WTF is going on?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Stop_the_War]

The discussion has deteriorated into one thing: threads suggesting any wingnut you can think of is gay.

This is degrading to us in the Gay and Lesbian community. Are you trying to demonize us? Yes there is a FEW closeted gays in the Republican Party, but I'm SICK of all these threads naming all these homophobic heterosexuals as gay. IT'S SICKENING TO SEE THIS TAKE PLACE AT DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. Please stop, I'm begging you.

The Jeff Gannon story has nothing at all to do with Jeff Gannon being gay. It doesn't matter if it is Jeff Gannon or Jennifer Gannon, it has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

Edit: Anybody who is gay and works for Bush deserves to be OUTED. But what I'm saying is just don't associate us with them. I despise hypocrites, but I'm seeing so much homophobia in these posts such as "is this person gay blah blah blah". I have a problem with being associated with right-wingers. THAT'S ALL.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[davidinalameda]

10. overly sensative?

WTF?

[independentchristian]

31. Yes, everyone is too sensitive in this country these days

Everyone in every community. And that oversensitivity clouds their thoughts and they can't even see the facts staring them right in the face, like in this case, that the posts are calling the GOP hypocrites and saying that it is ironic that the very thing they criticize "during election time" is what their people are involved in.

[ailsagirl]

Why are you the judge of what is "overly sensitive?"

People should be allowed to express their feelings without being criticized.

IMO

[independentchristian]

145. Who is anyone to judge anyone?

I guess you should just shut up the next time you want to criticize anything that any politician wants to do then if you want to abide by "your" standards of "not judging."

[davidinalameda]

124. when you're bashed for being who you are

we'll talk about being overly sensative

[independentchristian]

146. Oh whatever

I'm an informed, born again, evangelical christian on the Democratic Underground, probably one of the most antichristian places on the web. I am definitely a "minority".

Do you think I care?
Do you think I'm "overly sensitive" and crying for "tolerance" everytime that you all want to go on one of your uninformed, Christian rants?

Basically, I could care less. That's not what I'm here for.

[davidinalameda]

147. so what are you here for

if DU is so anti-Christian

and remember this ain't the real world--Christians still hold much more power than the fags and queers do out in the real world

[Stew225]

125. HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT I'M

overly sensitive!!!!!! That does it. I am going to hold my breath until
the veins in my nose explode!

[foreigncorrespondent]

44. "Overly sensitive?"

Yes YOU are being overly sensitive aren't you? Attacking someone who is gay for being over sensitive indeed!

Ya know what? We have a right to be over sensitive. We come to DU looking for like minded individuals yet we find people dehumanizing the queer community. I thought this was DEMOCRATIC underground.com, not free republic.com. I guess I must be mistaken!

[independentchristian]

74. "Attacking"???

I didn't even read the rest of your post after that word because it was obviously going to be a waste of my time.

Believe me, if I verbally "attacked" someone you'd know it.

[foreigncorrespondent]

78. Ummm...

...instead of taking the cop out, why don't you read everything I said?

To accuse someone of being overly sensitive is an attack, mate!

[independentchristian]

80. Because the word "attacking" discredited anything else that you had to say

I still haven't read the rest.

It does not exist.

[foreigncorrespondent]

91. Oh! I see.

Well that is a real mature approach isn't it? Usually adults like to talk problems out.

[readmoreoften]

111. how does the word "attacking" discredit what someone

has to say?

You were attacking. Why don't you stop.

[UncleSepp]

142. ATTACKING. You're oversensitive. Typical abusive tactic

Now that I've ensured independentchristian won't read this post...

Insulting a person, then calling them oversensitive for being offended or hurt, is a very common tactic of emotional and verbal abusers. So is refusing to listen. So is defining reality for another person.

Here's a nice Christian website that has a good explanation, along with appropriate Biblical quotes, that describes verbal abuse in marriages:

http://www.geocities.com/survivorsbychoice/words.htm

independentchristian probably did not intend to act as a typical bully or abuser. Most don't. Most people who do this really believe that their way of being toward others and their perceptions of others are correct, and that they treat people as those people deserve to be treated. It is, for the most part, a learned behavior. In some cases it can be unlearned, and in some it cannot.

If he or she does read past the ATTACKING word, I predict one of two things will happen. One, independentchristian will see that he or she has followed the abusive pattern, recognize it and be sad about it. Two, independentchristian will not see that he or she has been abusive and will perceive this as a personal ATTACK. I hope it is the first.

Whatever independentchristian's response, in my opinion, it can be helpful for a person who has been a target of a typical verbally abusive ATTACK to see that such ATTACKs conform to patterns and are understandable. The faulty behavior and the fault lies with the ATTACKer, not the target.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery, independentchristian. I will send some prayers your way.

[Sapphocrat]

113. You know, you're absolutely right.

But since Everyone-Bad-Is-Gay Week is already so well-covered elsewhere, I think I'll turn my idle energy to demonizing, oh, let's say... Heidi Fleiss. She's heterosexual, you know -- and what's worse, so were her parents! And from what I hear, she was raised in a Christian church!

Oh, I know -- we can't blame Heidi's fall from grace on her sexuality, or even her upbringing. I'm sure there are many fine, upstanding heterosexual Christians in the world. It's just that every time you hear a story about prostitutes, or serial killers, they're always straight, and Christian.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I have to go now -- I just found a story hinting around about how the entire Nixon administration might have been Christian heterosexuals! Oh look, Henry "Butcher of Cambodia" Kissinger made the list... Well, anybody would have known he's straight...

</heavy sarcasm off>

Now do you understand the backlash?

[Hell in a Handbasket]

2. i think the point is...

the irony of a wingnut being gay, when they condemn it so ferociously...is irrestible to some.

[foreigncorrespondent]

46. Who said he was gay?

Just because someone is a male prostitute doesn't mean it makes them gay (remember bisexuality?) Most male prostitutes like their female counterparts do it for the money.

The moment we wake up and realize this and stop using the word gay and change it with the words male prostitute, then we will have found the real meat with this story!

[TeeYiYi]

94. Good point.

TYY:hi:

[foreigncorrespondent]

96. Hello you!!!

Long time no see! Happy New Year to you and yours!

How's things?

Ya!!! I thought it was a pretty good point too. LOL

[readmoreoften]

112. furthermore...

Just because he's a male prostitute doesn't mean that he's even bisexual. He could be a heterosexual drug addict prostituting himself or a number of things.

Beyond that, the whole 'gay porn' thing has trumped the fact that this man is a PLANT, a ERSATZ JOURNALIST hired by Bush to manipulate the population during press conferences.

[leftofthedial]

3. what are you, gay?

There is nothing wrong or right with being gay.

The neocons don't agree with us though. Gannon's gay-ness is a potent potential wedge to drive into the neotheocon bloc.

realpolitik

[Toucano]

25. I think you could be mistaken.

"The neocons don't agree with us though."

I think that's actually the point. They do agree with us, but they pretend not to purely for political gain.

The wedge should come between the Republican party and the Christian fundamentalists because the Republicans are just milking them for money and votes with no real intention to support their agenda.

The Republican party are posers and the fundies are rubes in a 3 card monty game for their wallets.

[Orangepeel]

33. not necessarily

some pretend not to purely for political gain. but some crazy loudmouthed homophobes probably are gay and can't reconcile that they ARE something that they were taught was evil. Most people in that situation would think, "hey, I'm gay and I'm not evil. people who told me it was evil must have been wrong." Others probably go into major denial and lash out.

[Toucano]

42. It doesn't seem like Jimmy Jeff

thought he was evil.

"Aggressive, verbal, dominant top"

He seems pretty proud of what he was doing.

[leftofthedial]

35. I don't think dobson and his army of wack jobs are posturing

the bosses of the neotheocon cabal don't give a shit about anything but their own wealth

but they need the wack jobs on their side

this is a wedge that could separate them

[Toucano]

45. We agree, but let me make something more clear.

Dobson is just a fundraiser, milking the sheep. A barker barking, "Step right up folks! Get your salvation here!" He may genuinely believe what he says in his delusions, but it isn't really relevent because he doesn't hold the reins.

The power is the Dick Cheney's, the George Schultzes, the Karl Roves, the James Bakers.

These people don't give a shit who people sleep with or what goes on in their womb.

The record is clear: Dubya saw Robertson get a lot of votes in 1988 and saw his opportunity to blend his newly discovered salvation and sobriety with political aspirations. Rove helps direct crumbs of policy like a drug dealer to keep the "faithful" coming back for more.

I think I see that we're in agreement, just different symantics.

[leftofthedial]

64. i've met Dobson

he's a bona fide bigot, wack job

he's also a fundraiser, but he's not a pure, out-and-out conman, a la Pat Robertson or someone. Dobson sincerely hates homosexuals and thinks they should be eliminated from our society.

[foreigncorrespondent]

47. Oh for crying out loud!

"gay-ness" Could you be any more insulting?

For fuck sake this man is a MALE PROSTITUTE that does not make him gay.

[Fovea]

89. A note from the quoted

In Hannah Arendt's 'the origins of totalitarianism' the late historian discusses the difference between a fault and a taint.

An essential difference is that you may amend the former and not the latter.

I was attempting to address the fact that while Mr. 'Gannon's' actual sexual preferences may not be known (heck, I don't even know if he is left or right handed, a trait I find far more telling in general than sexual identity), we do know what he was passing himself off as, a journalist. Journalist is a profession that brings with it certain privileges. Now, if he was not really a journalist, but rather a demi-monde, what first amendment protection should he be granted regarding his source on the Plame memo?

This is a scandal without the question of the occupation of Mr. G. entering into it. But like it or not, it will. Americablog seems to be covering this angle of the story fairly closely, as well they should, IMO.

We voters have gotten our feet wet with all sorts of sexual peccadillo's in the past decades. This is America-- it's all got some sex in it somewhere. Male prostitutes will be no more harmed by this than cigar makers were by Monica.

The part of this scandal that will be damaging will be the Plame memo.
And the question of how Mr.G got it may very well turn out to be related to his other occupation. But this white-house will be forced to deal not simply with hypocrisy, but with duplicity to the greater number of their supporters, the 'theo' in the term neotheocon.

Thus I recommend using it as a wedge issue. Because it does not hurt gay men any worse with the group being split. Yes, it does rattle the closet door pretty loudly for some gays, and for those who feel their well-being tied to the closet latch, this will not feel trivial.

But simply by asking who this male prostitute might have been sponsored by, we enable the most lurid fears of the theocrats,
a group that was quite happy to project fears on others.

Now the enemy appears to them, not simply at the gates, but like Monty Python's Holy Grail, taunting them from the high tower with outRAgeous accEnts.

They have met the evil doers, indeed, they have been standing beside them for 2 years now. For a freeper, this is like a bad acid drip.

This is like showing up with a picture of Joe McCarthy French kissing Joe Stalin. It rattles the very foundations Saruman's tower. It is like having Prescott's Swiss deposit box key tossed into mount doom.

To us here at DU, it is about Media whoredom. To the folks here in Kansas, it is about a media WHORE! OMG, A MALE WHORE!!!! They are beyond caring who he would be in bed with for free. To a Red Kansan Jeff is a man-whore-- these folks can take the concept no farther without terminal squik. That is the context here in the town of Wyandotte, hill of Strawberry.

Tonight at dinner, discussing it with my S/O, the waiter kept giving us looks as if to say, 'Its not safe to talk about this here.'
If he had actually said anything to us, I was prepared to say "Yes, this is America, and it is safe to talk about male hookers in the white house here."

The nascar dads at the bar looked like they might disagree with me, but had a cane that I know how to use, and I can think of no better reason to spend Valentine's Night in jail. And frankly, they had way more teeth than was technically appropriate for the group.

So flame me for insulting terminology if you must, but coming back to the initial point, the 'theos' see gay as a taint. Like the officer in Raiders of the lost ark, they are nervous about this 'gay-ness' coodies thing.
Because if they catch it, they are tainted and can never turn back human. This fear should be used against them.

But I want to say that this is not about Gay individuals for Democrats. This is about a drag queen boogie man in the closet.
This is the horror of discovering that J. Edgar Hoover cross dressed.

Homophobic straights beat gays up all the time. Bi's, as I said to a gentleman just the other day, get to be rejected (and disapproved of) by 98% of the folks at the party. You can praise the view from the fence all day long, but if you are bi, everyone keeps yelling 'jump!'


Gay is not good, Gay is not bad. Gay simply is.
People should not *not* be gay. People should be themselves.

Sorry for the long post, but this is an important thread, i think.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old Mouse]

4. You are so correct

You said this so well, all I can do is laugh! (Your tirade is going to keep me amused for hours.)

But you are absolutely correct. The emphasis on his sexuality will sidetrack the importance of his crime as well.

[meganmonkey]

22. I'm with you completely

I've been thinking the same thing for the last couple of days. The more his apparent 'gay'ness is what is focused on, the less we will se coverage on the real meat of this story. Maybe the fact that he is a gay prostitute makes it more of a scandal, given the hypocrisy, but who cares? I don't like to make fun of gay people and I don't like to make fun of prostitutes. I would much rather make fun of a fucked up farce of a reporter - in this case, who happens to be a gay prostitute. That makes it a little juicier of a story, but in and of itself it is NOT the story.

This story needs to be dealt with as evidence of how the media has very little integrity anymore. How a guy with no credentials can get daily passes for 2 years and ask the president questions. THAT should be the primary issue.

[imenja]

86. I agree in part, but the issue is the White House

not just the media. It's the fact that the Bush administration is working to create a fraudulent press in order to promote it's unjustifiable political agenda. I agree that the focus on Gannon's personal life detracts from more important issues that he represents. This plays into the Republicans hands, because we flail around in the gutter while ignoring the serious nature of the White House's malfeasance.

[arcos]

5. I haven't seen many homophobic posts..

Sure, once in a while one appears, but I don't understand what do you find so troubling...

[sundog]

72. me either

:shrug:

[ArkDem]

6. Homophobia is everywhere.

[jojo54]

7. I don't think it's a direct attack on the gay community

but just the fact that something is leaking out that the whore media otherwise would gloss over then sweep under the rug. This is the type of story that could start the perverbial snowball tumbling downhill, and I think that everyone (myself included) would love to see this become a full fledged avalanche. If more stuff leaks out, and the dime starts dropping, we all hope that the monkey administration would literally fall apart.

I don't think it's nothing more than that.

[davidinalameda]

8. thank you

I'm glad someone else feels this way

[CBGLuthier]

9. I agree 100%

But there ain't no changing some people.

Some days I think the only difference between the far right and the far left is just the targets of their hatred.

I have read many a thing on this board that was every bit as hateful as Free Republic.

[Botany]

11. The point is that they used Gays to scare people.

Rove and company made gays as the new, "Red Menace" in nothing
more than modern day McCarthyism in their evil quest for power.

The gay aspect of this story is totally relevant. But it will go deeper


:nuke:

[DistressedAmerican]

81. Now WE Are?

That make us better how? Stick to prostitution and Plame.

Stop yelling "Gay!" in a crowded movie theater just to scare people.

[youthere]

135. Exactly!The issue for me is

Plame. I don't give a damn who he has sex with. Treason? Now that's an attention getter.

BTW I love your animation. Can you get the monkey to throw poop clods labeled "Freedom" and "Democracy"?

[Inland]

12. No more than pointing out Reagan never went to church is proChristian

Or that Bush had nothing but failed businesses is anti-Capitalist.

Even if you don't go to church and hate business, it helps to show how divorced Bushites rhetoric is from the reality.

[davidinalameda]

40. so going to church makes you a Christian

like going into a garage makes you a car?

yes, I know that's not original but it's very fitting

[Inland]

56. Okay, Ronnie was christian and Gannon is straight and none of it matters.

Apparently, this is the Junior Ball Buster thread.

Reagan professed to be a christian and never made it to a church on Sunday. By which I mean, never.

I suppose it's possible he was a member of the Church of Brush Clearing and thereby a fine christian by the measures of his order, but it is more likely he was just man of conventional beliefs who was really half assed about it but talked a good game at funerals and political events.

[davidinalameda]

123. you're a third right

none of this matters

this is a strawman and nothing more

[readmoreoften]

114. Without proof of intimate contact with the White House

This gay stuff is nothing in reference to Gannon. I don't get it. Let's focus on the crime here. Maybe if BUSH or ROVE were outed as hypocrites it would matter. But some peon who did dirty deeds for them? Who cares?

[Inland]

13. dupe

[lala_rawraw]

14. With Respect...

My editor is gay, the editor of blogactive is gay, in fact most writers I know are gay. Let me tell you that what they have gone through since these nutcases have taken office is beyond reasonable. This is not gay bashing... this is the bashing of those that would eat their own to feed their ambitions. Although I have not started these threads, I do not agree with your summary of things. This is FOR the gay movement, not against it. This is to prove that the gay-bashers are in fact themselves gay, thereby defuse their gay-bashing. I bet that the marriage bill or whatever they call it now will be shelved and never touched again. So out of respect for my gay friends, and with respect for you, I have to disagree.

[jdj]

21. some of us know what the hell you all have done for this country

and the potential danger you have put yourselves in to do it.

Some of us are smart enough to appreciate it, words can't express it really.

And some gophers are popping up out of their holes to try every attempt at suppressing this discussion about Gannon. Who could possibly have that kind of motive? Hmmm.

[BigBearJohn]

41. lala-raw, My hat is off to you. You hit it exactly on the head.

You are 100% correct!!!!!!

[lala_rawraw]

104. awww...

:loveya:

does anyone make these little thingies (smile things)? i want a flapper darn it and my dog/god thing is too big (posted it at Randi's forum though).

[Old and In the Way]

55. Totally agree.

I find it curious that some gays here don't see the value of turning the gay issue against the Republican Party. The more we expose the reality to the Republican voter who chooses their politics on this one issue, the more likely we are in driving a wedge in their base. Isn't that what gays want? The Democratic Party, which stands with gays for their civil rights, back in power?

Or maybe we should just not offend any gays here and let the Republicans continue to use their hypocrisy to their political advantage? Can't have it both ways (no pun intended).

[seventythree]

90. It got shelved today

according to the reports I read. Frist says he doesn't know when it will be back.

[MADem]

95. YEP! To add to what you said

It ain't the gay aspect in and of itself, it's the HYPOCRISY aspect of the story that gives it legs. The gay part is just an interesting plot twist, a switch from the Monica Lewinskys, Fanne Foxes, Donna Whatserface of MONKEY BUSINESS fame....

The GOP will be split by the gay aspect, though, and that is a good thing for our side. For every GOP-er who tries to stuff this in the category of "personal behavior, not germane" (ignoring the prostitution, hustling, escorting aspects) there will be at least one counterpart on the conservative/fundie side who will find it untenable. So long as they are going to be haters, let them suffer for their hate. Never mind vote shaving, just get those fundies to either vote for a far-right whacko who has no hope of being elected, or get them to just STAY HOME.

All of the bloggers doing the heavy lifting on this story are gay, out and not troubled by their status. Most people who read their work aren't "worried" or "bothered" by it either!

I think it is a brilliant story. And ya know what else I think:

-I think the connection is between McClellan (patron of Austin gay bars) and Gannon.

-I think those reporters who thought they saw Jimmy-Jeff with a HARD pass were NOT imagining things. When I was in positions of authority within government, I had the authority to go around the regular process and get a pass issued to damn near anyone for my area of responsibility, just by being in charge, and by asking. I'll bet Scottie wandered over to the press pass shop and had the 'gals' make one up for his man Jimmy-Jeff. I'll BETCHA!

-I think Gannon was the conduit to others re: the Plame memo. Now, the question is, from whom did he get it? From Scottie? Who gave it to Scottie? Or did the whole mess go higher up? And how did they meet, for the first time? Did Scottie patronize certain web sites?

-I think Scottie's new beard, er, BRIDE, is probably the unhappiest gal in DC right about now.

-I think there is wide commitment in the gay community to EXPOSING GOP hypocrisy, and enthusiastically putting the whole "gayness" issue on the menu--they want us to "get used to it!" (no problem here!) but the GOP seems to want to stuff them back in the closet. They understandably don't want to go! The more it is discussed, the more it will, first, split the GOP (a split party cannot govern), and second, reduce the entire "issue" as an issue.

[EFerrari]

120. (It's called 'we'll do anything to make you look away' amendment :)

[MikeG]

15. You are being way too sensitive. And it offends me.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stop_the_War]

20. I don't like to be associated with those right-wingers....

That's all I don't like. There is no "internalized" homophobia here. Notice my Gay Pride Rainbow flag, then think again.

[jdj]

23. But you can't control that.

I see where you are coming from, on that.

But you only let in the nice people and say that everyone else "isn't really gay" cause if they were they'd be liberal. It doesn't work that way.

I want them to shit or get off the pot, either out themselves and live honestly, or for them to shut up and stop telling me I'm evil. They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. If they want to be private, fine, but when you become a public figure and have that kind of influence it's a whole new ballgame, and all bets are off.

[Stop_the_War]

28. I agree....n/t

[readmoreoften]

116. huh?

No one is saying that someone is gay is bad, but acting like being gay is a salacious bit of slander to use against someone implies that it is negative. Don't get me wrong, I say go for it and push Gannon to the wall over being a gay prostitute if you think it will cause Bush to go down in the polls. I just see this as being quite easy to spin and I think time would be better spent exposing how Bush is a propaganda monkey.

[Benhurst]

17. "Jeff Gannon" happens to be gay. The fact that he is a prostitute

and a pornographer with no legitimate press credentials (or even much formal education, for that matter) and was allowed to join the White House Press Corps in questioning the pResident of the United States is a very big story, especially since he was given preferential access to Dubya at what few press conferences were held.

Given that sex was his "profession," it's a bit difficult to keep his sexual orientation out of the story.

Any White House reporter found to be a prostitute and pornographer, especially given the security checks they are supposed to undergo, would be fair game. Gay or straight, what is a prostitute who runs pornographic web sites and has no journalistic credentials, doing representing the people at White House press conferences?

[benburch]

18. As an out bisexual man - OUT THE BASTARDS

They have no right to a clean, well-lit closet while they destroy the rights of Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian and Transgendered people!!!

They have no right to claim the moral high ground while working as a prostitute and destroying the lives of sexworkers who are not so well connected.

They have no right to exchange sexual favors for political ones when they were the ones screaming about the Blue Dress.

We can destroy them with their own hypocrisy, and we MUST.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xultar]

30. Who says Freepers & Rethugs corner the market on incivility...WOW

sounds like a conservative comment to me.

[CatWoman]

43. I second that.

this is NOT about Gannon being gay.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid!!!

[imenja]

49. wow, fascist is right

[Hell in a Handbasket]

60. i guess that about sums it up.

a website with 60,000 plus members is bound to have some difference of opinion once in a while.

[David__77]

24. I'm gay and I'm curious myself...

It's of relevance actually, because they are fascists who are damaging all LGBT people. Their hypocritical standpoint must be exposed in order that they can be weakened politically. J. Edgar Hoover was a homosexual and I wish that had been exposed in his time. Hoover needed to be politically destroyed, and he was indeed an anti-homosexual homosexual.

I understand being concerned by this, but there are certainly more than two or three gay men and lesbians in the corridors of the beast who need to be exposed to the light of day. Doing so is not just a right, but a duty.

[ultraist]

32. well said David-77!

The author of this OP has a legit reason to be concerned and a right to feel the way he/she is feeling. The fact is, I have seen many times on THIS board, discussions about gays or blacks used as an excuse for some, to engage in bashing. I do not think the author of this OP is being overly sensitive. That is how this person feels, and rightly so.

That said, my position on outing Gannon or other homophobes, is the same as yours. I realize this is controversial but after reading several posts of gay people here and giving it much thought, I think it's critical we out the hypocrites.

I HOPE it doesn't get out of hand and become a witch hunt against gays, because it does open the door for that to happen. We need to proceed with caution.

We are already seeing a vicious homophobic witch hunt against gays within the Repuke community and it IS escalating. Let's be careful not to fuel the fire.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. I want to know which gays are getting special treatment from Repubs while

they whittle away at my rights. I want Rush Limbaugh (aka Jeff Christie) outed. I want George Bush's relationship with Victor Ashe to have a spotlight on it. I want Jeff Gannon to be exposed..and furthermore...I want to know if his sites attracting gay military were simply porn sites or if they were to be used for something more sinister.

[Jacobin]

27. I'm wondering if you have noticed certain things in the news of late

Rove and BushCo's well publicized but doomed to failure move in Congress just before the presidential election to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Bush's 'family values' swipes at democrats during the election: code for gay hating, which helped him win the election among homophobes.

Now, it turns out that his bestest buddy in the press corp, his knight in shining armor to help him with softball questions is a gay prostitute.

Now, I ask you......WHY in the ever loving FUCK should this abject hypocrisy NOT BE SHOUTED FROM THE ROOFTOPS?

[Stop_the_War]

29. It should be shouted from the rooftops, I did not suggest otherwise. n/t

[uppityperson]

34. You're right. Bushites are hypocrites is the larger irony here.

Gay bashing is wrong. End of that. The problem I can see and where I am getting my kicks from is the bushites and repubs are soooooo homophobic that it's really amusing to have one of their supported and supporters be a closet gay prostitute. This is so ironic on many different levels and the gay part is ironic only in repsect to the repubs.

If people are using this to gay bash, well, a virtual slap to their little typing fingers.

[Misunderestimator]

36. I understand what you are saying, but I'm not taking it the way you are...

There's certainly a little homophobia here, less than elsewhere thankfully, but unfortunately, the fact that Gannon is gay IS going to be at the center of the controversy. I hate being associated with right-wingers too, but there ARE gay right-wingers. I think most people understand that they do not represent most of us.

It's time to out every gay conservative, and at this point, I don't much care how it's done.

[progressivebydesign]

37. It's not the GAY that's the issue here on DU.. it's the CRIMINALITY..

All I'm seeing here on DU is sense of shock that this guy is allowed, with NO credentials, to have UNPRECEDENTED access to the President and the press conferences.. when he happens to be an alleged pimp and pornographer of male homosexuality. No one cares, particularly that this fake is gay.. it's WHAT his sexual orientation and business have garnered for him in the White House.

GOsh.. I remember when it was the republicans screaming because we talked about Mary Cheney being gay.

[checks-n-balances]

67. Agreed, but it's the GAY that finally gets the attention of the MSN

If this story were only about CRIMINALITY, it would get the same coverage as other stories - with a yawn, if it got any attention at all. It seems that NONE of the scandals associated with this administration have gotten the traction that they deserved, but maybe this one will.

Geez, the GOP wanted to impeach Clinton because of the sex, even though there was no criminality to begin with. GWB's admin is full of scandal - even criminalities associated with war and death - but his loyal following seems unshakable - maybe because there have basically been no "sex scandals". But the truth is that nothing seems to motivate them to question things unless homosexuality is involved. As someone mentioned previously, it may, finally, be the only "wedge issue" that will work.

Otherwise, the criminality and the Plame connection would be dismissed by the mainstream "liberal" media as ho-hum or too complicated for the general public.

I hate to say it this way, but it's the thing that gets this story's "toe in the door", so to speak. The sexual aspect gets the initial attention, but let's hope the MSM won't kill it before people recognize the criminality aspect of it - the REAL story.

Edited to clarify meaning

[Anakin Skywalker]

38. It is the Hypocrisy of the Right

that is so laughable, that's all.

[imenja]

50. we are becoming hypocrites in the process

How can we claim we are for equal rights when we ridicule someone for his sexuality? There are many serious and important criticisms to raise against Gannon. The fact he is gay is meaningless to anyone but him and his family.

[Old and In the Way]

62. Please, spare us your hysteria.

I'm a happy heterosexual who proudly stands for your right to have whatever sexlife you want. I'm totally against Republicans who use homophobia to keep the political upperhand in this country. We take away their moral superiority on this issue and all they have left is the wealthiest 2% of the population that'll always vote for the Party that protects their interests.

I'm also pro-choice, but I have no problems pointing out any prominent Republican women who have had abortions. Same thing.

It's all about the hypocrisy used to gain political power.

[imenja]

71. the idea of discussing anyone's reproductive choice is reprehensible

Many, if not most, Republican women are pro-choice and they have the same right to control their bodies as you do. I can't imagine anything worse than discussing such aspects of a person's life. Evidently you are comfortable living in the gutter. I am not. If that is how you choose to behave, that is who you are. Evidently the problems in our society are more than political. They demonstrate a profound lack of integrity, that I must very sadly concede seems to proliferate on all sides of the political spectrum.
This obsession with Gannon's, and now Scott McCullen's, sexual life obscures far more serious issues about the White House efforts to create a fraudulent press corps. I'm sure Rove appreciates this mindless discussion. Focusing on personal attacks against Gannon detracts from the malfeasance of the White House. Once again, liberals play perfectly into their hands.

[Old and In the Way]

85. If you are a Republican lesbian who's had an abortion.....I'd

be your worst liberal nightmare.

:-)

[imenja]

92. if we removed men from making political decisions

abortion wouldn't be an issue. Demographically, as many men oppose abortion as Republicans do. The fact is, it's our bodies, not yours.
By the way, one of the benefits of being a Lesbian is there are no worries about birth control or abortion.

[Old and In the Way]

100. OK.....makes sense.

[DearAbby]

84. It is not ridicule because of his sexuality...It is because he happens to

be...the irony that the GOP used the homosexual issue to claim a win of this past election.

Should soon change to the actual story relating to his being a male prostitute, which is illegal, and the high potential of the blackmail aspect of the scandal...National Security Breech.

So the Sexuality aspect of the story if quite important...shouldn't matter orientation.

[Old and In the Way]

87. Don't forget a tax paying deadbeat , too.

How could that be missed in the vetting process?

[MADem]

97. NO, not for his SEXUALITY!!!

We ridicule him for the following:

For his fifty dollar "journalism" education, for his work as a pimp, prostitute, hustler, for his never holding a steady job, for his credentialling as a report FOUR DAYS after a website is created to support his cover story, for his curious relationship with a press secretary who patronized gay bars....

If Jimmy-Jeff were Jeannie-June, and was a large-bosomed hooker with fake press credentials and a curious relationship to the WH press secretary, who asked softball questions, it would be almost as good...ALMOST, because variations on this theme have been done before in other administrations, other governments. This is a fresh twist on an old story, but it's still all about illegal behavior, undue influence, propaganda, and corruption. The sexuality aspect is only interesting because it is part and parcel of the whole.

[imenja]

98. the original post was about his sexuality

not his pseudo-journalistic activities. I have no objection to criticizing his actions, as long as we make clear the larger issue about the Bush administration's efforts to create a fraudulent press. Who he has sex with is unimportant.

[MADem]

102. BUT THE ORIGINAL STORY

....which was broken by gay bloggers, had his sexuality as not the only feature, but the CENTRAL feature, which gave rise to all those other issues. The sexuality is just the first link in a long chain.

This isn't a bunch of hetero-liberals pushing this sordid news item, it came out of the activist gay community. And sexuality IS an issue, because without it, you wouldn't have the questions about HOW this guy got into the White House. He didn't meet his contacts at the tennis club--he met them as a result of his online hustling (one of his caveats: OUT ONLY!!!). So, at some point in time, he was out. For reasons known only to him, he went back in, but if you look at even the edited version of his websites, you can see very clearly what he is up to, and what his line of "work" is, or was.

Then you've got Scott McClellan, patron of Austin gay bars, recently bearded, er, married. Is he the link??? It's a legitimate question to ask...if you look at the tape of Scott calling on "Jeff" there are at least a dozen times when he calls him by name, in a very familiar way. There was a gratuitous exchange between them about Scott's "wedding card." There's more there than just a press secretary-"fake reporter" relationship, and the public deserves to know the full story, especially since this fake reporter is one of six who knew about Valerie Plame.

[imenja]

105. it provided the vehicle for exposing him

but it is not the important issue. Gannon himself is not the issue. We need to keep the focus on the White House and their concerted efforts to distort the public's access to information. The responsibility for the Plame leak also rests with the White House, not with the reporters or shills to whom they linked the information. This constant obsession with Gannon's personal life and portraying him as the villain in the Plame leak only detracts from the real criminals: Bush, Rove, and company. Gannon is important because of what he tells us about the Bush administration, not because of his own personal foibles.

[MADem]

108. He's not the "VILLAIN" in the Plame leak!!!!

He's the BAGMAN, the runner, a minor member of a major gang. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

The Plame leak IS the centerpiece, but we MUST peel through the layer of Gannon to get to it. Gannon needs to be under extreme pressure, and hopefully from Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. It's not JUST biased news, it's using executive power for corrupt purposes and endangering our national security in the process. Someone in the White House gave Jimmy-Jeff info about Plame. Did HE pass it on to Novak, Miller, et. al???

Gannon is the dangling thread in a garment of deceit. If you pull that string, the whole thing unravels. But you get NOWHERE until you pull that string. No time for squeamishness....Gannon needs to be backed into a corner and compelled to speak, either to clarify his role and exclude himself, or as a witness before the grand jury and in the impeachment proceedings. You can't just say, awww, give him a pass on his personal life--his personal life is what connected him to the White House IN THE FIRST PLACE. He was a hustler, an online prostitute. Individuals who are prostitutes are not routinely part of the White House press corps. How did a prostitute find his way to the pressroom? Who facilitated his journey from being a call boy to being a fake reporter? Who told him to ask those questions? Why did BUSH call on HIM, for guaranteed softball questions? Coincidence? I think NOT!

He's a CO-CONSPIRATOR. And he needs to tell us with whom he conspired.

[imenja]

109. okay, but why Gannon over Novak?

Novak was the one who printed the info. We know he has information on precisely who leaked the information?
If you read some posts on this site, a number of people seem to blame Gannon himself for the Plame leak. They accuse him of violating federal law.

[MADem]

118. Of COURSE he violated federal law

He apparently read a few sentences from a confidential White House memo about Plame at one of those pressers. Gannon's connection, mark my words, is to McCLELLAN. It could go further, but it starts there.

Six journalists (well, five and a fake) at a minimum were given this information. It is the PASSING of the information that is the crime--it is a compromise of national security, and against the law, to "out" a covert operative.

The only ones who did anything with the information were NOVAK and GANNON. You can leak all you want to reporters, there's no guarantee that just because you leak, a reporter will run with your story. In fact, a smart reporter will ask the "Cui bono?" question. Neither Novak nor Gannon are very bright, and plus, they are in the pocket of the White House, so rather than call them reporters, perhaps stenographers is more accurate.

We still do not know who passed the info to Novak. Could it have been Gannon? Maybe! (How DID Novak break that hip? Did he really 'slip in the shower???').

Both he and Gannon, who we KNOW had the info, had to GET IT from someone--someone IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Who? McClellan? Quite possibly. But then there's another string you need to pull--McClellan is not a policy maker, he would not in the normal course of the day have access to this kind of stuff. His knowledge is limited to the things the WH wants him to know, and he is told how to spin certain issues--otherwise, he plays the "I do not know, I'll get back to you" game. He's just a policy executer in the press sphere, so SOMEONE higher up in the WH had to give the information to him, to give to Gannon (who may have handed it on to Novak, or maybe not). Who gave the info to McClellan?

There are two links in this chain that are identified, one for sure (Jimmy-Jeff), one is about to be busted (McClellan...you know he's toast, sooner or later...wonder how long before the new bride files for divorce? And he resigns for "personal reasons?").

We just have to keep pulling the string.....

[imenja]

126. Novak has said his source was in the White House

so that was not Gannon. Chris Matthews told Wilson that Rove himself called Matthews to tell him Plame was fair game, though this was after Novak printed the story in question. It's clear the leak came directly from the White House, not through some fourth rate fake reporter. Secondly, the law covers government officials with national security clearance who reveal the name of a CIA agent they know to be undercover. It does not restrict reporters or fake reporters. Gannon or Novak did not violate the law in regard to the Plame affair. The first amendment allows reporters or facsimiles thereof to print what they like. If we follow your analysis, Woodward and Bernstein would be guilty of violating federal law because of documents they obtained in the Watergate investigation. That is simply not the case. Rove, Scooter Libby, or whoever leaked the story broke the law, not Gannon.
The leak has been attributed to the Vice President's office. That is why Libby is a chief suspect. McClellan was not even press secretary at that point. Ari Felisher was. Press secretary or his assistants do not have the clearance necessary to obtain information about the names of a CIA operative. If they repeat something, it is because they have been told to do so. Because McClellan goes to gay bars does not make him a criminal. From what I can see, this so called expose of McClellan offers nothing besides some very irrelevant information concerning his off-time recreational choices.
Your obsession with Gannon has distorted your view of this investigation.

[MADem]

127. OK, fine, so it's OK for prostitutes to pose as journalists

You assume a couple of things--first, that Rove is telling the truth to Chris ('my wife works for the rightest wing TV station in the DC metro area') Matthews. And sure, the link DID come from the White House, we all KNOW THAT (Gannon didn't write the memo!), but unless we all were flies on the wall, we don't know if Gannon played delivery boy or not. If he did, he's an accessory, and he can't hide behind constitutional protections of the 4th Estate.

As for Scott McClellan, when ARI was the press secretary, HE WAS HIS DEPUTY. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck, he knows Bush better than Ari did. He worked for the weecowboy when he was GOVERNOR; he's one of the Texas originals on staff. Who knows, maybe Ari's resignation had something to do with his discomfort at what he might have seen going on? Someone oughta ask ARI a few questions.

Scott called on "JEFF" many, many, many times--usually when he was getting his ass handed to him by a member of the "liberal" media. "Jeff" pitched him an easy question to enable him to get back on the fearless leader's message. It happens again, and again and again--there's tape to prove it. It has a tag-team feel to it.

It's not obsession, it is perception. There's a link there, you'd have to be blind not to see it.

[imenja]

128. Your analysis misstates the law

The law covers only government employees who knowingly divulge the identify of a covert operative. Any criminal accessories to the crime would also have to be government employees with national security clearance. However morally reprehensible Gannon's activities are, they are not the target of the law the leaker of Plame's identity would be prosecuted under.
It looks like the appeals court is forcing Miller and Cooper to reveal the identity of the lead or go to jail. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1239784#
I know McClellan was Felisher's assistant. I simply find it unlikely the leak would have originated from there, largely because the information that has been released has focused on Rove and the Vice President's Office. I am not blind at all. My point is focusing on Gannon to such an extent gives the real culprits in the White House a pass. If your concern is who leaked Plame's identity, Gannon might have information on who passed the info to him, but he himself was not the leaker and thus did not violate federal law. If your concern is the White House's efforts to create a fraudulent press corp, make that clear. Obsessing on Gannon's sex life does nothing to achieve that. If, on the other hand, your concern is a simple hatred for homosexuals, you're right on track. Recent posts on DU make clear hypocrisy is alive and well among the left.

[MADem]

130. What is this "hatred for homosexuals" crap????

You should be ashamed of yourself, suggesting those sorts of implications about me. They're wrong, they're unfair, they're mean-spirited, and you should apologize. If Gannon were a woman, I'd be screaming for more information with equal fervor.

Gannon's sex life is important because it suggests the three things that we have learned from watching Perry Mason: MEANS, MOTIVE, and OPPORTUNITY. And we know that half of his salary was paid by Eberle...who paid the other half? Is he another Armstrong Williams? Is he covertly on the government payroll? These questions need to be answered. If he is on the government payroll in ANY capacity--even as a janitor--he has broken the law.

Scooter Libby, from the VPs office, released Cooper from his "vow of silence." That means that Scooter didn't say a thing to Cooper about Plame--if he did, this whole business would be yesterday's news, and the VP would have a new factotum. The VP's office has clearly covered their tracks--possibly by passing the football to another department for dissemination, one that has not yet been questioned by the FBI or Fitzgerald.

I am not claiming that the leak ORIGINATED from the WH PRESS office. I'm saying that the leak could well have EXITED the White House VIA that office--a key degree of separation, as it were. You tug Gannon, you get McClellan, and then you go on from there.

Has the FBI or Fitzgerald interviewed McClellan yet?

[imenja]

134. I realize Libby released Cooper

but Cooper hasn't talked. He may have signed the waiver knowing that Cooper wouldn't reveal his source. Why are you so determined to find the criminal at the bottom of the White House hierarchy rather than at the top? The political implications for Democrats are better the higher level of the official who leaked the info. And Rove is high.
McClellan was not at the time of the leak. We don't know who is responsible for the leak, but if we are going to speculate I prefer a focus on Rove and Cheney's office rather than a couple of saps of uncertain sexuality.

The original poster spoke of the fetish concerning Gannon's sex life and I agreed. I certainly don't object to investigating Gannon's role in the Plame leak or in the Bush efforts to corrupt the press. You are assuming that sex provided the opportunity. I find it far more likely political affiliation and Gannon's eagerness to act as a shill was the reason for his White House connections. Even if Gannon and McClellan knew each other from Austin gay bars--so what? How is that worse than corporate connections? In my opinion, it is not. The sex is at best tangential to this story. The important thing is Gannon's actions, that McClellan and others knew him to be an impostor, and that he is part of a larger effort on the part of this government to control and distort a supposedly independent press.

I don't know if federal prosecutor has yet interviewed McClellan. They supposedly have talked to many White House staffers but have been closed lipped over the status and target of their investigation.

My statement about hatred of homosexuals was essentially a rhetorical strategy to get you to consider your motives for discussing the issue. If you'll notice, I laid out three possible goals.

[MADem]

136. Uh, Cooper HAS talked...that's his big PROBLEM

Maybe he LIED...or let slip a key inconsistency that perhaps Gannon is busy clearing up right now???? It's a very bad thing to lie to federal investigators. The only thing that has changed of late is that Gannon has appeared on the scene. You have to wonder if he is singing.

From the WAPO on 14 AUG http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28286-2004Aug24.html

A federal judge yesterday canceled a contempt-of-court order against Time magazine and one of its reporters, Matthew Cooper, after Cooper was interviewed by Justice Department prosecutors investigating who leaked the identity of a covert CIA operative to journalists.

Officials at Time said Cooper, who had been threatened with jail time for refusing to respond to a grand jury subpoena, gave a deposition Monday about his conversations with a single anonymous source -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Cheney -- after Libby waived Cooper's responsibility to keep their conversations on the topic confidential. Time officials said Libby was the only source of Cooper's that special counsel prosecutors asked about.

McClellan has been employed, STEADILY, by Bush since he was governor of TEXAS. He was Deputy under Ari--he has never been a spotlight craver, preferring to work behind the scenes. He is no neophyte to the BushCo team, he is a deep insider, and he knows Bush better than Ari does. Just because he wasn't the front man on TV doesn't mean he didn't have clout behind the scenes--in fact, someone might want to ask Ari why he really left.

And if you want to get to the top of the ladder, unless you can fly, you have to start at the bottom and work your way up.

I am not the one who is differentiating between what could be a gay relationship vs. an inappropriate corporate or business relationship, you are. If it were discovered that Gannon and McClellan had some secret business partnership that sold widgets to the Iraqis for an obscene profit, that would be plenty interesting, too, but it ain't what's coming up on the radar screen. And just BECAUSE it is a potential gay relationship, we shouldn't ignore it out of fear that some gays will be offended. Heck, it is the activist gay community that is spearheading this investigation, not heterosexuals (who are simply sitting back and commenting, for the most part with great admiration, on their superb, evidence-based work). BlogActive and AmericaBlog are not gay-bashing websites--the owners are gay activists who are determined to expose hypocrisy and corruption in the government. I salute them.

For the record, I don't think Gannon met McClellan in an Austin gay bar. I think he met him in the DC area, perhaps through recommendations from other satisfied customers--Eberle, perhaps?

I viewed your "statement" as a veiled accusation, not a rhetorical device, and I do resent it, because it is false, unwarranted, and unfair. You may not have intended it that way, but that's how it came across to me.

[imenja]

138. thanks for the link

Cooper was a party to the appellate decision released today, so I thought he had not talked. I appreciate the correction.
I apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. English has no second person plural, and my use of "you" was intended as "one" (ustedes in Spanish) rather than against you individually. There are a wide variety of posts about Gannon on DU. Some, far too many, focus exclusively on his sexuality and the gay porn sites. One poster used it as an opportunity to express his general prejudices by posting a thread that said: "if you're bisexual, you're gay."
If homosexuality is simply part of the story rather than the focus, if the political goal is kept in mind, I have no objection. For many on DU, that has not been the case. I don't suggest avoiding the subject because the man may be gay, rather that his sexuality is not the important issue. Access, national security, and the White House distortion of the press are what is important.
Thinking again about Cooper, I seem to recall that he testified in a limited fashion but did not reveal his source. I may be wrong, but there must be some reason he is now threatened with jail if he doesn't testify. The NYT reports today that "Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan held Miller and Cooper in contempt of court when they refused to testify to the grand jury and ruled they must obey the subpoena. "

[MADem]

140. Cooper was just on TV

He said they expanded the parameters of the subpeona, that he answered all of the Libby questions, but he would not go further because it would compromise his sources.

It will be interesting to see what happens on appeal. They could drag this out all the way to the Supreme Court, and it wouldn't surprise me if that is the tactic...could take a year or more.

[imenja]

129. what am I assuming Rove told the truth about?

Joe Wilson is the source of this information. Wilson says he got a phone call from Matthews, in which Matthews said he had just gotten off the phone with Rove. Rove, Matthews told Wilson, had declared Plame fair game. Matthews call to Wilson was against both Rove and Matthews own personal interests. It seems clear that Matthews felt uncomfortable with the leak and therefore told Wilson of the call. The source of this information is Joe Wilson. Matthews has not spoken about it publicly. I know of no public statements released by Rove on the subject. So the only person I am assuming is telling the truth is Joe Wilson. Do you object to that?

[MADem]

132. "Fair Game" does not mean that they admit to leaking the information

If it did, and if it were proven, they'd be under arrest. All Rove was saying to Matthews is that he was not at all unhappy that the information had been released--NOT that he was the one who gave it to the press.

These guys didn't reach the highest corridors of power without knowing how to insulate themselves. Why not use a prostitute as a cut-out? It makes perfect sense--Jimmy-Jeff is TOTALLY expendable. He's perfect for the job--he has much to gain with cooperation, and everything to lose if he doesn't. If exposed, he becomes an object of ridicule (and that is already happening), and the WH is counting on the lame stream media being too squeamish to touch this story. So far, they're right. But remember, they were slow to go after Monica, too--but once they did, it became a feeding frenzy.

I'll bet Joe Wilson didn't know a thing about Jimmy-Jeff until this story broke. It will be very interesting to hear his take on this whole mess, in the light of these developments. I hope Olbermann or someone with a spine has him on, and asks for his take on this.

[imenja]

133. very true

It does not prove Rove leaked the story to Novak. It is, however, highly suspect. That is one reason why Novak is so important to the investigation. Only he knows who gave him the information that led him to publish the info about Plame in his column. Assuming you are right that Gannon acted as a middle man, all that allows you to do is cast personal blame on him. He clearly is a reprehensible figure, but the federal law prohibiting disclosure of CIA agents cannot be used against Gannon. If he rolls on the White House, wonderful. But he will need to disclose who gave him the document in order for the story to be pursued up the food chain. Also, I'm not aware of others who had access to this classified document. Why wouldn't Gannon had passed it to Novak if he was the source of Novak's information?

I like Olbermann, but he doesn't investigate anything. He simply repeats what others say. It's far more likely that bloggers, or less likely the federal prosecutor in the Plame case, will get to the bottom of this.

[MADem]

137. I mentioned KO because the way the lamestream media is

nowadays, he's probably the only one who would have Wilson on and ask him what his take on the issue is. To me, that would be an interview worth hearing.

On edit: A few posts above, you indicated that Novak said his source was inside the White House. He didn't actually say that--I just saw the tape of his original explanation on TV. He said his source was a "SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL" and he also said he confirmed the information with another "SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL." The White House staff is just a single subset of the executive branch, and thus far, this investigation has not extended beyond the White House staff. No wonder they aren't sweating the load! For all we know, Gannon could have carried the bag to the Pentagon, to the See Aye Eh!, to some clown in the Health and Human Services Administration, for further dissemination.

Also, it is important to note that the reporters they are going after are the ones who did not publish. The fact that Novak DID publish is what shields him....ironic, that.

[imenja]

139. Novak isn't shielded

Today's appellate decision and previous legal precedents don't distinguish between what is published or isn't. There are two possibilities I can think of why Novak has not yet been mentioned as the target of a subpoena: either he has cooperated and not disclosed that fact to the public; or the prosecutor is gathering as much information as possible before interviewing Novak. One of the things Floyd Abramas is asking is that the court clarify under which circumstances reporters be compelled to testify. Some have pointed out that lawyers and doctors have privilege that is lifted under certain circumstances. Journalists actually have no such legal protection, which is why so many have gone to jail to protect sources.

[MADem]

141. According to E and P, Novak has sung like a canary

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000800586

As for Novak, it is not known if he was subpoenaed or if he has testified. However, it is widely believed by reporters and lawyers involved in the probe that he reached a negotiated “arrangement” with Fitzgerald -- and that he “sang.”

In September, Fitzgerald subpoenaed the last of the print journalists. This one had published nothing about Plame: Judith Miller of The Times, also known for her flawed reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Miller refused to comply. In the meantime, Cooper had received a second subpoena, this one ordering him to testify about sources other than Libby--and he refused to comply.

The Times has not been reticent in taking on the special prosecutor (and vice versa). The editorial page hammered Fitzgerald, saying that “in his zeal to compel reporters to disclose their sources, he lost sight of the bigger picture.” The newspaper called the Plame case “a major assault” on relationships between reporters and secret sources, the very essence of reporting on the abuse of power, in "a leak probe gone awry.”

The prosecutor countered by calling for a “reality check,” arguing that Miller “has no special privilege, qualified or otherwise.” In October, Judge Hogan, rejecting the notion that Fitzgerald was on “a fishing expedition,” held Miller and then Cooper in contempt and ordered them to jail. The sentences were stayed pending the consolidated appeal by Time and The New York Times, which was denied today.

It's been demonstrated that when you publish, you can be protected in some circumstances (NYT, Pentagon Papers, e.g.) but they can still muddy the waters and make the claim that it wasn't privileged conversation, that they weren't acting in their capacity as reporters when they obtained the information, that it endangered national security, and so on. It may be a weak strategy, but there's no hard copy of any journalistic effort for them to hide behind--Judy can't even cough up an editor to lie and say she was working on a story. But Novak did publish--it may have been crap, but he can use the "piece of paper" excuse, and claim that he was doing real reporting, not engaging in gossip or smears. In fact, even fellow reporters aren't enthusiastic about defending Miller, especially...the E and P link above has some interesting insight into the entire embroglio from a publishing perspective.

I'm thinking that Fitzgerald knows more than they realize he knows--probably thanks to Novak. And he's probably caught one or two people in a lie. And since Alberto "Torture Memo" Gonzalez was forced to recuse himself from this case, he can't be told to do a Nixon-to-Bork firing of Fitzgerald, like they did to Archibald Cox back in the Watergate Days.

[imenja]

143. Today's court decision rules no such privilege exists

The text of the decision reads as follows:

"Appellants assert that the information concealed by them, specifically the identity of confidential sources, is protected by a reporter’s privilege arising from the First Amendment, or failing that, by federal common law privilege. The District Court held that
neither the First Amendment nor the federal common law
provides protection for journalists’ confidential sources in the
context of a grand jury investigation. For the reasons set forth
below, we agree with the District Court that there is no First
Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. We
further conclude that if any such common law privilege exists,
it is not absolute, and in this case has been overcome by the
filings of the Special Counsel with the District Court."

The full text of the decision is available through the NYT home page http://www.nytimes.com/ It is next to wear you click to read the article on the decision.

The court sites the Supreme court case of Branzburg v. Hays (1972) that makes clear that the First Amendment does not protect journalists from subpoenas to reveal their sources. The discussion of the First Amendment claim begins on p. 7 of the decision. This is good news for the resolution of the case concerning Plame, but it certainly doesn't comfort one about protections afforded to the press. It seems courts that have allowed reporters to resist such demands in the past have acted out of custom rather than defined legal protection.

[nolabels]

106. To be honest, probably more of an issue for that side of the aisle

That GOP side has been decidedly using sex as an issue. Just how poetic that all these things they have been calling vices would come back to literally to bite them in the ass

[BigBearJohn]

39. Take a look at this if you want the correct "take" on how to approach

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3112731

[Warren Stupidity]

65. 'Gannongate' is about a sleazy con artist

working for GOP party operatives posing as a journalist using a fake name gaining access to the white house press room on a daily basis, getting regular access to ask questions of both scotty and *, being given classified documents relating to the felonious disclosure of a certain covert cia agent's identity, who also happened to be running a side business as a gay male prostitute.

The Fox News Screech, if it were 'fair and balanced' would be "gay prostitute scandal rocks bush administration". We on the other hand are squeamish about mentioning the gay whore angle lest we offend gays, and whores.

I say FUCK THAT.

Gay Sex For Hire Scandal Rocks Bush Administration!
Gay Sex For Hire Scandal Rocks Bush Administration!

It is war. Time to get down in the dirt and fight.

[imenja]

48. I agree

Some seem determined to make us as ugly and immoral as the right. I refuse to participate in it myself. Moreover, the whole discussion of porn sites and homosexuality is irrelevant to the important issue concerning the White House's efforts to create a fraudulent press corps.

[foreigncorrespondent]

51. I just logged on to DU...

...a little while ago, but I went to AMERICAblog to read the story first, then came back. When I entered GD, I was shocked to see some of the attacks taking place. Some in this very thread.

As I said once before, everytime something happens which involves the gay community, or someone suspected of being gay, it seems the meat of the story is ignored, and it ends up as being an attack on the gay community.

I stand with you, my friend.

[Bok_Tukalo]

52. I disagree

<<Anybody who is gay and works for Bush deserves to be OUTED.>>

That is their business.

[LeftCoast]

53. I agree with you Stop_the_War

This (seemingly) never-ending stream of posts stating/questiong whether yet another vile Republican is gay is offensive. You'll never get most of the people here to see it though. They're just too happen to have dirt to throw on Republicans.

[EFerrari]

54. The opposition is trying to use this as a wedge.

It's up to us to step up to our values or to fall for it.

[nolabels]

107. I always hated them wedgies

Every once in while the tough dudes at the school would give a freshman one just before class. It was kind of humorous to see one of them squirm for the whole class period

All in all it won't amount to much at any rate. After all the billions that have been swindled in the financial institutions in the last 30 or 40 years. How will they, the insiders, mostly getting away with it reall care what others think. Do you really think this issue will go very far when it comes to getting people answering for any of it?

[EFerrari]

110. My vote is to roll the snowball, and try not to pull something in

the process.

That's the challenge, no?

[nolabels]

115. There could be many ways of looking at it

I am a cynical person, just can't help it. Not that giving them hell is not a good thing or something we should do. It's just not to get over worked about it all at once, we got to keep a moral perpetuity and not be too gleeful in light of their troubles

(but really, it's how much fun we are going to have with it :evilgrin:)

on edit, when your best weapon for disarming others that wish to do harm because of ingornant reasons is comedy, then by all means kick me in shins, I figure out some way to laugh it off in the end


(get this one)
Chris and John went duck hunting for the first time. They took decoys, shotguns, and camouflage hunting suits. Before they left, a friend suggested that they bring a "dog to get the ducks." They took his advice and off they went.

As noon time rolled around, the other hunters on the lake were heading back with boats filled with ducks, while Chris and John had not a single duck.

Chris asked "What do you think we're doing wrong?"

John replied "Maybe we're not throwing the dog high enough".
(snip)
http://humor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.stupid.com/jokes/jokeserver/index.htm

[donco6]

57. Yes.

It's annoying. The implied message is, "well, they're really really bad, so they just MUST be gay!"

[MADem]

99. NO, not gay, CLOSETED

The only gays I've ever known who were miserable were the closeted ones.

They ones who concealed their sexuality back before it was cool to come out, that I've known, were rigid, mean, unhappy, abrasive, angry. Then, they come out, and son of a gun, they're peaches! Happy, cheerful, the great weight off their shoulders. The happier they got, the more liberal they got, too. Funny how that works.

Of course, I guess living a lie can turn you into an asshole. That's the point that all of the bloggers--the gay bloggers, mind--who are BREAKING this story, are trying to make. These aren't straights breaking the story...check AMERICABLOG, he's leading the charge, and doing a good job of it, too.

[hector459]

58. Are you just trying to stop us from publicizing this scandal?

Oh, please. It's not about BEING gay. It's about being gay AND trashing other gays and the gay life style while PRETENDING to be something else. It's about PROSTITUTION, SECURITY BREECHES, LYING, AND HYPOCRISY. I don't care what your sexual preference is, Monica pales besides this revelation whether other gays want to admit it or not. The WH has no moral authority to ban gay marriages, trash the gay lifestyle, while using gays to do the trashing!

[tinonedown]

59. Thank You! Needed to be said but

don't get your hopes up of it slowing down. I said something once and was beaten down.
Every time I see the gay references or outing of Repukes, I think to myself you say that like it is a bad thing. So what if they are being hypocritical. It doesn't take away the fact you use the term in a negative way.
That goes for calling * a retard as well.
Like I said, don't look for things to change. No site is perfect, nor all people at this site. I'll take this one as is, better than most.

[Minstrel Boy]

61. I don't understand what you're saying.

The only sense I can make of your remarks is you want us to shut up about Gannon. Yet you say, "Anybody who is gay and works for Bush deserves to be OUTED." All I can say is, huh?

The Gannon story isn't about an outing. What it is about, we may not know yet. It may be about exposing a prostitute run out of the White House for sexual blackmail. It wouldn't be the first time; it happened in the GHW Bush White House. Why would you want us to stop?

[smoogatz]

63. "Male prostitute" isn't sufficiently descriptive, IMO.

It might connote something like "gigolo" to the less worldly. I think it's important that the Gannon story include the fact that Gannon is a man who used the internet to solicit sex with other men for money. Without that information, the delicious irony (a man who has sex with other men for money is given access to a the inner sanctum of a homophobic administration so he can write homophobic articles for a homophobic website) of the rest of the story is lost. That said, I can see why our GLBT brothers and sisters are uncomfortable being associated in any way with the likes of Gannon, even in matters of nomenclature. I can't speak for anyone else, but trust me when I say that I, for one, can tell the difference between a proud progressive and a slinking, lying theocon hypocrite from a mile away. THAT said, I think it's our duty to expose lying and hypocrisy in government wherever we find it.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Gay Sex For Hire Scandal Rocks Bush Administration! (NT)

[murray hill farm]

68. Take a deep breath!

This isnt about being gay...or even about prostitution...it is about the hypocracy....and it is about sex and the white house and secrets being revealed....and about finially forcing some true "transparency" as to what these people are really about....and that is all it is about. I do understand your sensitiviey..but would you understand mine..if i reacted as you are doing...if jeff had been a jenifer! Be proud of who you are..u do not need to defend who you are by striking out when someone calls an asshole an asshole....and gay or straight or bi...this gannon is an asshole. The thing is he may be an asshole with a connection with the assholes in the whitehouse....and if this is the case..then i thank god for this particular asshole....whatever his sexual orientation...or his gender.

[pres2032]

69. .

[BiggJawn]

70. Huh?

"Anybody who is gay and works for Bush deserves to be OUTED. But what I'm saying is just don't associate us with them."

That makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. It's about like saying "Yes, Jerry Falwell is a mother fucker, but stop associating him with Christians like me".

[superconnected]

76. actually it does make sense

ie. Christians like me should not be associated with Fallwell.

On DU, many would believe all christians are anti evolution, abortion, etc. and want to live by leviticus. It is very untrue. Fundies are a small part of christianity. People who think all christians are like that, live in a vacuum.

People who are gay and work for Bush do deserve to be outed because Bush is running an anti-gay platform. It's complete hypocrisy to be gay and support a man trying to ban gays.

Republicans who are gay obsessed are not necessarily gay. They are simply small brained/closed minded people who are afraid of ALL people who are different. Sexuality scares them and gay sexuality really scares them.

It's an insult to the gays to call bush supporters gay.

[BiggJawn]

122. But what if they ARE gay?

OK, the Falwell comparison was weak, but what if these hypocrits are actually gay?

I still don't get the point of "out them, but don't associate them with me..."

So Bush is is a white man, but stop saying that, because I'm a white man, too. See my point?

[mmonk]

73. It's not about him being gay

Just look at the situation. They are a political party that is pushing the "moral" argument with it's fundie religious type of base, declares homosexuality to be a sin and pushes anti-gay agendas and laws, and lies to its base that it is over in Iraq to protect them weapons of mass destruction and is on a moral crusade for democracy in the world. A scandal breaks out over a Gay prostitute that is a paid media plant and a fake by this particular party and is involved in the feeding of information that led to an outing of a CIA asset charged with tracking weapons of mass destruction. Man you just can't make that stuff up.

[Carni]

75. Oh please...

Now gays in the bush admin are off limits because mainstream gays might be tainted by the closet GOP ones?

Beg all you like -- I am crowing about Gannon 24/7.

[superconnected]

83. nobody said gays in the bush administration are off limits

what was pointed out is everytime some people find a homophobe- they call that person gay.

Homophobia does not mean gay. Therefore calling everyone you don't like in the bush administration "gay", would not only be incorrect, it would be insulting the gays.

If you find a gay - ie gannon, go for it. But don't call every wingnut who hates gays, gay. It isn't fair to the gays.

[readmoreoften]

117. THANK YOU

Not everyone who is a homophobe is gay. Sorry to disappoint you but the vast majority REALLY do seem to be uptight straight people. Insinuating that all homophobes are 'closet cases' is just another way of saying that Gays are the Victims and the Victimizers and straights are just the poor noble folks who are stuck with us.

That being said, push Gannongate to the fullest.

[yodermon]

77. WHOOSH!!

That was sound of the Gay-bashing, yet homosexual-protitute-soliciting-right-to-the-steps-of-the-White-House Freeper HYPOCRISY going right over your head.

[DistressedAmerican]

82. Acting no better than them going right over yours!

[UdoKier]

88. What are you, gay or something?

Just kidding.

Yeah, it is a bit much.

[kentuck]

93. I think it's about bribery...

and criminal acts. I think Gannon bribed "someone" to get into the WH press corps. he knows something on someone or maybe more than one? And they do not want him to go public. They are in cover-up mode.

[ComerPerro]

101. Yeah, some of it is getting absurd

But, I gotta admit, the Gannon thing is hilarious.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Minus World]

119. Deterioration

Some have suggested that we use the tactics of the Right to fight back against the Right. If we choose to follow such a path, a degradation of our political dialogue is inevitable.

We repeatedly ask ourselves, "Why do the right-wingers seem to be so efficient in fighting uphill battles against the general sentiment?", and the answer is usually, "Well, they have a solid message, and you always know where they stand on the issues."

The Right march in lockstep because they firmly believe that, in the order of concepts such as "Good Versus Evil" and "Right Versus Wrong", they fall squarely on the side of Goodness and Righteousness.

The Left have never deigned to deceive themselves with such oversimplification - although we tend to understand that many right-wingers simply lack education, curiosity or empathy, and are much more likely to be misinformed about any number of social/political matters, and that tends to put them on the wrong side of the issues.

If the Left start brandishing the same knives as the Right, who will have reserved the good conscience to stand up and say that stabbing is wrong?

[Sapphocrat]

121. I agree with about 50% of your post...

The discussion has deteriorated into one thing: threads suggesting any wingnut you can think of is gay.

This is degrading to us in the Gay and Lesbian community. Are you trying to demonize us?

So far, I'm with you. DU goes in cycles of "XYZ-Repuke is gay!" threads -- which would be fine, if the tone of such threads focused solely on the hypocrisy involved, and somehow managed not to make it sound as if being gay were a bad thing.

Yes there is a FEW closeted gays in the Republican Party, but I'm SICK of all these threads naming all these homophobic heterosexuals as gay. IT'S SICKENING TO SEE THIS TAKE PLACE AT DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND. Please stop, I'm begging you.

I think you're saying, if there's a valid reason to suspect a repuke is gay, then fine, out the bastard. But it is demoralizing to the LGBT community to take a shotgun approach (i.e., "accusing" every other repuke on the planet) of being gay -- because, again, it smacks of the idea "gay = bad."

The Jeff Gannon story has nothing at all to do with Jeff Gannon being gay. It doesn't matter if it is Jeff Gannon or Jennifer Gannon, it has NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.

Agree with you there. It's the hypocrisy, period. It would be no different from finding out that the head of the DEA were a habitual pot smoker. Pot isn't bad -- but persecuting people for doing what you do (or in Gannon's case, who you are) is.

Edit: Anybody who is gay and works for Bush deserves to be OUTED. But what I'm saying is just don't associate us with them. I despise hypocrites, but I'm seeing so much homophobia in these posts such as "is this person gay blah blah blah". I have a problem with being associated with right-wingers. THAT'S ALL.

Nah, I disagree there. I don't want to be associated with any right-wingers, simply because they're a pack of soulless, ideological, self-absorbed, Constitution-murdering morons. If they're gay, so what? As Butterfly McQueen once said of homosexuality (and I paraphrase): "All I want to know is if a person is kind or unkind."

I don't feel any more "associated" with knuckle-dragging, drooling, self-hating, Bush-loving queers than I do with... well, Log Cabin Republicans (who are not quite such knuckle-draggers, but are soulless, ideological, self-absorbed, Constitution-murdering morons -- and gay soulless, ideological, self-absorbed, Constitution-murdering morons at that).

Bottom line for me is this: Out the hateful repukes in any way, shape, or form you can, whether we're talking about a gay closet case who voted for DoMA, or a pillar of "moral values" (I'm thinking Bill Bennett) with a gambling addiction.

As long as we stick to their HYPOCRISY -- and not their sexuality.

Personally, I wish there were a way of outing all repukes for their sexual practices, especially the straight ones. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Paul Wolfowitz plays Nazi dress-up games, John Ashcroft is a trembling masochist, or Rick Santorum likes golden showers.

Such revelations would bring the entire KKK GOP down, once and for all.

[BurtWorm]

131. Thank you!

A lot of these are bordering on the same sort of "It's not about the sex" bullshit that we got sick of so quickly eight years ago.

[usregimechange]

144. I didn't know this was happening, thanks for bringing this to our attentio