MItch-
"While permanent places in the White House press corps are hard to get, the "day passes" that Gannon/Guckert used are fairly simple to get for anyone who can pass a security screen."
But it is not quite so easy to ask a question of the President during a press conference. If this guy is so insignificant, why would he be allowed to ask Bush a question? Also, how does a guy with possible links to "escort services" pass a security screen? And why did he pass list his name as "Jeff Gannon" when other who write under false names must have their passes issued under their real names?

Here is the deal Mitch, when it comes to his website stuff... we liberals aren't so mad that he may or may not be homosexual or involve himself with pornography, we are mad that he has the gall to be such a hypocrite. If you read his stuff... it has quite the anti-gay spin to it.

You said, "Love the way Democrats treat any of "their" groups, Blacks or Gays or Asians or Women - as heretics if they are remotely Republican." It is not about people of those groups being Republican... it is about a man with several ties to homosexual pornography writing endlessly about how bad gays are, and how they are hurting our countries moral values.

And I notice you forgot any mention of Gannon's ties to the Valerie Plame scandal. How did such a nobody get a copy of CIA documents?

"While permanent places in the White House press corps are hard to get, the "day passes" that Gannon/Guckert used are fairly simple to get for anyone who can pass a security screen."
But it is not quite so easy to ask a question of the President during a press conference.

Just as it is not easy to get a cab in New York, or an acting job, or to get published. Persistence counts.

"If this guy is so insignificant, why would he be allowed to ask Bush a question?"

Because the Prez called on him?

"Also, how does a guy with possible links to "escort services" pass a security screen?"

I don't know. Because the links weren't known yet?

" And why did he pass list his name as "Jeff Gannon" when other who write under false names must have their passes issued under their real names?"

I'm told this was not the case; he got his pass as Guckert.

"Here is the deal Mitch, when it comes to his website stuff... we liberals aren't so mad that he may or may not be homosexual"

Tell it to Kos, who harped on it pretty extensively.

" or involve himself with pornography, we are mad that he has the gall to be such a hypocrite. If you read his stuff... it has quite the anti-gay spin to it."

Can'ts say as I've read it.

"You said, "Love the way Democrats treat any of "their" groups, Blacks or Gays or Asians or Women - as heretics if they are remotely Republican." It is not about people of those groups being Republican..."

Whaaa? Do you pay attention when liberals talk about black, female, hispanic or gay conservatives? I suspect you don't. Try it.

" it is about a man with several ties to homosexual pornography writing endlessly about how bad gays are, and how they are hurting our countries moral values."

Actually, it is about the lefty blogosphere trying to elevate this story into a major issue (and failing) because they want the noise to drown out the Eason Jordan controversy.

"And I notice you forgot any mention of Gannon's ties to the Valerie Plame scandal. How did such a nobody get a copy of CIA documents?"

I don't know. And, for that matter, either do you.

My suspicion: A good reporter develops sources. And the CIA hands out "secret" documents with, ahem, gay abandon when it comes to discrediting the Administration.

Your suspicion, I suspect: Gannon/Guckert was connected with someone inside. So show us evidence.

"Your suspicion, I suspect: Gannon/Guckert was connected with someone inside. So show us evidence."
You would be correct, that is my suspicion. It would explain why he had access to the White House, the President, and how he obtained the CIA document.

As for his press pass, it said Gannon (but he submitted his real name to get such a pass).

As John Aravosis at Americablog has asked, "Just imagine if some guy with alleged ties to male prostitution were given access to the White House, and given a White House press pass that didn't even have his real name on it, in order to throw fake softball questions at the press briefings to help make the president look good." Imagine that person also had access to a classified CIA document regarding the wife of a vocal critic of the President and could be used to discredit him.
"Now imagine that President were named Bill Clinton." What would Republicans be saying?

And what exactly did Kos harp on extensively? The fact that Gannon may be gay? Gannon's ties to possible male prostitution? And you point is what? You think Kos is some kind of homophobe because he mentions this??? That seems pretty silly to me.

If Gannon hadn't written what he has about homosexuality, then no one would have thought twice about what his sexuality was. But when Gannon made it part of his business... he also made it part of ours.

"You would be correct, that is my suspicion. It would explain why he had access to the White House, the President, and how he obtained the CIA document."

So would him being a kung-fu master who can make himself invisible and can control peoples' minds. That's why I asked for evidence.

"As for his press pass, it said Gannon (but he submitted his real name to get such a pass)."

You're assuming that's not common. "Air names" are not unknown among broadcast media: I'm not sure how common among the print and web media.

"As John Aravosis at Americablog has asked, "Just imagine if some guy with alleged ties to male prostitution were given access to the White House, and given a White House press pass that didn't even have his real name on it, in order to throw fake softball questions at the press briefings to help make the president look good."

Aravosis assumes that:
* the ties were known. We don't know that - or, for that matter, since they'd never been part of a criminal record, whether they'd have turned up in a press background check.

* that the "fake name" on the pass was a disqualifier; I suggest it's not, as long as the application and background check are under the real name.

* That the questions were fake. The capitol press corps were notorious for softballing Clinton.

"Imagine that person also had access to a classified CIA document regarding the wife of a vocal critic of the President and could be used to discredit him."

Imagine, in turn, that Gannon/Guckert were a reporter doing his job.

"Now imagine that President were named Bill Clinton." What would Republicans be saying?"

Pretty much what we did; that the capitol press corps was biased.

The difference being that Gannon/Guckert is one guy; the rest of the Press Corps was, and is, pretty uniformly left of center, tossed the softball questions, and recieved (and currently receive) leaks from the CIA, State, and other executive branch agencies designed to discredit the president.

Not sure about their pr0n ties, of course.

My understanding is that there is no content at those sites. Only the names were registered under his name.

Gukert response is he registered those names on the behalf of a client.

With the facts at hand, it seems that Gukert tried his hand at e-commerce. Got involved to some degree with someone who wanted to promote these websites, but bailed out early, but not early enough to avoid getting his name eternally linked to a gayporn-sounding URL.

Which reminds me of how lefties don't grasp or deny the idea of repentance. We have all done things we regret, and most of all we want to forget that those wrong turns were ever part of our paths. But when lefties find things like this or Bush's drunk driving arrest, they treat it like past failures are present weaknesses.

People will point to Clinton's Marijuana use. but what bugged me about that was that he wouldn't come out and say it was a mistake, instead we got " I didn't inhale". Repentance requires admission that we did the wrong thing. You can't repent if you think you have always been right.

Mitch-
You asked for evidence, and my reply would be... I would like to see an investigation of this.

We have already seen multiple examples of reporters being on the payroll of this administration... so is it that much of a strech to think that maybe Gannon was getting help from someone on the inside?

Rick-
I have also heard him say that his family harassed ever since the press conference where he asked Bush a question and that he had been recieving nasty phone calls... the only problem with that being that no one actually knew his real name (making it nearly impossible to find his phone number or contact information). So until he names these "clients" who hired his services... I find it hard to believe what he says.

Sorry, that last comment is mine.

A table comparing Gannon/Jordan would look nice.

The CIA angle is as much a non-story as any of it. There are two alleged pieces of "evidence" for the allegation that he had access to the document. First that he asked Wilson about the confidential memo in an interview. Given that the WSJ had written extensively about the memo prior to the interview, and that the Gannon questions are almost verbatim recitations of what was in the Journal, this is worth less than nothing. Second, that he was subpoenaed by the grand jury investigating the leak. Again, given that he had written about Plame, this is not that surprising and is not that probative.

Hope I'm not being too far off topic here but I thought I'd try to illustrate for the leftish commentors to this post why the Gannon affair doesn't excite conservatives to same extent it does them. It's simple; most conservatives have little respect for the White House press corps to begin with.

Here's a little exchange between Ari Fleischer & Helen Thomas that demonstrates the standards of the Q&A at a white house press briefing.
The source can be seen at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030106-1.html#2

Q At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.

MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.

Q My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --

Q They're not attacking you.

MR. FLEISCHER: -- from a country --

Q Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.

Q Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.

Q Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.

Q And he thinks they are a threat to us?

MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.

Q The Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --

Q So they will be vulnerable?

MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --

Q That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.

Q I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.

"If Gannon hadn't written what he has about homosexuality, then no one would have thought twice about what his sexuality was. But when Gannon made it part of his business... he also made it part of ours."

Where?

Put up or shut the fu$# up.

CNN, the BBC, The New York Times, and CBS (to name but a few) have all been exposed for fraud, corruption, and sedition. Even the United Nations' exploitation of the Iraqi people and the American taxpayer has been exposed, and we are only now beginning to learn of Kofi Annan's sex and pornography industry currently under development in the Congo. All of which is ignored or excused by the Left as a "smear," despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

But let just one third-rate unknown reporter from an obscure heretofore unheard of news organization point out the obvious in a presidential news conference, namely, that the Left is "divorced from reality," and the Left goes all a-twitter.

It's a conspiracy! We must have an investigation! By all means, let's do. The whole world is watching, and we all want to know just exactly how some obscure news journalist got into a national press conference to ask the president a question he composed all by himself.

Shocking stuff, really.

Gannon isn't the story, though nice job trying to make him the story. No, the story is the involvement of the White House in (yet again) using questionable means to spread its message.

Look, let's not play stupid here: there's no way that a guy operating simultaneously for an eighth-rade website and GOPUSA.com gets a press pass under an assumed name and then just happens to have the President calling on him. (If you don't believe me, I suggest that bloggers everywhere start demanding press passes. Good luck.)

Why, exactly, did "Gannon" have access to CIA memos on Valerie Plame? How, exactly, is it that "Gannon" managed to get passes with his assumed name on it when White House reporters from reputable news sources must use their married names, even if they don't use them professionally? And yes, the escort service websites are an issue, if only because it begs the question: how did this guy get in?

The answer seems evident if you're not willfully trying to ignore it: he got in because the White House wanted him in, because they wanted the softballs he lobbed. That's dishonorable, and disrespectful to the American people (though no more so than paying reporters to shill). If you can't understand why that angers those of us on the left, you're just trying to be ignorant.

At least I understand the consternation over Eason Jordan, even if I don't really share it. But hey, I know, it's all about the left being homophobic, ha ha.

Why exactly should some running a escort service not be let in. That part of the business ain't illegal. .

From what I have read so far, no one has proved that his press pass did not have his real name?
Can you provide a link for this too?

This is going to hurt me, but I have to somewhat agree with Jeff Fecke on this one. When I first heard the story, my first thought was about Armstrong Williams and how this just does not look good. This clown never should have been given a press pass, and his blatant softball questions should have alerted someone to him. It's a question or appearances, and this does not look good and the White House whould've know that.