Jeff Gannon a.k.a. Jim Guckert: White House Press Plant Extraordinaire/Gay Porn Guy

[Batman Jr.]

http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/02/08.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/174746/7900

First, it was Armstrong Williams, then Maggie Gallagher, then Michael McManus, and then this guy. How many people does it take to see that Bush & co. are up to no good?

BTW: This is the same guy who asked the leading question at a press conference recently: "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. [Senate Minority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] was talking about soup lines. And [Senator] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you've said you are going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

[TragicMonkey]

No offense, Bats, but if you're going to put "Gay Porn" into the thread title, you need to have a juicier story.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/02/08.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/8/174746/7900

First, it was Armstrong Williams, then Maggie Gallagher, then Michael McManus, and then this guy. How many people does it take to see that Bush & co. are up to no good?

So the only conclusion one can draw is that Bush is up to no good?

Bush couldn't make poor decisions for good reasons?

[Luke T.]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
First, it was Armstrong Williams, then Maggie Gallagher, then Michael McManus, and then this guy. How many people does it take to see that Bush & co. are up to no good?

An evil plot by Bush to further the gay agenda.

Huh.

[Random]

Look, there is no indication that this in any way involves gay porn. If anything it only involves one male homosexual prostitute who provides "military escort" services to willing buyers, who then gets through White House security to ask softball questions of the President. That's it.

Unless it's not.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
So the only conclusion one can draw is that Bush is up to no good?

Bush couldn't make poor decisions for good reasons?

I'm casting about for any and all possibilities. The only thing I can come up with is that Bush is going to extraordinary lengths to manipulate media coverage, to his own advantage, with fakery and fraud. What conclusions have you got? I'd love to consider them?

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I'm casting about for any and all possibilities.

Perhaps the guy got the "reporting" job in exchange for not divulging his client list to the media.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
The only thing I can come up with is that Bush is going to extraordinary lengths to manipulate media coverage, to his own advantage, with fakery and fraud.

He must be in big trouble if hes having to payoff the right wing media. Yeah, thats totally plausible.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx
He must be in big trouble if hes having to payoff the right wing media. Yeah, thats totally plausible.

And your alternative explanation is?

I think he's paying him to take his precise direction (Williams specifically promotes NCLB in his columns). Also, the "Gannon" thing was a way of partially staging press conferences to make it look like the press attitude is more favorable to Bush. But yes, the right wing media, and even the mainstream media, has been very compliant already. On the other hand, there's just all that government revenue sitting around, ready to be spent any way they want. So why not juice it up a little?

[Nova Land]

Quote:

Originally posted by corplinx

He must be in big trouble if hes having to payoff the right wing media.

There are two separate things going on, and it might be good to be clear on the distinction rather than lumping them together.

1. With Armstrong Williams, the Bush administration was, indeed, paying off a right-wing member of the media.

That's not quite how you worded it, but I assume you just didn't take quite enough care to get the words in correct order. There's no indication yet that right-wing media such as the Washington Times or FNC received pay-offs to slant the news. It was individual members of the media, who happened to be right-wing, who were paid off.

Doing this is not as silly as it might sound. Being mistaken is not the same as being dishonest. There are many right-wing members of the media who are generally mistaken on the issues but who still have the integrity to call the shots as they honestly see them. Thus, every once in a while you get someone such as Safire writing very sensible criticisms of Republicans or Republican policies.

By paying Williams, the Bush administration was not simply rewarding him for saying good things, they were getting his agreement not to think independently when he commented publicly on these issues or when he brought administration spokespeople onto programs as guests. That's a good deal, even at $240,000.

2. With "Jeff Gannon", the Bush administration was not paying off an existing member of the media, they were planting a fake reporter.

This makes even more sense than paying off someone who is already in the media, if you can get away with it. Why pay someone who has been trained in journalism (and might have picked up an ethic or two along the line) when you can hire someone to ask the questions you want ask and spin the stuff you want spun? It's not clear yet who paid "Gannon" and how much he got, but I suspect the Bush administration got an even better deal here.

Both situations -- paid-off pundits and planted reporters -- are morally repugnant. But they are not the same. Let's not tar Williams with the same brush as "Gannon".

[Ladewig]

I am trying to imagine the reaction Republican congresscritters would have if a decidedly-left-wing planted reporter who asked the president question containing made-up "quotes" turned out to be a gay prostitute.

Any conservatives here want to speculate what the reaction would be?

[varwoche]

Quote:

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
First, it was Armstrong Williams, then Maggie Gallagher, then Michael McManus, and then this guy. How many people does it take to see that Bush & co. are up to no good?

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
So the only conclusion one can draw is that Bush is up to no good? Bush couldn't make poor decisions for good reasons?

Hi Randfan. IMO, this activity is inherently "up to no good" -- by definition.

[corplinx]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I am trying to imagine the reaction Republican congresscritters would have if a decidedly-left-wing planted reporter who asked the president question containing made-up "quotes" turned out to be a gay prostitute.

Any conservatives here want to speculate what the reaction would be?

Jerry Falwell would make a new fraudulent documentary with another of his staffers pretending to be an insider on the whole thing. Pat Robertson would talk about it being part of the moral corruption of the administration. Tom Delay would ask for the guys phone number.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I'm casting about for any and all possibilities. The only thing I can come up with is that Bush is going to extraordinary lengths to manipulate media coverage, to his own advantage, with fakery and fraud.

I have no problem with that conclusion. I don't necassarily agree exactly but how do you go from that to "up to no good?"

I will ask the question again. Is it possible to make mistakes (including manipulating the media) while trying to do good?

I cannot justify the behavior. It is wrong. But I can imagine that Bush wishes he had some of the folks Clinton had who would throw him softball questions from time to time. Now don't get me wrong. Many gave Clinton hell and in the end he simply stopped doing press reports and even Clinton reffered to the press a "knee-jerk liberal".

I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic that supposes that this blatant not to mention inept attempt at manipulation proves something other than a cynical attempt to manipulate a message to spread propaganda. As if politicians NEVER try and manipulate the media.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by varwoche
Hi Randfan. IMO, this activity is inherently "up to no good" -- by definition.

Your logic is flawed. The activity is admittedly not good however it does not prove "no good".

People do bad things for good reasons and or while doing other good things. I'm not arguing that Bush was or wasn't doing a bad thing for good reason. I'm simply saying that it is possible that Bush does good things. To conclude that Bush never ever does anything good because of this incident is faulty logic and "no good" is just that, never ever doing anything good or at least doing "no good" at all at the time.

[varwoche]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Your logic is flawed. The activity is admittedly not good however it does not prove "no good".

People do bad things for good reasons and or while doing other good things. I'm not arguing that Bush was or wasn't doing a bad thing for good reason. I'm simply saying that it is possible that Bush does good things. To conclude that Bush never ever does anything good because of this incident is faulty logic and "no good" is just that, never ever doing anything good or at least doing "no good" at all at the time.

For the want of a "t" -- no(t)!

Help me understand your point: If someone robs a store in order to feed their hungry family, is the no-goodness of the robbery excused?

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
I have no problem with that conclusion. I don't necassarily agree exactly but how do you go from that to "up to no good?"

I will ask the question again. Is it possible to make mistakes (including manipulating the media) while trying to do good?

I cannot justify the behavior. It is wrong. But I can imagine that Bush wishes he had some of the folks Clinton had who would throw him softball questions from time to time. Now don't get me wrong. Many gave Clinton hell and in the end he simply stopped doing press reports and even Clinton reffered to the press a "knee-jerk liberal".

I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic that supposes that this blatant not to mention inept attempt at manipulation proves something other than a cynical attempt to manipulate a message to spread propaganda. As if politicians NEVER try and manipulate the media.

I have no information that Clinton or his administration engaged in this kind of conduct. I don't see how it's relevant. There is no basis for comparison that I know of in any previous administration (not that it didn't happen). Bush is president today, and this (what we're talking about in this thread) is what we know about his actions.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Your logic is flawed. The activity is admittedly not good however it does not prove "no good".

People do bad things for good reasons and or while doing other good things. I'm not arguing that Bush was or wasn't doing a bad thing for good reason. I'm simply saying that it is possible that Bush does good things. To conclude that Bush never ever does anything good because of this incident is faulty logic and "no good" is just that, never ever doing anything good or at least doing "no good" at all at the time.

I agree with vawoche. Your plea to possible "good reasons" kind of reminds me of Bush's fetish for his own "convictions." That he has convictions is not nearly as relevant to his job as are specific policies and actions. If you are trying to say that his policies are just and good, and that fakery and fraud to achieve them is justified, then I don't even need to say what's wrong with that. I can't even imagine that you would say such a thing. So what are you saying? What good reasons are there. Like vawoche said, it's up to no good by definition. There is no justification on the horizon.

Nothing in this thread can be read to say that Bush will never do any good (though frankly, I think it's almost true - but this is strictly parenthetical and not part of this thread ).

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by varwoche
For the want of a "t" -- no(t)!

Help me understand your point: If someone robs a store in order to feed their hungry family, is the no-goodness of the robbery excused?

Of course not. And I am not excusing the activity of Bush. It was wrong and I have said so.

Question does the robery prove the thief is only up to no good?

BTW, bad analogy. Robery and an attempt to manipulate the media by putting in a plant are hardly analogus as the analogy invites imagery that is not warranted. But I understand the need to draw an extreme.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I have no information that Clinton or his administration engaged in this kind of conduct. I don't see how it's relevant. There is no basis for comparison that I know of in any previous administration (not that it didn't happen). Bush is president today, and this (what we're talking about in this thread) is what we know about his actions.

I never tried to justify Bush's action by anything Clinton did. Your inability to find a link should have been a clue.

On the contrary I was simply pointing out that Presidents on the left are more likely to get softball questions that those on the right.

Please don't shoe horn me into something that I did not do.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
I agree with vawoche. Your plea to possible "good reasons" kind of reminds me of Bush's fetish for his own "convictions." That he has convictions is not nearly as relevant to his job as are specific policies and actions. If you are trying to say that his policies are just and good, and that fakery and fraud to achieve them is justified, then I don't even need to say what's wrong with that. I can't even imagine that you would say such a thing. So what are you saying? What good reasons are there. Like vawoche said, it's up to no good by definition. There is no justification on the horizon.

Hold on, the example given of the robber was that he was doing something good unless feeding one's family is not good. The problem with this example and that of the thief is that it is not justified.

I'm sorry you are unable to see it but the logic is simply wrong. To conclude that Bush is up to "no good" based on this example is unwarranted. I think the more appropriate conclusion is that Bush did something wrong (I think he did something stupid). I'm not personally offended by politicians trying to attempt to manipulate the media. It seems to be what politicians do.

And yes, if this were a Democrat president having done the same thing the Republicans would be up in arms. And I would still come to the same conclusion. Would you?

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by varwoche
For the want of a "t" -- no(t)!

You really don't know the difference between "no good" and "not good". I can do 4 things. If 1 is bad and 3 are good it can't be said that I was up to no good.

It can be said that 1 of those things was "not good".

If all are bad it can be said that I was up to no good.

Just harping on the logic here folks.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I am trying to imagine the reaction Republican congresscritters would have if a decidedly-left-wing planted reporter who asked the president question containing made-up "quotes" turned out to be a gay prostitute.

Any conservatives here want to speculate what the reaction would be?

Mucho laughter, like when Sandy Berger stuck those papers in his crotch and "forgot" about them.

Some things are just plain silly and have no more import than that.

[Lurker]

[CONSERVATIVE SPIN]

Quote:

when Sandy Berger stuck those papers in his crotch and "forgot" about them.

[/CONSERVATIVE SPIN]

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Mucho laughter, like when Sandy Berger stuck those papers in his crotch and "forgot" about them.

Some things are just plain silly and have no more import than that.

Sillier even that it didn't happen. Berger left the room with papers unauthorized, and that was a mistake. That he stuffed them into various parts of his clothing (underwear, socks, etc) was just made up by media and other gossipers.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by RandFan
Hold on, the example given of the robber was that he was doing something good unless feeding one's family is not good. The problem with this example and that of the thief is that it is not justified.

I'm sorry you are unable to see it but the logic is simply wrong. To conclude that Bush is up to "no good" based on this example is unwarranted. I think the more appropriate conclusion is that Bush did something wrong (I think he did something stupid). I'm not personally offended by politicians trying to attempt to manipulate the media. It seems to be what politicians do.

And yes, if this were a Democrat president having done the same thing the Republicans would be up in arms. And I would still come to the same conclusion. Would you?

Don't be sorry. I can see your logic quite clearly. I just don't agree with it. I maintain that the manipulation of the media in this way, by use of fakery and fraud, is not only a mistake, it is unambiguously being up to no good. This is not your standard politicians-manipulating-media through, say, dissembling or obfuscation or tossing interviews to friendly outlets. Both examples, of Williams and of "Gannon," are unprecedented and a blatant attack on the people's right to a news media independent of their government. As for if it happens in a Dem admin, that distraction doesn't fly. It didn't happen in a Dem admin. It happened in the current admin.

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Ladewig
I am trying to imagine the reaction Republican congresscritters would have if a decidedly-left-wing planted reporter who asked the president question containing made-up "quotes" turned out to be a gay prostitute.

Any conservatives here want to speculate what the reaction would be?

Quote:

Ed
Mucho laughter, like when Sandy Berger stuck those papers in his crotch and "forgot" about them.

Some things are just plain silly and have no more import than that.

Yes, on second thought, I realize that there would be no reaction at all. Most Conservatives already believe that the press corp is populated by partisan left-wing prostitutes.

[Ladewig]

I know that siding with RandFan is going to stick in my craw, but he is probably more right than wrong in defending the president. As of today, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bush even knew of much less approved of any of the press shenanigans going on here. Some of his underlings have been up to unsavory activity, but that does not mean GWB is in on it. In fact, I suspect that some of the people pulling this kind of stuff have gone out of their way to make sure that the president does not know about it.

[varwoche]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I know that siding with RandFan is going to stick in my craw, but he is probably more right than wrong in defending the president. As of today, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bush even knew of much less approved of any of the press shenanigans going on here. Some of his underlings have been up to unsavory activity, but that does not mean GWB is in on it. In fact, I suspect that some of the people pulling this kind of stuff have gone out of their way to make sure that the president does not know about it.

Unless "Bush" is taken as shorthand for the Bush administration.

[hgc]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I know that siding with RandFan is going to stick in my craw, but he is probably more right than wrong in defending the president. As of today, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bush even knew of much less approved of any of the press shenanigans going on here. Some of his underlings have been up to unsavory activity, but that does not mean GWB is in on it. In fact, I suspect that some of the people pulling this kind of stuff have gone out of their way to make sure that the president does not know about it.

Yeah, I can just imagine that if Bush had caught wind of these schemes, he would have called a halt to them -- being the man of high moral rectitude he has shown us to be.

Don't let Randfan or Bush off so easily. Bush is responsible for the actions of his administration or he should fire people who make egregious errors. Based on the retention and promotion of the likes of Rumsfeld and Rice, it ain't easy to get fired by Bush for malfeasance or incompetence. The only crime is disloyalty (O'Neill, Whitman).

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I know that siding with RandFan is going to stick in my craw, but he is probably more right than wrong in defending the president. As of today, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bush even knew of much less approved of any of the press shenanigans going on here. Some of his underlings have been up to unsavory activity, but that does not mean GWB is in on it. In fact, I suspect that some of the people pulling this kind of stuff have gone out of their way to make sure that the president does not know about it.

Apparently the buck doesn't stop on the President's desk anymore.

OK, so where is the White House Press Secretary? He's the one who ultimately issues press credentials.

[RandFan]

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
Don't let Randfan or Bush off so easily. Bush is responsible for the actions of his administration or he should fire people who make egregious errors.

C'mon, give me some credit. I have said over and over that the actions were wrong. Furthermore I have assumed Bush was apart of this. Perhaps he wasn't but so what? This is not my point. We can all agree the actions are wrong. However reasonable people myself included can conclude that Bush was not only up to "no good".

How bad was this incident really, I'll let others decide. From a PR perspective it is awful. However it's not another Watergate. I don't think a crime was commited. Still it is not my intention to excuse the actions. They were clearly wrong. Is there something I can do or say to make that more clear?

[jj]

Just remember:

What? Global Warming? Tosh! KEEP ON MESSAGE!
What? NO WMD? Keep on Message!
What? No Saddamn 9/11 link? KEEP ON MESSAGE!
What? It's not really that bad? KEEP ON MESSAGE!

That's how it works now, it's all KEEP ON MESSAGE never mind what is actually happening, what people are actually doing, or how what the science of it all is.

[DavidJames]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
I know that siding with RandFan is going to stick in my craw, but he is probably more right than wrong in defending the president. As of today, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Bush even knew of much less approved of any of the press shenanigans going on here. Some of his underlings have been up to unsavory activity, but that does not mean GWB is in on it. In fact, I suspect that some of the people pulling this kind of stuff have gone out of their way to make sure that the president does not know about it.

Much has been learned from the Nixon Watergate years, at least by Republicans

Dirty tricks are the reponsibility of the hired hands, not the boss, The president must not be implicated.

This will work as long as the supporters continue to be blind shills.

Bush continues to bat 100%, no mistakes.

[Random]

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidJames
Much has been learned from the Nixon Watergate years, at least by Republicans

Dirty tricks are the reponsibility of the hired hands, not the boss, The president must not be implicated.

This will work as long as the supporters continue to be blind shills.

Bush continues to bat 100%, no mistakes.

But this assumes that Bush is the brains of the operation, an assumption that I have a hard time dealing with. I find it far more likely that Rove, Cheney, and some other right wing big wigs just put him up there as their not very bright figurehead.

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj
Just remember:

What? Global Warming? Tosh! KEEP ON MESSAGE!
What? NO WMD? Keep on Message!
What? No Saddamn 9/11 link? KEEP ON MESSAGE!
What? It's not really that bad? KEEP ON MESSAGE!

That's how it works now, it's all KEEP ON MESSAGE never mind what is actually happening, what people are actually doing, or how what the science of it all is.

Hmmm. I was with you right up until the last bit, when you kind of seemed to go off-message. Please remember to keep full sentences to a minimum, and use more buzzwords ("freedom", "security", "American family" are the best). And stop using reason: it alienates the constituents.

[daredelvis]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
Mucho laughter, like when Sandy Berger stuck those papers in his crotch and "forgot" about them.

Some things are just plain silly and have no more import than that.

Except Berger never did this. Who do you think spoon fed you the idea that he did? Are you starting to think that your sources may not be totally credible? Are you starting to see how this thread subject fits into your warped view of events?

Daredelvis

[DavidJames]

Quote:

Originally posted by Random
But this assumes that Bush is the brains of the operation, an assumption that I have a hard time dealing with. I find it far more likely that Rove, Cheney, and some other right wing big wigs just put him up there as their not very bright figurehead.

No, I'm not suggesting Bush is the brains, exactly the opposite, people know what needs to be done and they do it. I'm not even sure there would be just one person behind it. It may simply be the with God on our side, we do what we got to do attitude of some people.

[pgwenthold]

Quote:

Originally posted by Random
But this assumes that Bush is the brains of the operation, an assumption that I have a hard time dealing with. I find it far more likely that Rove, Cheney, and some other right wing big wigs just put him up there as their not very bright figurehead.

Well, they saw it worked with Reagan. I think the elder Bush had too much experience running the CIA to be used as a figurehead as president, but they don't have such problem with the younger.