How *Not* To Do It

Promote civil dialogue, that is.

The charming, personable “Leftilocks”--nothing like truth in nomenclature; maybe I’ll try it sometime ;-)--leaves this comment on my post regarding the Jeff Gannon/James Guckert scandal.

There's so much misinformation in this entry it's as if the blogger were on crack and ether. But baldi, we're gonna try and make it real simple for you, so easy to grasp that you ought to be able to understand it, although you'll blow a fuse and go off on a bizarre tear anyway. Just so you know.

Why is it that so many of those who disagree on a particular position seem incapable of being insulting and condescending? I may light into public figures, but I consider those who come to comment here as guests. There may be a little sarcasm coming from the hostess, but that’s as far as it goes. Well, unless they start it.

Now (pay attention, baldi)…

Attention, of course, is what he/she is looking for and I’m happy to oblige. Never let it be said that I’m not a giver.

…Talon was created after GOPUSA hired Gannon. Talon was formed in order to provide Gannon/Guckert with a stream of income that would qualify his claim to be a "journalist." Talon did not "hire" Gannon because he was already onboard. Three months prior to the formation of Talon, Gannon was already attending White House briefings; the question of his press passes was becoming a critical issue, so Bohert and company formed Talon as a way around the problem. OK?

Most of those who have an different point of view than mine—like frequent commenter Darkstar--are usually kind to provide links to bolster their assertions (I’ll get to your stuff on that other subject in the next post, Darkstar.) If you’re merely serving up propaganda of your own making, that’s fine, but you might consider using that time-tested phrase “in my opinion” if you’re too lazy to provide links. And I’m definitely not casting aspersions on you, Leftilocks. I get that way also. However, when I say something *here* without attribution, any readers can assume that it’s mere opinion; that is implicit in the definition of the word “weblog.”

On my own blog, I have the privilege of opining without giving it the label “opinion.” You don’t, unless I extend it to you. Call it one of the benefits of the “Ownership Society.”

Next, nobody with an ounce of sense cares whether Gannon (or anybody else) is [sic] a male hooker..
That's his business.

I certainly agree, that is if he no longer has that...um...profession.

The problem is Gannon's anti-gay diatribes he wrote for Talon, the fact that the administration is contemplating an anti-gay amendment to the U.S. Constitution while simultaneously hiring gays to field softballs at the Prez during conferences, and that this simple fact raises substantial questions of security and encomprisement [ed. Note: ну, что?] of senior White House officials.

What makes a prospective "Defense of Marriage Act" "anti-gay?" Is it because the president doesn't want to give homosexuals something they want? The president is perfectly willing to stay out of the way of prospective civil union legislation of states. The fact that many homosexuals want the word *marriage* attached to this type of union strikes me as "go[ing] off on a bizarre tear," stamping their feet to have that particular label attached to such unions.

(For the record, the main issue I have with same-sex marriage, should it become the law of the land, is this: what will happen to reverends, priests, rabbis and imams who refuse to join two men or two women in “holy” matrimony? I’ve seen no one address this particular conundrum.)

And what, exactly does any of that have to do with the Gannon/Guckert kerfluffle? Assuming that all you say about Gannon's/Guckert's ties to GOPUSA are true, is there some law, policy, etc. that bars partisans from the White House press pool? And when did *admitted* homosexuals (i.e., not able to be blackmailed on the subject) become related to security issues and barred from asking questions of the president? Are there persons holding permanent or temporary White House press passes that have penned “pro-gay diatribes” (read pro same-sex marriage)? Yes? No? Maybe?

Lastly, this story is extremely important because it indicates that the White House is perfectly happy to plant its own staff into press briefings in order to manipulate the tone and content of said briefings. I don't think we've seen this before.

Perhaps that is because previous White Houses—or at least the last one—didn’t have to do that. The Clinton White House enjoyed the advantage of the fact that 90% of the mainstream media are admitted Democrats/Liberals/Leftists. Previous White Houses seemingly enjoyed more of a balance of ideologies and/or (again, seemingly) more objectivity among same.

However, your concerns do have some merit. (And you can thank me later for doing your work for you.)

White House credential rules state that reporters may only obtain credentials if they represent a news organization that "regularly publishes" -- which would have eliminated Talon News in February 2003, as it did not exist then.

Fleischer told E&P yesterday that he had concerns in 2003 that GOPUSA was not a legitimate news service and might have Republican Party ties, and he stopped calling on Guckert at briefings for about a week. But, after speaking with GOPUSA and Talon News owner Eberle, and being assured that the sites supposedly had no connection to the party, he resumed calling on Guckert.

McClellan confirmed that such concerns were raised. "I remember when Ari and I talked about it, we were concerned who he represented and checked with staff who said he represented a conservative news Web site named GOPUSA," McClellan said. "We were concerned because he was a new face in the White House. I think we did ask questions about it and Ari talked to the editor."

McClellan said he was not concerned with Guckert's affiliation at anytime after Fleischer's initial concern.

Considering that the Bush Administration has had a more recent problem—albeit one that seem to have its origin around the same time--with proponents of its policies, it would behoove McClellan to take a more active interest in who receives day-passes into his briefings, if only to set down a more concrete policy on paper. That is, if he wants to keep his job.

The other questions, such as why rules were bent, how they were altered solely for Gannon's benefit, and by what means he was issued a pass under an alias are yet to be answered - but the questions are worth asking…

Right: the questions are worth asking. Wrong: Gannon was issued the pass under an alias.

Pretty much every day, Gannon got cleared into the White House briefing room by a press office that knew his real name.

So much for misinformation.

Does this situation measure up to former CNN exec Eason Jordan’s slander of the US Armed Forces? Does it measure up to soon-to-be former CBS News anchor Dan Rather trying to pass off forged documents regarding the military service of a sitting president right before an election? Don’t make me laugh.

Or maybe that’s what you’re trying to do. If that’s the case, gratitude is in order.

Easy enough for ya? Nope, didn't think so.

Actually, I find Google very easy to use for information purposes, even if I find information that contradicts my initial assertion.

You ought to try using it sometime. Oh and, believe me, a dead-tree dictionary comes in handy when one wants to use a word, but isn’t sure that the word means what one thinks it means or that it even exists.

Never let it be said that I’m not helpful.