Laura Ingraham sometimes even scares me! That's why I love her

Media Matters has mopped the floor with this Coulter rant. Here is the link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502250002

Nearly everything she said is a distortion or lie.

"Mopped the floor?"

That's it, Carson. You're out of the running for the next custodial job I advertise.

MM finds hyperbole, calls it "lies", and leaves out gaping chunks of context.

MM "mops the floor" like Brown grad Duncan Black does; flopping some water in mid-floor, swirling it around a bit, then chucking it all and meeting his old frat brothers for drinks.

More later.

"That's it, Carson. You're out of the running for the next custodial job I advertise."

I can imagine it takes many people to sweep up after you.

The technical term is "picking up the rare, precious crumb I leave behind".

;-]

Right, because the issue here was that he used a fake name.

Not that he was a non-reporter from a GOP sponsored web-site being granted special access to the White House press room and Presidential press conferences (despite being a convicted and on-going felon) in violation of White House policy in order to ask factually inaccurate soft-ball questions to the same White House that produces fake local news reports touting its programs and pays columnists to say nice things about them.

Oooh, did she burn us or what?!
/jc

Hmmmm, I wonder how the rest of the White House press corps would react to extensive background checks for daily passes. I wonder what they'd have to say if the White House pressured them on their sexual proclivities. I wonder what the press corps would think about having the White House air their dirty laundry. I wonder. . .

There are eyebrows to be raised about the Guckert-Gannon thing, to be sure, but I find it strange that those same folks who lament "Bush's police state" and his "war on privacy," are aghast that intense security didn't screen Gannon. Which is it, people?

Maureen Dowd may not "lie" but she sure omits anything that is inconvenient to her point of view.
Opinion columists generally do not get hard passes---she would have been able to get a daily pass.
Lets ask for personal and financial info from everyone who has either kind of pass and also from their employer---that way we can tell who should or sure not be there. Maybe ole Helen would retire then.

Ryan-
I hardly see wanting secure background checks on people getting daily access to the White House as being the same as not wanting every gov't agency to have full access to all my personal information for whatever reason they want it.

And we are not asking the White House to demand the details of reporters sexual proclivities. Prostitution is not a sexual proclivity. Why is it so crazy to ask that the White House treat a fake reporter like Gannon to the same background check all the other "hard-pass" reporters were subjected to? I know he got a day pass, but why did he get day-passes for TWO YEARS?

And I never thought I would say this but, World Net Daily seems to get it: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43031

Bethl-

Helen Thomas has years and years of journalistic background and experience working for major news organizations. Jeff Gannon had a two day training program at a right-wing think tank and no real news organization experience or employment.

I don't care if there are people with bias. Everyone has their biases, to some extent. I would just prefer they be from a legitimate news organization or have some king of legitimate experience.

You won't see me argue if, say, Bob Novak showed up at a press conference. But I don't like seeing a fake reporter plant being used as a crutch to get out of difficult questioning.

Carson,

Define "legitimate news organization" or "fake reporter" for me please. Using that logic, or lack there of, people like Mitch, Glenn, Atrios, Kos, etc wouldn't get in to a press conference either. They aren't part of a "legitimate news organization", they're just Bloggers in PJ's.

Helen Thomas may have years and years of experience--but who is her employer now? There are plenty of agenda journalists that are at these press briefings and conferences.
And for all you moralists--what past or present actions in your life should disqualify you from having any type of pass?

RPS-
I am actually using the definitions that Ari, Scotty, and the White House Press Office use. They will occassionally give day passes to people are are not reporters from "legitimate news organizations", but only when they can show it is of some rare importance.

That means that they would not let Mitch, Glenn, Atrios, or Kos into the White House Press Briefings using a day pass unless they can show some sort of pressing need.

With the way the blogosphere is changing how news is reported, the rules for gaining press access to the white house may need to be changed. But the rules as they should have applied to Gannon were not enforced. And my question is why.

I am not trying to argue who should gain access and who shouldn't. That is a completely different story, and one I am still completely undecided on.

I am arguing that, using the current standards of the White House Press Office, this person did not meet the neccessary requirements to get daily White House Press access.

I hope that clears up any misunderstandings.

Bethl-
You said, "And for all you moralists--what past or present actions in your life should disqualify you from having any type of pass?"

Well, I think that is really up to the Secret Service. And I don't really know what they would and wouldn't believe to be a security threat. But soliciting prostitution is illegal. And I would like to know whether or not the Secret Service knew about this. Or at least... whether or not Gannon was ever required to undergo the same extensive background check other reporters were made to take.

"but only when they can show it is of some rare importance."

I've seen no objective evidence that this clause is in fact a criterion for minor/non news organiation representatives getting a pass.

Bethl-
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, and while she is not published like she was when she worked for UPI... she still is published by a news service and is credentialed by Capital Hill with a "Hard-pass". That means she has undergone a Secret Service background check. The one Jeff Gannon didn't.

Mitch-
From Salon:

"Just how blatantly the White House press office looked the other way in regard to Guckert and his dubious status as a legitimate reporter comes into stark relief when examining his attempt to secure a similar press pass to cover Capitol Hill. Guckert submitted his application in December 2003 to the Standing Committee of Correspondents, a press group in charge of handing out credentials. In April 2004, the committee denied Guckert's request. Writing to Guckert, committee chairman Jim Drinkard outlined three clear deficiencies in Guckert's application:
1) "Committee guidelines require that on-line publications 'must charge a market rate fee for subscription or access, or carry paid advertising at current market rates.' You have not demonstrated to the committee's satisfaction that Talon News has any paid subscribers, that paid client newspapers publish Talon News stories, or that it is supported by advertising."
2) "The application for accreditation to the press galleries states that 'members of the press shall not engage in lobbying or paid advertising, publicity, promotion, work for any individual, political party, corporation, organization, or agency of the Federal Government.' Talon News has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the committee that there is a separation from GOPUSA."

3) "Gallery rules and the application state that the principal income of correspondents must be obtained from news correspondence intended for publication in newspapers or news services. The committee feels that paying a single reporter a 'stipend' does not meet the intent of the rule."

The White House, in contrast, said that as long as Talon News or GOPUSA "existed," Guckert was free to attend its press briefings. Yet, in the past, a reporter seeking a permanent White House press pass has had to first secure credentials to cover Capitol Hill. Without those, the White House would not submit the application for a background check. But even though Guckert failed to secure Capitol Hill credentials, the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Those passes are designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use by reporters who flunk the Capitol Hill test."

"To obtain a day pass during the Clinton administration, a reporter "had to make the case as to why that day was unique and why [he] had to cover the White House from inside the gates instead of outside," (Joe)Lockhart says."

Here's the link:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/23/more_gannon/index.html

Carson,

"Just how blatantly the White House press office looked the other way in regard to Guckert and his dubious status as a legitimate reporter comes into stark relief when examining his attempt to secure a similar press pass to cover Capitol Hill..."

Right. The "legitimate" press makes rules to make sure that only they are legitimated - viz the rules that you have to follow to get into the Capital Press Pool.

Dealing with press-run pools is like dealing with a trade union; their interest is in self-perpetuation, and part of that self-perpetuation is in monopolizing access to places like the Capital and the White House.

Frankly, if the Bush White House is taking steps to break that monopoly on access, then the presence of a Jeff Gannon is something I'm happy to overlook.

"The White House, in contrast, said that as long as Talon News or GOPUSA "existed," Guckert was free to attend its press briefings."

So what - the White House can't make up its own rules?

" Yet, in the past, a reporter seeking a permanent White House press pass has had to first secure credentials to cover Capitol Hill."

Right. Read carefully. Notice that word, "permanent"? Different kind of pass.

"the White House waved him into press briefings for nearly two years using what's called a day pass. Those passes are designed for temporary use by out-of-town reporters who need access to the White House, not for indefinite use by reporters who flunk the Capitol Hill test."

Note the pejorative term - "flunk". As if being a "legitimate" reporter is some exalted state. Let's call a spade a spade; the Capitol Press Corps wants to maintain their stranglehold on access. It's in the White House's interest to break that stranglehold.

"To obtain a day pass during the Clinton administration, a reporter "had to make the case as to why that day was unique and why [he] had to cover the White House from inside the gates instead of outside," (Joe)Lockhart says."

Right. Bully for Clinton. There is no reason that precedent must rule in this instance.

There's a post in here...

Mitch-
You said, "Right. The "legitimate" press makes rules to make sure that only they are legitimated - viz the rules that you have to follow to get into the Capital Press Pool.

Dealing with press-run pools is like dealing with a trade union; their interest is in self-perpetuation, and part of that self-perpetuation is in monopolizing access to places like the Capital and the White House.

Frankly, if the Bush White House is taking steps to break that monopoly on access, then the presence of a Jeff Gannon is something I'm happy to overlook."

My question to you- shouldn't he have undergone the same extensive background check as hard-pass reporters then? Why didn't the White House just put through his application for a hard pass if this is the case?

"My question to you- shouldn't he have undergone the same extensive background check as hard-pass reporters then?"

Why does that logically follow? It's the White House's press pool. They make their own rules. Contrary to popular belief, it's a dull, boring job, and the hard-pass holders don't fill the conference room even IF they're all there. Hence, the White House - using the discretion it has to run its own press pool its own way - allows day passes, which, again, are not in crushing demand from what I've been told.

" Why didn't the White House just put through his application for a hard pass if this is the case?"

Because the White House doesn't "push" anything with the Capitol Press Corps. The White House doesn't control Congress - separation of powers, remember? - and one suspects the Cap press pool doesn't WANT, and would not react kindly, to the White House exerting influence for or against any given reporter.

Mitch-
So we are agreed the White House used its discretion to allow Gannon into press briefings without going through a full Secret Service background check for two years?

Then you must ask yourself, why would they use that discretion for Gannon/Guckert? Why GOPUSA/Talon News?

Carson,

You're not tracking here.

The White House allowed ALL Day Pass reporters to cover the White House without a full SecServ b/g check. ALL of them. I've seen no convincing evidence that it was extended to Guckert and nobody else.

Why did they use that discretion? I'm far from convinced there WAS any untoward discretion in Gannon/Guckert's favor. He got passes; he got them through the same process every other day pass holder uses.

Why Talon News? I dunno. Are we going to start checking the ideologies of news organizations?

Or is it a "size" thing? Are you sure you want to autocratize the media to that extent? Widening the definition of "News Organization" can only be a good thing, especially given the mainstream media's entrenched bias.

"Pacifica" gets press passes. Why not Talon?

If the White House could show that any other reporters/organizations got extended daily access to the White House using daily passes... I would cease and desist. But they have shown nothing of the sort.

Mitch-

You said:
"You're not tracking here. The White House allowed ALL Day Pass reporters to cover the White House without a full SecServ b/g check. ALL of them."

I am tracking, and my point is that not ALL day pass reports got access to the White House for two years. In fact, from everything I have seen and read... the day pass was never meant to be used as an alternate to the hard-pass. The purpose of the day pass was to temporarily allow them access to the White House because there was not enough time to do the full secret service background check. Gannon/Guckert went two years on day passes. Why? Why couldn't he just get a hard-pass?

If you read Scott McClellens answers to questions in the press gaggle 2/10 I think you will find the Bush Press Offices answer to some of your questions.The problem is you are using the Clinton administration policy on daily passes and claim that the Bush administration is required to adhere to it.

Bethl-
Regardless of whether or not they have changed policy... the White House helped Gannon avoid a Secret Service background check. They didn't give him day passes for two years for no reason.

Sorry, last comment was mine.

"...the White House helped Gannon avoid a Secret Service background check."

He's obviously a real danger, being a GAY PROSTITUTE (channeling lefty bloggers) and all.

"They didn't give him day passes for two years for no reason."

What diabolical reason do you suppose the reason for that is, Carson?

What

Sav-
I am saying that if the Secret Service found out he was a prostitute, then he might not have been allowed to play softball with Ari, Scotty, and the Pres.

And with this administration, I wouldn't describe this scheme as diabolical. I would call it typical. i.e. Armstrong Williams and the pre-taped newscast distributions

Carson,
They helped him avoid a secret service check?
The way I understand the hard pass process is that that is done at the congressional press office level.People who apply for a hard pass for Congress go through a security check. You must have this pass to get a White House hard pass.
Daily passes are different--they do instant background checks. Now while I may think that this is insufficient security in this day and age unless it was different for anybody else who operated on daily passes--its just the way it was.

Carson,

Your whole argument is based on security, and you contrast the Bush Administration's level of security with Bill Clinton's. If you were thinking logically, you would know just how ludicrous that argument is, considering the huge number of tell-all books from both sides of the political aisle about the LACK of security during the Clinton years.

Should've known...whenever the postings get up in the double-digits Carson must be involved.....

Plus, Carson...it looks like some of your leftish friends have a different take on this than you.

From Powerline:

"Nothinggate"

"Whatever "legs" the Gannon story had are being cut off as adults in the center and on the left weigh in. Centrist Andrew Sullivan thinks that the only scandal is the gay-bashing in which the left has indulged. On the merits, he finds the matter "trivial." And leftist David Corn suggests that the matter "may be smaller than it seems" and that, to some extent, Gannon has gotten a bum rap. Liberal Rik Hertzberg dubs the story "Nothinggate" but only because he thinks the Republican controlled Congress won't investigate it. Missing from Hertzberg's piece is any statement of what it is Congress should investigate. He asserts that "Nothinggate" is of the same order of magnitude as the Clinton travel office story. But that scandal involved substantial allegations of corruption and gave rise to criminal prosecutions, as I recall. What crime did the administration commit here -- calling on a guy from a borderline news organization in the hope of fielding an occasional friendly question?"

Co-
And the Conservative Voice and World Net Daily have published articles calling for an investigation of this matter. What is your point?

The reason I am so interested in the story is because this White House has already been caught manipulating the news with paid pundits and manufactured news clips.

Why should I just assume this is any different?

Colleen-
Should have known that when a lefty comes here to debate Colleen will make a snide remark without contributing anything substantial to the debate.

Paul-
That doesn't change the fact that Gannon never went through a full background check when other reporters attending daily press briefings did.

Bethl-
You said: "The way I understand the hard pass process is that that is done at the congressional press office level.People who apply for a hard pass for Congress go through a security check. You must have this pass to get a White House hard pass. Daily passes are different--they do instant background checks. Now while I may think that this is insufficient security in this day and age unless it was different for anybody else who operated on daily passes--its just the way it was." Exactly. Why didn't the White House make Jeff Gannon go through the full background check when they knew he was avoiding it using daily passes for over two years? It didn't raise any red flags that he couldn't earn the congressional hard pass? The daily pass, according to everything I have seen and read, was not intended by this white house or Clinton's, to be used in such a manner.

Carson
you listed the reasons he couldn't get a hard pass
in an earlier post. had to do with nature of Talon News.
Where did Scott M. or Ari F. say anything about Secret Service checks aand daily passes?I would like to read a transcript.

Scotty and Ari have yet to touch that subject. There are FOIA requests in the works to find out what the Secret Service did and didn't know about Gannon/Guckert... what kind of background checks had been done, and any other information regarding how he gained access to the White House.

Yet another World Net Daily story on Gannon/Guckert:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43057

Gannon-Guckert. So he used a pseudonym. It sounds a lot better to my ear. I'm sure Air AmericAl would have become Al Fannon were he born Al Fuckert. sheesh!

I like your website alot...its lots of fun... you have to help me out with mine... geico car finance bad credit mortgage nasonex business degree mortgage calculator fha loan