why are people dwelling on "the gay hooker" thing

[davidinalameda]

in regards to the Jeff Gannon story

is this guy gay

does anyone on here know for sure that he is a hustler or are people just repeating what they've seen and hear on other sites

and how many people on here would condemn Barney Frank for letting Stephen Gobie run a prostitution ring out of his home and then claim he didn't know anything about it

[Jack The Tab]

1. Go to Americablog for the whole story and what it means..

www.americablog.blogspot.com

A very astute analysis.

[davidinalameda]

38. so is the guy gay?

and has it been proven that he is really is/was a hustler

[Donailin]

51. do your own eyes deceive you???

or is your computer ancient?

jeeeze

[foreigncorrespondent]

53. No need to insult!

But, just because someone is a male prostitute that doesn't automatically make them gay. DO YOU GET IT? There is such a thing as bisexuality. There is also such a thing as greed. And people know damn well that the gay male community is full of money for the taking, and they do tend to exploit that.

It is painfully obvious to me that so many around here who say they support gay rights, really don't know a damn thing about the gay culture.

On edit to add: By the way I did read the AMERICAblog story in full, and there is not one part of that article that shows actual proof that he is gay. What it does show however is proof that he is a male prostitute. Big difference isn't it?

[Donailin]

55. Huh??

his being gay has nothing to do with anything. His moonlighting job as a male prostitute for male on male sex for money is the scandal.

Get it?? I support gay rights, hell, I'll even support gay prostitution if that's what floats their boat, but what I will not give the guy a break on is being a hypocrite.

[davidinalameda]

66. people are so clueless

or so blinded by their own agendas

is this guy really a hustler or, as it has been suggested, is this guy some sort of plant for the Defense Department

just because you have sex with men doesn't make you "gay"

if you want to keep your narrow definition go right ahead, but you'll be wrong

[LondonAmerican]

62. hear hear! nt.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Not many but repubs would which is exactly why this matters

It isn't that he's gay or a hooker..it's that THEY either knew or should have known he was running a prostitution ring.

[hector459]

21. As I recall, Barney never bashed gays, did he?

"It's the hypocrisy stupid!"

Just coining a phrase, nothing personal.

[davidinalameda]

36. actually Barney bashed Gavin Newsom

after Gavin had the city perform same sex marriages

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

39. Bashed him or disagreed with him?

There is a difference.

[noiretextatique]

50. not here

:hi: i have been proposing a moratorium on the use of the word "bashing" for that reason :7

[Walt Starr]

3. Read americablog. He was running a prostitution service.

It's really very clear.

[benburch]

6. And he had an amazing amount of "access" to the "President"

Makes you go "Hmmmm...."

[rman]

4. because of the hypocrisy;

anti-gay Republicans employing operatives who are gay.

[Toucano]

19. Do we dare make it more specific than that?

More than just anti-gay, it appears the administration is anti openly gay families, but endorses gays who exploit sex for profit.

[LondonAmerican]

22. i agree with you

but do you think that is the point the corporate media will be making? i would certainly hope so. or will they just be pandering to people's prejudices about gays instead? my money's on the latter, unfortunately.

[Toucano]

24. I fear you're probably right.

It would be nice if we - the left - could all get "on message" with this so it doesn't become distorted.

I'm still hopeful we will.

[LondonAmerican]

25. that would be good

i'm hoping the media will play this in a way that doesn't smirkingly attack gays or imply some kind of gay conspiracy or 'homintern.'

i'm in the uk and have heard nothing about this on local media. how much play has it got in the states so far?

[Toucano]

26. Regretfully, I can't really say.

You see I'm DIVORCED from the mainstream media! LOL!

Considering the hostility W's had for the press, you'd think they'd be all to happy to help people connect the dots.

But they're afraid they'll lose "access".

[Toucano]

30. I had an idea.

If the media doesn't cover this as they should, we should insert the phrase, "if that is your real NAME" into every salutation.

Sort of like:

"May I say, Peter Jennings, if that is your real name..."

"Ted, if that is your real name, the situation with social security..."

"Cokie, if that is your real name, I'd just like to make the point..."

"Wolf, I know that's not your real name, but I think it's important..."

:)

I think they should be held, at least in part, responsible for his 2 YEARS worth of contamination of the press corps.

[LondonAmerican]

33. i love it!

[Synnical]

56. I don't think the "left" will ever be "on message"

It's contrary to our stance of tolerance and diversity of opinion.

The wing nuts can bash us all they want for that, IMO. I won't ever blindly support the "leaders".

[southernleftylady]

5. I dont get it either..

and no im not a freeper...
i just see that there are ALOT of other BIGGER issues than this out there that affects me ALOT more than the hooker thing... i just dont see this lasting longer than this week

[mourningdove92]

8. You are probably right, but I have to ask

how long did the story about a certain blow job in the white house last?

[southernleftylady]

11. you got a point! but again.. we arent in control of the media now are we?

[jdj]

46. these are the people who won this election on hatred of gays.

yes, if you are a liberal looking at this, ho hum.

But YOU are LIBERAL.

THEY are not liberals.

And they like to pretend only liberals are gay.

I'm all for moving toward the time when fundies and evangelicals get revealed for the perverts they are.

And by pervert, I mean running on hatred of gays while being gay or on the DL yourself, putting your stepford wife at risk for AIDS and god knows what else.

[jdj]

47. these are the people who won this election on hatred of gays.

yes, if you are a liberal looking at this, ho hum.

But YOU are LIBERAL.

THEY are not liberals.

And they like to pretend only liberals are gay.

I'm all for moving toward the time when fundies and evangelicals get revealed for the perverts they are.

And by pervert, I mean running on hatred of gays while being gay or on the DL yourself, putting your stepford wife at risk for AIDS and god knows what else.

[Joanne98]

7. Because it's FUN

[LondonAmerican]

9. the issue for me

is that the guy's a prostitute, period. nothing to do with being gay or straight. that is what people should be talking about. that is what is incompatible with 'honor and dignity' - not that he is gay, which is playing the right wing's game for them.

[Der Blaue Engel]

14. Hypocrisy is the issue

I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with being gay OR being a prostitute. But I'm sure as hell going to call homophobic sickos on it when I discover they themselves are the people they claim to hate.

[LondonAmerican]

20. i really think

it's the fact that the guy's apparently a prostitute that's disturbing. i get uncomfortable when people try to score points off of someone's sexuality.

by this, i don't mean i have any problem with outing homophobic public figures cos i don't. they deserve it. and the fact that this guy is gay is somewhat implied in the idea that he may have been a male prostitute. i just don't like the gleeful, nyah-nyah tone that i sometimes hear when people feel they can tar someone else as gay.

[Der Blaue Engel]

10. Because it's one of the first things with legs

The national MSM is covering it, which is a miracle unto itself.

Let us all pray for more (and more damning) scandals to come to light.

(FYI, I don't pray; it's just a figure of speech.)

Never let up on these asshats for a second.

[Beetwasher]

12. It's The Hypocrisy

And yes, he is/was a gay hooker. I couldn't care less and wouldn't care at all if it weren't for the following:

1. He published anti-gay screed and all along he was a gay hooker
2. The WH is vehemently anti-gay and looking to strip gays of their civil rights and yet, all along, they were relying on a KNOWN gay hooker to do their dirty work in the WH press room.
3. The WH made an issue of "gayness" by their anti-gay marriage bullshit. They made the distinction THEY OWN the hypocrisy. Let them wallow in now being tied to a gay prostitute who was doing their dirty work and probably servicing high ranking member of the admin.

It's fair game to point out the hypocrisy and it will embarrass them greatly because it's something THEY are ashamed about. THEY are ashamed of THEIR homosexuality and THEY are trying to oppress homosexuals and yet many of them ARE homosexuals. It's the hypocrisy and it should be highlighted.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. If the right wing can try to impeach a president for

engaging in an extramarital affair with an intern then why should they be allowed to get away with a prostitute in the White House, gay or otherwise? Someone had to do an end run around the White House security in order to get Gannon in. His profession as a prostitute may well go along way to explaining how he got to where he was.

[southernleftylady]

15. are there ties directly to the prez on this? if so then yes this might be

a big story if not.. it wont last

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. 80 million on Monica and you are bringing up Barney Frank?

odd..truly odd.

[rox63]

17. Because it makes the wingnuts squirm

All the religious right wingnuts are going to be ripshit over this.

}( :P :evilgrin: :nopity:

[Old and In the Way]

18. National security issue.

Is he a blackmailer or a blackmailee? Is he being used...or is he using this WH?

The gay issue is used against Democrats. Republicans target single issue voters with their well placed hypocrisy....and this is cross-linked to the core RW religious fundies alignment to the Republican Party. We have to educate the American public that the Republicans have plenty of gays in position of leadership (their RNC chair, for instance). We need to take away their ownership of morality superiority on the homosexuality issue. If we do this, they lose a significant base of people who only vote Republican because they think they are anti-gay. If it takes this kind of politics to bring these criminals down, so be it.

[LondonAmerican]

31. hmmm....

so we should use the 'homosexuality issue' against the republicans hoping it will demoralise their bigoted voters?

count me out on that kind of pandering to rightwingery. how is that any better than republican pandering to biogtry?

the fact is that the republicans have NO moral superiority on this issue BECAUSE THEY ARE BIGOTS and NOT because they are somehow purer by having less gays in positions of leadership.

THAT is what we should be saying, we should NOT be pandering to right-wing attitudes by using gays as kind of symbol of moral corruption.

[Old and In the Way]

41. If we had a mainstream media pointing out the hypocrisy between their

public policy and their private lives, I'd agree with you. They don't.

In that void, Republicans get to play their anti-gay bigotry to the mindless public who eats this shit up without question. This links their 2 key constituencies, the RW religious fundies and the social conservatives.

If this gets people to realize the lies and hypocrisy that are part of the bankrupt Republican agenda...why is that a bad thing? If you are gay and want to change society to be accepting of your values, you need to get a government that reflects your values. I don't know what's so difficult to understand that it is breaking the myth of what Republicans stand for....once that happens, they have nothing to offer their voters. They lose. And we can finally get back and start addressing the real issues and fixing our country that they've about destroyed over the past 10 years.

The more hypocrisy we expose, the better. And there's plenty more of this to follow.

[LondonAmerican]

48. that is precisely the problem

the issue will not be played out as one of hypocrisy if the media isn't forced into it.

and the issue, really, is that the wh has set up a covert propaganda operation. NOT that some poor tool is gay!

if it just turns into a game of us trying to play the 'ick factor' that a lot of inbreds have toward gays then we are no better than the republicans and are using the same tactics and instrumentalising gays in the same way.

and as a gay man i am not interested in being used that way by my political comrades.

no point in our being hypocrites as well.

[Old and In the Way]

54. Since when is pointing out the facts an "ick factor"?

Macho Jeff Gannon who wrote homophobic tomes for his Republican Party is gay. Shouldn't that be a relevant fact pointed out to the people who believe the Republican lies? If he was a women who wrote blistering condemnations of pro-choice Democrats and had a medical history of having abortions, I'd be pointing that out, too.

Republicans have capitalized politically on 2 single social issues...anti-gay and anti-abortion. I want to take those issues away from them by pointing out the disconnection between their personal lives and their public policy. Strip those out and there's nothing left but an oily oligarchy.

But, by all means, as a gay person....keep providing cover for the Party that wants to make you a social outcast.

:eyes:

[LondonAmerican]

61. you misread my post

there were other posts on another thread that said it would be a good idea to demoralise the base of the republican party by using gays against them -- that they would then lose their 'moral purity' since they have gays in them too. that is the WRONG approach: making it seem like having gays in your is some kind of moral flaw is NOT what any group i support will be doing.

if you want to point out the hypocrisy, fine. if you want to use the antt-gay 'ick factor' against them then no way.

[Vinca]

23. This wouldn't be a big issue, EXCEPT

the Bush administration practically claims a direct hotline to the Almighty which guides their every move and they bank on the fundamentalist right at every turn. They are beyond "holier than thou." Or, at least, that's what they want everyone to think. I, for one, think they planted "Jeff," "Bulldog" or whatever his name is in the middle of the press corps as a life boat for the person being questioned. Call on this particular "journalist" and the person on the podium is guaranteed a softball. I'd bet my meager life savings they knew everything about him from day one and expedited his press pass.

[dsc]

27. Barney Frank

wasn't obligated to run a security check on his lover. The WH is obligated to run security checks on these reporters.

[Orsino]

28. Because sex sells. n/t

[Riding this Donkey]

29. It's not about a "gay" hooker, it is about a HOOKER IN THE WHITE HOUSE

:silly:

[LondonAmerican]

32. exactly nt.

[mmonk]

34. Actually

it's great to use because it will create internal dissent with their fundamentalist base. It has potential to hit middle America with things it has to confront about itself. And if the Plame leak is wrapped around it, we might be able to chisel away at the dark side's wall.

[oasis]

35. What ever angle works for us is fair game for use. We always pick up the

pieces afterwards.

[LondonAmerican]

49. sorry

but you can't use the fact that someone is gay against him (playing the 'ick factor') and expect much support from other gays. you won't be picking those pieces up afterward.

[oasis]

58. We're going ahead with the Gannon story, if it's too "icky" for you then I

suggest you sit it out on the sidelines. Politics ain't beanbags.

[LondonAmerican]

63. it depends on what you want to emphasise

if you think you'll score points by making it out that being gay is 'icky' to the republican base then forget any gay support -- you'll be doing the same as fred phelps.

if it's really about hypocrisy then the prostituition angle should be the point. after all that's hardly compatible with 'honor and integrity.'

and if you reallty want to get to the core of it and deal with reality then you might want to consider what is really happening: this is part of a pattern of the white house using friendly pundits and so-called reporters to create a covert propaganda apparatus, which is far more subversive to our constitution than whether someone is gay or not.

[LinuxInsurgent]

37. Oh i don't know...

maybe because prostitution is illegal...and Gannon's gay...and put them together and he's the symbolic DEVIL of the Christian Right?

I'm sorry...in ANY country in the world...finding a MALE PROSTITUTE with no credible journalistic experience, in the Press Corps of the TOP LEADER of that country...it would be a scandal.

Being gay...ehhh...not my thing, but I got no problems with it, although some in society get all "icky" about it. BUt being a MALE PROSTITUTE...now you are pushing society's tolerance level.

[Donailin]

52. yeah yeah

but was he married to another gay? see that's where the repubs take issue.

[BigBearJohn]

40. It amazes me that we even have to ask the question.

This is HUGE news. It explodes right in the faces
of the "holier-than-thou" Repugs. Who cares if he
is gay? He is a prostitute and a tax evader, basically
a CRIMINAL... being allowed daily access to the
most powerful man IN THE WORLD... in fact,
TWENTY FUCKING FEET FROM HIM. And we have to wonder
why attention is being focused on this story?!@#$!@#$

[Nimrod]

42. That is the key word - CRIMINAL!

I couldn't give two shits who's gay and who's not - Guckert was involved in not merely morally questionable activity. Guckert was involved in UNquestionably ILLEGAL activity.

They let a criminal into the White House, lied about it (it's been proven Talon was NOT a "respectable news outlet" and in fact was mere days old), AND gave him access to confidential documents (whether he did anything with that knowledge or not).

The key word here is CRIMINAL. Not "gay".

[BigBearJohn]

43. exactly!

[sundog]

44. hypocrisy

That's what it's about.

You slap us in the face Gannon, we punch you in the mouth.

[ComerPerro]

45. Because its hilarious

homosexuality is an immoral choice, remember?

(that's according to Repub thought, not what I think).

[Pepperbelly]

57. because it is lewd, lacivious and easy to understand.

It doesn't bleed but it might end up leading anyway.

[DearAbby]

60. It should be not about the Orientation of the Sexual aspect of the Story

But Sex plays a serious part of this story, and because in Today's America... Homosexual Sex is so much more scandalous. It could be used as a weapon for blackmail.

It is the Security Breech that should be the issue. Who could authorize this person that much access and why did they? Was it a payment for "Hush" or was it voluntary? Someone leaked the Plame case. Someone supplied the documents for Rathergate. Why? And what else does this person know that shouldn't...It is a National Security Breech!

[QC]

59. Because it's a PC way to snicker about fags.

Mind you, I have no problem with outing people like Gannon, but the tittering, juvenile tone of so much of the discussion bothers me a bit.

It was the same way every other time we've had an epidemic of "_____ is gay!!!" threads, which seems to happen about every six months or so. People claim to be all high-minded about it and only concerned with the hypocrisy and all that, but they just can't resist the jokes about so-and-so being light in the loafers and packing fudge and all that.

If the past is any guide, people will get it all out of their systems and it will pass, again, for a few months.

[LondonAmerican]

64. you said exactly what i wanted to

and much better than i could. thank you.

[ima_sinnic]

65. the aspect that gets me is his complete lack of journalistic

credentials.
The WH knows its various scams are, in truth, completely unacceptable to the American people so it basically hires an actor to promote them, just one of many many they have at their disposal. I read "Gannon's" prostitution gig as just that, a gig; the guy will do whatever for money--he's not "gay" in terms of accepting that as his identity and identifying with other gay people--gay, anti-gay, whatever, he just doesn't give a &%@#--he'll be whatever you want him (and pay him) to be.

The "male prostitute" thing, though, is an excellent indictment of the guy's credibility, as well as a lurid angle that gets people's attention in addition to exposing the hypocrites. Who exactly let him in, and why? Did somebody owe him something? Was he blackmailing somebody? Is he a bud of McClellan's, and McClellan slipped him in simply as a favor, and also to get brownie points from Bushit for the "friendly" journalist? Or maybe he's a friend of Rove's! When did this "Gannon" show up anyway? What about this "Talon News Service"? Whose creation is that, really?

Bottom line: If BushCo had anything of value to sell to The People, they wouldn't need to hire actors to manipulate the news.

[yorgatron]

67. sex sells

it's only a matter of time before the MSM gets tired of pimping the Micheal Jackson trial or whatever else they think will distract the public.sooner or later,hopefully sooner...