February 25, 2005

• As a left winger, my heart of course bleeds for him.

  "This is not to say that I have not made mistakes in the past. Like all of us have at one time or another, I made poor choices and exercised bad judgment. But I believe in a forgiving God who changed my life. It was through that renewal that I went on to have a career as a reporter and further blessed to become a White House correspondent."

  I believe the standard response is 'pass the sick-bag, Alice'.
• Glad to see he's "emerged from the crucible." What a tool - "so feared by the left they had to take me down."
• The Left is always celebrates about second chances [...] Aw, come on. With writing like that, how could anyone say he doesn't have journalistic credentials? This episode is so rich with irony that it will take me many columns and a book to deal with it all. So much for him quitting the business.
• Mr Gannon wasn't so pleased with the first draught of his byline: Jeff Gannon: so feared by the left I had to go down on them erm, I mean, rather, something else, er, wait a minute
• ...many of these people were conflicted with hatred for my politics and tingling they experienced while viewing pictures said to be me. Oooh, saucy.
• "Make a secure donation using a credit card...." about sums it up, eh? This guy is a bit scary... he's the type that, someday, we're going to wish that someone had castrated him, locked him in a room, and threw away the key... But, it was nice that he had his e/mail address on the page so I could share some thoughts and opinions with him....
• Its sad, but I've gotten to the point where just hearing the words 'left' and 'right' make me want to hurl. I'm all first amendment and everything, but I honestly think if I had the power right now, I would ban those words from the English language. That two such completely meaningless words have been allowed to polarize this nation is beyond the absurd.
• Some of this is pretty revealing. As if you couldn't see it coming a mile away, he offer up the same old Right-winger-as-victim saw:

  My greater sin in their eyes, however was that I dared to suggest that two Senate Democratic leaders held an illogical view of the economy’s weakness and the strength of Social Security.
  
  I feel badly for my colleagues who became the target of these same people on the Left who harshly chastised them for allowing a traitor operate among them.
  
  How could they stand idly by while Jeff Gannon breached the ideological barrier that kept conservatives out of the White House briefing room?
  
  The Left is engaging in “21st Century McCarthyism” in an effort to blacklist conservative journalists in order protect their domination of the media.

  These folks dominate the Supreme Court, the White House, both houses of Congress and the Corporate Mainstream Media, and they are still screaming about being martyred and kept out of the halls of power? Here's a hack with a fake name and no credentials, and he's getting a seat less than 50 years from the Oval Office, but at the same time, people who might dare criticize the Administration (akin to "hating America", I suppose) are told to "be careful what they say". I think my hypocrisy meter just broke.
• Pigalien, I totally agree with you, two others would be 'liberal' and 'conservative'. I would also ban for life any political party that would try to remove freedoms that were set down in the documents this country was founded on. Ban the party and it's followers from any influence politically, through the media, through business, etc. Hmmmmm, now who would that be? Hmmmmm, aren't they already doing that to any groups or persons who oppose them? Hmmmmmmm. . .
• Here are a couple more articles on the story courtesy of mediabistro.com.
• Nice page design. All it's missing is a midi of the Star Spangled Banner and some flying flags. I like how when I maximize the window, at my screen res I get a Gannon-and-a-half in the upper left.
• Wow... I'm almost impressed (in a loathing sort of way) at the incredible footwork he does in regards to his past. He claims (or at least implies) he's being persecuted because of the prostitution thing... except he never admits to any of it... and, in fact, implies that the pictures online aren't of him at all! So which is it? He's trying to straddle some middle line where he's playing martyr WITHOUT claiming innocence and it just comes off as pathetic. Either own up and play the "ism" card like any good oppressed minority, or cloak yourself in chastity and claim it's all a huge mistake that you're being persecuted for.
• "I feel badly for my colleagues.." 1. So, by contrast with the Old Media, the New Media have a shaky grasp on simple grammatical principles or 2. Oh, so this is why he decided to branch out from gay porn. /pendant
• I don't think he realizes what's going on here. He's dead, except as an internet "celebrity." His career is over, and he's lapping at the balls of the scum that hold office now, hoping that their sweat will sustain him. That he sees himself as a victim is laughable, especially since the mainstream "Old Media" that he decries really hasn't taken any swings at him yet. In fact, they're being rather sporting. This sort of thing, as a journalist, makes my blood boil. He thinks that Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd are doing hatchet jobs? Jesus, what planet is he on? I used to feel like it was a mistake to focus on the gay thing, but now I just want to see him discredited to the point where he has to go SaveKaren to survive. If the Dems had balls, this is when they'd start Roving it up (sending mailings of Guckert to conservative churches and voters, buying TV ads...). The campaign is now perpetual, and if the Dems want to win, they need to hammer on this stake long enough to win back the Senate at least. Just running the sound clip of "...divorced from reality..." along with shots of him nude, and asking why Senators don't want an investigation should be enough to sink weak Republicans... Grrr.
• JS - the thing is, the focus was only on the "gay thing" for about a day, when it first came out. (and, let's be honest - the sensationalist aspect was just too juicy for any normal person to ignore) Then people came to their senses and went back to the more important questions. The only people bringing up the gay issue now are those who're trying to discredit his attackers, by making it appear that they're only focusing on the gay issue. Seriously, have you seen any anti-Gannon articles recently still going on about "OMG! T3h Ghey!"? Nope. Just those trying to defend him.
• 'liberal' and 'conservative' have a hell of a lot of meaning to me. I dont get where you guys are going with this- personally, I would ban all talk of "oh both parties are the same so it doesnt matter, and of course my favorite cliche, "they're both rich white men." Hey, way to point out a superficial similarity. Kerry and Bush both had 10 fingers and 10 toes, too. Guess I should've decided my vote by coin flip.
• Innocent- Yeah, I realize that. I wanted the focus to go on to more salient issues. But now I just want to see dischord in the ranks of the right, and using "teh gay" is a pretty effective way to get that done.
• hooker.
• prop forward.
• So when is the media gonna cover the story of a male prostitute working in the White House under an assumed name for a fake news outlet? The story has everything for proper titallation so you'd think that at least the National Enquirer would cash in on it. [crickets] Does he do bananas if I pay him enough?
• And what is that thing that Gannon/Guckert came out swinging?
• The best way to divide a group is to label them as 'us' and 'them'. There is a reason for getting rid of all these labels. That is why. Why do you think the other side is able to make the 'L' word sound so dirty and shameful? It's because they choose it as their Red Letter of Shame to paint the opposition with. So when someone trys to paint you as 'Liberal' just say 'sorry suckah, just a 'murican with an opinion that's better informed and more well-read than yours. 'Nuff said. Labels divide, they do not include . . .
• Much as I hesitate to post sub-only Salon links, they did a decent roundup of the vast media silence on the Gannon story. psst! Salon! release this story to fair-use access, please!
  
• I don't want to abandon the label 'left' because I fear that would mean turning away from a history and tradition I draw from to inform what I do today, including its glories and also its failures and betrayals. A big drawback in a number of the activist groups and labour organisations I've tagged along with over the years is that much time was spent re-inventing wheels when a swift perusal of our grandmother's solutions would have had us bowling along much more effectively. You have to live your own life in your own time but as humans we carry forward the legacy of what has gone before, much of which is still valuable. Of course, if you could show me that it really was just the labels that were a barrier to progress I'd dump them in a flash but I don't believe that's the case. /researching obscure paper on anarchism in north China in the 1920s
• well, let's look at this label: christian. These days whenever most people out there think of christian, especially people on the left, it's along these lines: people who are intolorent, ignorant, right-wing and conservative, the 'American Taliban'. There are christians out there who are none of these things, and I applaud them (I'm largely ambivalent about the whole thing myself). So as far as labels go, I think they can be misleading, and an open invitation to be identified with a certain mindset or groupthink you in fact may have little or nothing in common with. It's just an alienating device. Many would consider me left, but these days 'I'm just me'.
• A bit more to add; by refusing to allow myself to be labeled, I can claim to be anything I want. As an example; I'm talking to a conservative nutbag, he's calling me a liberal. I tell him "No, no, I'm conservative, *you're the extremist dude!* Then he sits there and scratches his pointy head and thinks about it, then *agrees* with me. True story. Sucker punch the boobs by refusing to be labeled.
• This site design is seriously lacking. Where do I type in my credit card number for the wienie pics?
• There are christians out there who are none of these things, and I applaud them (I'm largely ambivalent about the whole thing myself). As a lefty Christian, it's nice to hear that every now and again. I often find myself explaining my liberal views to my Christian friends and my Christian views to my liberal friends. Those who don't belong to both groups tend to view each other as an alien species.
• mk1gti, what I take from the kind of behaviour you describe and which we all know is common is that I waste less time addressing myself to people who haven't got the slightest intention of listening to what I'm trying to say, or intend to dismiss me with a reductive label. They've made their minds up and aren't going to amenable to an argument. I can see that you can get your ideas in under the radar as in your follow-up example, but I've got a number of things I believe in that together make what i'm happy to call a 'left' programme. I'll talk about the ideas first but identify with the legacy if asked. I'm an atheist and a communist and when I think about Christianity I see it in terms of the whole length and breadth of its history as I understand it (my user name is a tribute to a 17th century English Christian). If someone announces their Christianity to me, what with the multitude of sins the label can cover, I really don't draw too much from that alone but wait for more before making my mind up about them and their ideas. I've got as little time for the narrow minded left as I have for those who self-identify as on the right. I can't say 'I'm just me' because I'm no-one without the history that's gone before. Mind you, I'm not much with it either :) How did I manage to ramble on like this in a thread that ought to be about weenie pics, as Alex kindly reminds us?
• Our threads can never have enough penis. Look what penis hath wrought in the Daisy_May thread: nothing short of pure, distilled, concentrated geeeeenius.
• middleclasstool, like I said, I'm tired of blind labeling going on all the time, lefties get it, righties get it, everybody gets 'the label' and to damn often *it just does not fit* and it needs to stop if anyone is ever going to have a responsible dialog about anything.
• Yes, more penis. But let's not forget vagina. Don't want her left out.
• Yup. Hear, hear.
• I believed I have made my pro-vagina stance very clear in a previous response to this forum and I refer the honourable members (lol!) to it.
• I also have little time for knee-jerkers on either side of the spectrum. While I'm a hardcore liberal, I have a few opinions that might be called conservative... but "liberal" is a perfectly fine word for where I stand politically. I'm at a loss trying to udnerstand what not using it anymore would prove. To me that path that leads to the wishy-washy "both sides are just as wrong" area. No, they're not. The "right," personified by the Republican party is wrong about a great many things at the moment, and I don't think they need to be let off the hook because the left/democrats are also less than perfect.
• Abiezer_Coppe's apartment is full of fag butts, if I recall correctly.
• Why you no good pinko liberal commie drjimmy1! That's an outrageous lie, even if I did in fact say it! People should ignore you because you plan to sell the country out to Castro!
• Abiezer_Coppe My gosh, someone almost as long-winded as me! Could it be possible? I guess my thing is I'm so very tired of trying to explain myself to those loud-mouthed windbags that I just ninja-fy their minds. Works wonders and without their knowing it, pulls them very rapidly over to my way of thinking. Try it sometime: talk about socialism not as socialism, but as 'well, let's look at the U.S. military: socialized medicine, government benies all over the place, hell it's *socialist*! ! ! Then it doesn't seem so bad, then they go "Okay, well if the U.S. military has it, then it's good enough for me." (crushes budweiser can against forehead)
• Don't worry mk1gti - I'm not the rabid ideologue I often come over as. I sometimes only quote a single chapter of 'Anarchists in the Spanish Revolution' before moving on to a general harangue in a loud voice. I think we agree on your main point really - I do present my ideas to stand or fall on their merits (and hard as it may be to believe I do have a reasonable track record of occasional actual successful human interactions in a decision-making process). But if the talk turns to general priciples I do nail my colours to the mast. Whereas Mr Gannon I believe nailed...
• currently, many terms and labels are crap and misleading. to me, "liberal" used to mean pro-free trade, as represented by smith, ricardo, mills etc. a lot of republicans would agree with liberal ideas in this sense. "neo-liberal" still means anti-big government (or at least anti- some forms of big gubment*), and is perhaps most popularly personifiable as magaret thatcher and, to a lesser extent, ronald reagan. curiously, a lot of the u.s. "neo-conservative" rhetoric actually derives from the u.s. "neo-liberal" school of politics/economics (tullock, buchanan, nagel). looking around the current political cesspool, michael howard, leader of the liberal party of australia, is one of bush's most staunch supporters. another is tony blair, leader of the leftist labour party of great britain. * i think the true dividing line in the u.s. is between those who are willing to pay for education programs directly and those who want only to pay for them via the military. it's a choice between big budgets for social programs and big budgets for the armed forces.
• Anyone on this thread thinking about sending Jeff Gannon G.I. Joe dolls in sweaters like in the post a few links above? This is one man who really deserves to play with a few dolls . . .
• roryk I was reading something in the Seattle Weekly here this week about funding for education here in the state. One republican who's trying to *get* funding for education is using this argument to convert his brethren: "When have you ever had to pay nothing to realize a return on an investment?" I think that's what a lot of people on the right have to think about and acknowledge: Nothing is for free, including our children's future, including caring for the disenfranchised and giving them a chance, including waging war, including (add relevant issue here).
• your point puts me in mind of a report (last year? two years ago?) on net contributor / beneficiary states vis a vis federal funds and voting patterns therein. further details escape me.
• He even has the respect and support of Ann Coulter *gag* I don't think I'd be advertising that to the world.
• Yeah, there's another story floating around here about a secessionist movement over in Eastern Washington to secede from Western Washington. It's actually got support from dems here. What those in the east don't realize (thankfully) is that western washington subsidizes eastern washington. They're cutting their own throats if this happens.
• michael howard, leader of the liberal party of australia a)John Howard. b)The Liberal Party in Australia is liberal in the Adam Smith sense, rather than in the, ah, Stalinist sense of the word.
• Yep. Michael Howard was specially re-animated to run the Conservative Party in the UK. They are conservative in the 'rip up the post-war consensus and beat the poor and the dark of skin with the bloody stump' sense of the word, but have been cunningly out-flanked from the right by Our Dear Leader Anthony Blair.
• Bush, Blair, Howard, Putin. Who will rescue us? Who will rescue the world? Certainly not these men or their followers . . .
• rather than in the, ah, Stalinist sense of the word. You're kidding right? Please tell me you didn't somehow equivocate some form of liberalism with Stalin?
• I'm not as familiar as I should be, but isn't John Howard's government currently detaining refugees in internmant (aka concentration) camps? That's not very liberal of him.
• liber, libera, liberum, liberi, liberae, liberi, libero, liberae, libero, liberum, liberam, liberum, libero, libera, libero... Personally, I'm not a liberal, I'm a social democrat, aka pinko, just in case any one was wondering. There is a difference - one believes in civil rights and laissez faire, the other in democracy with social responsibility.
• oh forgot - liberi, liberae, libera, liberorum, liberarum, liberorum, liberis, liberis, liberis, liberos, liberas, libera, liberis, liberis, liberis.
• Pah! I spit on social democrats! Don't you know democratic socialism is the way forward? /Judean People's Front
• splinter
• I believe the Australian Liberal Party is not liberal, in either the Adam Smith, or the John Stuart Mill sense.
• What is the John Stuart Mill sense?
• Socially liberal.
• John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pack of shandy was particularly ill . . . Seriously though, thanks to Salon for keeping this on the front page. Anyone know if the blue is still following it? They don't have a cool sidebar like we do (or I cant find it, or perhaps I'm simply a complete idiot).
• I hear they are, although the relevant thread is due to expire/close.
• a broader view of the Bush administrations press policies. Via Salon, natch.
• hehe