’s a liberal radio personality, dipshit. She doesn’t have any responsibility to be objective any more than you do, you ideological prostitute for the coke-head presidency. Hmmm…. seems to me as if maybe someone (I won’t name names, but her initials are “that stupid bitch”) seems to have divorced themselves from reality.

And then, as if the comparison above weren’t a sad enough commentary from a drooling slop-monkey, Annie goes on to compare what she considers two journalists of equal integrity and ability:

On the op-ed page of The New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about the press pass, saying: “I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the ‘Barberini Faun’ is credentialed?”
Press passes can’t be that hard to come by if the White House allows that dyspeptic, old Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. Still, it would be suspicious if Dowd were denied a press pass while someone from “Talon News” got one, even if he is a better reporter.

So, let me get this straight: Jeff Gannon is a better reporter than Maureen Dowd? Why, because he ‘embraces’ the administration and she’s too smart to be taken in by the whole “We’re torturing people for human rights” shtick?

Coulter goes on to say that Dowd was lying about not getting a press pass, saying that Dowd applied for a permanent pass and Gannon/Guckert only applied for a day pass.

Yes. Every. Day. For. Two. Years. Hi, Ann? Yeah, this is reality. No, it’s okay, stay gone. We’re better off without you.

It’s no surprise to anyone that Ann Coulter’s a maniac. Many on the right see her as that evil cousin you keep under the stairs and only let out when you get burglarized, so they can chew the legs off the burglar. Glad she weighed in on this, though, I haven’t had a good, pitying laugh about Annie in a long time.

Oh, and as an aside, FOX News, is a bunch of assholes again. They wrote a piece about the whole CIA affair, in which they cite RawStory for all their hard work and diligent reporting. They also mentioned Talon ‘News’, and linked to their site. They did not, however, link to RawStory. Why not, I wonder? Why link to Talon, whose site is actually down while they’re on “hiatus”, and not RawStory, which gave them something to write about in the first place?

~A!