« I Challenge Condi Rice | Main | Aggravated Evil »

March 02, 2005

Comments

So, will the confirmation battle be more heated if Rehnquist retires or if Stevens retires? I think obviously the latter.

When Jonathan Alter -- no conservative or Administration friend he -- interviewed me last Thursday, he too remarked on how easy it was to get a White House press pass. In his opinion, this angle of the Gannon story is nonsensical. Which matches up with what my right-wing White House press familiars tell me as well.

In his opinion, this angle of the Gannon story is nonsensical.

Well, we'll see, won't we? If it's that easy, the Fishbowl saga will come to an interesting conclusion. If it turns out not to be that easy, we're back to asking how Gannon/Guckert managed to get one for two years...

No, we probably won't see. The obsessives on this subject will never regard the collective experience of longtime White House media as trumping the anecdote of a single blogger.

Seems to me that Johnathan Alter would indeed find obtaining a press pass easier than would an unknown hack. Care to test the ultimate power of your celebrity status Tacitus?

re: White House press passes. There are two kinds: Day passes, which are supposedly easy to get (although, if Gannon got one, why didn't Fishbowl) and permanent passes, which I have it on very good authority, you must be investigated by the Secret Service to get.

Tacitus: The obsessives on this subject will never regard the collective experience of longtime White House media as trumping the anecdote of a single blogger.

That's an interesting way to put it, Tacitus. It sounds as if, despite your confidence that a day pass really is that easy to get, Fishbowl won't get one. Why is that?

Sorry, that should be: " It sounds as if, despite your confidence that a day pass really is that easy to get, you're also very certain that Fishbowl won't get one. Why is that?"

Think this through: if the White House press office has been taking lots and lots of flak for how easy it is for any weirdo to get a day pass (pace Edward, who's correct on the distinction), then why do you think that situation would continue?

When Jonathan Alter -- no conservative or Administration friend he -- interviewed me last Thursday, he too remarked on how easy it was to get a White House press pass

And of course we are to assume that there is no difference between the treatment by the administration of a well-known journalist and the treatment of a whore with a fake name and no journalism experience. Right.

Luckovich has the best take, 2/27/05 cartoon, on the press pass issue.

Frankly, I don't care what Alter thinks; press passes are not handed out willy nilly to any hack that walks up and asks for one. Gannon had zero credentials and was admitted before he was affiliated with Talon (itself a fake news service). The only relevance of that point is that someone in the White house thought it appropriate to pack the room with a shill.

I guess fake Republican news is not worth commenting on.

Tac, do you believe Gannon received day passes for two years for no other reason than its just so darn easy to get one? You can't really believe this, its silly.

If not, than why would they single out one guy with no credentials? Who also lobs softballs at the Pres and his press flack?

Some folks aren't quite getting it: Alter didn't remark upon how easy it is for Jonathan Alter to get a day pass, but upon how easy it is for anyone in general. And his opinion appears to be the consensus among those in a position to know. (And sorry, I rather doubt dmbeaster is one of them.)

But as I remarked above, the obsessives on this subject will never regard the collective experience of longtime White House media as trumping the anecdote of a single blogger.

Tacitus, if the gloss you put on the alleged consensus was true, the press room would be overrun with wannabe "journalists." Your assertion that anyone could get in contains its own fallacy -- because the press room would then be swamped by ever nutball seeking that stage.

P.S. -- Gannon was denied a Congressional press pass; do they have higher standards?

Maureen Dowd had a hard time getting a pass - how odd. And the post-9/11 policy was to not allow the use of day passes to circumvent the vetting system, yet someone with sub-blogging credentials managed to get access to the President having already failed the vetting system - how odd.

Maureen Dowd had a hard time getting a pass

What are you, some kind of "obsessive"?
.

Posting rules, felix, that's hardly civil.

Should have included the <sarcasm> tags I guess...I was joking, of course, in order to make a point about the use of the term.

felix, I was joking too, for the same reason.

I've given you enough flak in the past that perhaps I should have been clearer.

Maybe Maureen should try posting some nude pics on the internet and changing her name...she's got the lack of journalism skills thing down.

Felix, I believe rilke was also trying to make a point, not at your expense. But now the wit is just too subtle for me.

Tacitus, the political blogosphere has been, nearly since its inception, the exclusive domain of competing obsessives. The good folks at Red State are never afraid to dwell on a point for a while. It's hardly the insult you'd like it to be.

The Guckert thing doesn't excite me. We have an open press. I can declare myself a reporter at any time and be nominally correct. I don't think agitating for the White House to be more exclusive in its credentialing of the press is a good idea. I think it's the opposite of a good idea, and plays right into Bush's journophobia. Furthermore, the press secretary isn't under any obligation to call on hardball journalists as much as he calls on softball journalists. Maybe that's unfortunate, since it seems to give him a lot of inappropriate leeway to define the press conference, but that's the way it is. So I'm curious as to what good's supposed to come out of this. Guckert fired? Great, I doubt it was his primary income, but whatever. The White House embarassed? Good, they should be. But it's done. And they're going to find another softball artist to replace Guckert, without an iota of shame.

So I'm curious as to what good's supposed to come out of this.

The truth, eventually.

Maybe Maureen should try posting some nude pics on the internet

Ack!

Thanks a bunch. Excuse me whilst I go erase that image from my brain...

"The truth, eventually."

Don't we have that? Hardcore Republican hack gets press pass and uses it for years to ask vacuous questions that make the President sound good. Ari and Scott call on him a lot, because they know that's what he's going to do. What else is there? Am I too far out in front of the hunt?

I don't think agitating for the White House to be more exclusive in its credentialing of the press is a good idea.

It's not so much exclusivity of its credentialing of the press, it's a non-trivial definition of "the press" in the first place. Mind you, I think that's a subtlety that will be (and already is, oftentimes deliberately) completely lost in the furore.

So, dmbeaster, got a list of everyone who gets a White House day pass? Just wondering.

And speaking of fake news, color me unsurprised that they'd blacklist Dowd. There's no there there.

So, dmbeaster, got a list of everyone who gets a White House day pass? Just wondering.

I'd imagine the list of those who get a White House day pass every day for two years would be substantially shorter...

What else is there?

What the administration knew about G/G when it credentialed him, and why it gave him a pass when Congress declined to do so. What the relationships were between the organizations he worked for and the administration. Whether G/G had access to classified information as he claimed, and if so, who gave it to him. Who was giving him other inside information (for example, information about the timing of the attack on Iraq). Whether this was a single isolated case or not.

There could be a story there, there might not be. There is still plenty to be look into, though. I don't think access to press conferences should be more exclusive, but I think the public should have easier access to information about who is asking the questions (like their real names, for instance), who is paying them to ask the questions, and what the relationship between the people asking the questions and the people answering them is.

'The obsessives', 'Some folks aren't quite getting it', 'I rather doubt'

Well, I guess some people really don't learn from experience. Walk away, guys, it's not worth the effort.

sidereal:

there's a couple of reasons to push on the story.

1. the partisan one -- it's embarrassing to the admin.

2. prurient curiosity -- how did someone with no credentials get so far so fast? was it just chance? as a result of pillow talk? if so, was he f**king admin. officials who spout anti-gay rhetoric?

the story is not actually particularly newsworthy, but given the vast appetite for trivia (not to mention for turning molehills into mountains) of the media and bloggers, it's certainly fair game.

"obsessives" -- keeping your posts at the usual high level, i see.

Francis

lj, verbum sap, thanks.

lj, are you really objecting to 'Some folks aren't quite getting it' and 'I rather doubt'? They both seem pretty mild to me.

LJ is a delicate soul, kenB.

Keep pursuing this one, guys. Straight into public irrelevance.

I'm not objecting, merely noting. If I got told I did something wrong, and I respected the fact that the person telling me that may have had a point, I would do my damndest (assuming that I respect that person) to try and avoid a similar situation and I would prefer to have discussions with people who feel the same way. I think there are others who might share my feeling and I was making my observation for their benefit. I mean, if the observation is irrelevant, why bother with the jabs? Sorry if not enjoying people acting out being the playground bully is construed as being too delicate.

considering that none of the posters here actually has any clout with the democratic party, tacitus, must you be so rude?

don't you have a couple of other dog pounds for throwing that kind of red meat around?

G'morning, Dinkle.

Meanwhile, since this is nominally an open thread, I nearly hurt something laughing when I saw this front-page headline in the PI today. It gets my nomination for the single most unintentionally vulgar headline I've ever seen.

Alter didn't remark upon how easy it is for Jonathan Alter to get a day pass, but upon how easy it is for anyone in general.

How would he know? He is not 'anyone in general'. He is a well known journalist. Only an unknown can check if nobodies can easily get passes. And that's what this blogger is doing.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=142>Obsessives in the house?

Don't make me retell the killer whale artificial insemination story, Catsy.

Its already been done.

http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$2221

Long story short it takes 2 weeks of phone calls for a real journalist to get a day pass for one day.

Wait...it takes two weeks to set up a semi-platonic date between a couple of killer whales?

Personaly (I can't speak for anyone else.) I'm a mean spirited bastard. What I want from this story is simple. 24/7 coverage by all the networks and cable outlets, front page stories every day, public speculation about how much George W Bush likes it up the poop shute, nightly jokes on Leno, Letterman, Conan, and Craig running for about 10 years. An investigation spending 30 or so million dollars and an impeachment would be nice too...but I'm not greedy, I'll settle for the preceding.

Oh no one has mentioned the blackmail by foreign powers angle.... I'd also like some talk about that.

felixrayman- We should know who is asking questions in the press room, and what their financial interests are. Normally they are already required to use their real names in the press room. Women who use their maiden names to write their columns, still have to use their married names in the press room. Another case where the regular rules didn't apply to Gannon.

Do you guys really think there is any there there in this Gannon stuff? No offense chaps, but this is more paranoid and pathetic than the 'Clinton off'd Vince Foster' nonsense I used to see from the right. And I really mean no offense (believe it or not).

Thank you for phrasing it much more nicely, Mac. I think it depends on what you mean by 'there' (or 'there there', I guess) If you mean a massive plot to undermine our way of life, no, not really. But if you mean the sort of hypocrisy that the administration demonstrates relatively constantly, yeah, might be applicable. Of course, we are only going to know if we know all the facts, so I think that all of Gigi's records, including the forms he signed to apply, the people who vouched for him, etc. should be made public.

A second point is that it demonstrates how gormless the WH press corps is. In fact, anyone who was in the press room should be credited as reporter X who sat in the same room for x amount of time while an obvious story sat next to him/her.

BTW, Frank, I appreciate the sentiment, but discussions of presidential orifices could have easily been left out.

this is more paranoid and pathetic than the 'Clinton off'd Vince Foster' nonsense

Back in the day, how many millions do you think would have been spent on the investigation if a whore using a fake name and posing as a journalist for a fly-by-night news organization with links to the Democratic Party claimed to have been given classified CIA documents and other inside information by the Clinton administration, and if the administration had then been caught telling lies about what it knew about the guy?

Is there a there there? During the last couple months, something like half a dozen journalists have been discovered to have undisclosed links to either the White House or the RNC. Even if nothing else comes out, it is a piece in an ugly-looking puzzle. Your presumably heartfelt concern, and the concern of Tacitus, that some people (obsessives, some might call them) may, in a paranoid and pathetic manner, be following a non-story is noted, and is truly touching. I hadn't figured either one of you for such delicate souls.

Yet I will have to agree with lj here. The facts need to be looked into, information needs to be made public. If it turns out to be a non-story, good.

And if it were just Gannon's press room shilling, that would be one thing. But it's Gannon spouting propaganda in question form at press briefings, plus the fake-news propaganda pieces fed to TV stations and broadcast in some markets as actual news, plus journalists writing propaganda on taxpayer dime for publication in newspapers as actual "opinion" pieces, plus folks who actually want to question Bush's Social Security plans being excluded from the President's phony town hall meetings. This is a consistent pattern of trying to undermine the public's ability to inform themselves.

Macallan, Tacitus, doesn't this pattern bother you? The ends don't justify these means, do they?

Mac, some of the above view is of a piece with my annoyance or alarm about this.

So, dmbeaster, got a list of everyone who gets a White House day pass? Just wondering.

Dear Tacitus:

Your snark serves no purpose. How about employing simple logic.

Something important to journalists like the White House press room means people will want the ticket, which means that someone has to be a gate-keeper and have some criteria for deciding who gets in. Because not everyone gets to go.

Unless you believe that the White House has trouble attracting people to fill the press conferences, so they let any walk-on attend.

Therefore, it makes no sense to just spout, as you do, that anyone can easily get in. You refer to a journalists who said its easy to get a day pass, but the fair inference from that remark is that its not that hard for regular journalists to apply for and get a day pass. That makes sense and may be perfectly true, but so what. What would he know about the ability of a nobody like Gannon getting a press pass?

The White House has been asked to explain its general criteria for issuing passes -- so far, I don't think they have done so. Whatever has been said does not make sense when applied to Gannon. They have also declined to provide any specifics as to how Gannon got his pass. Ultimately, it is this information that would answer the question, but it has not been released.

Do you guys really think there is any there there in this Gannon stuff?

Ok, I'll take a (hit off the) crack (pipe).

1) The whole thing is profoundly weird. We're not talking Russell Mokhiber weird; we're talking Weekly World News/Rocky Horror Picture Show weird. This guy had no more business being in the White House than a, well, a D.C. streetwalker, and nobody seems to know how he got in. And Talon News/GOPUSA isn't a conservative website as much as cross between a spam operation and Nixon's Plumbers. Even weirder is the conventional beltway wisdom that this isn't considered weird (not unlike a lot of other things that I won't get into now). The Wash. press' refusal to even address the Gannon matter is only making this situation worse, encouraging all kinds of Area 51-ish speculation about what the hell's going on.

2) I've long given up on accountability for relatively little things like this, much less matters of consequence. But now we can't even get a weasely non-denial denial: just a shrug of the shoulders and a "heh." It's like our leaders have all turned into those creepy little kids from the Family Circle: "Not me."

3) We seem to be moving beyond the argument about the press' liberal bias to a paradigm where the "press" (along with things like "science," "evidence" "expert") does not even exist outside of a Platonic ideal. "Reporter" can mean publicist, PR flack, Web wank artist, party stooge, Moonie cultist, Nixonian rat fu*ker or Beltway crack whore. Or even, God forbid, Haloscan hounds.

liberal japonicus: Well, I guess some people really don't learn from experience. Walk away, guys, it's not worth the effort.

Oh, conceded. I'm sitting here munching popcorn watching the show.

Speaking of which, Catsy, thanks for the elephant story!

BTW, Frank, I appreciate the sentiment, but discussions of presidential orifices could have easily been left out.

Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 3, 2005 12:59 AM

I respectfully disagree. Half the good jokes will relate to presidential orifaces being used in a manner Republicans believe God did not intend. :)

Hmmm wonder if that would be cause for impeachment?

misuse of the presidential oriface.

Or did I mean impactment?

Fishbowl saga

More posts by Eddie, which Tac and Mac gently dismember is that the "fishbowl saga" we are talking about here?

Sorry, Timmy, did Tacitus manage to "dismember" this post? I didn't notice. (Macallan didn't even try... ;-))

Worst job in the world.....

elephant masturbator

(bottom right of page)

for me, the most interesting part of the JimJeff story is the fact that the legions of moralizers and their enablers on the right are completely silent about this.

nobody can doubt for a second that their howling and screeching would be deafening, if the president in this situation was a Democrat. we'd hear 24/7 about how this was a perfect example of the moral rot permeating the very soul of the Democratic party; how this is yet another example of how libruls are corrupting the nation; how the left is actively working to destroy the credibility of the presidency; Congress would have seven investigations going at once; demands for impeachment/resignation would be in every op-ed page in the country; etc..

does anyone honestly doubt this ?

does anyone honestly doubt this ?

No. But did you hear Eric Alter said it was easy to get a daypass?

Actually, Cleek, I've been thinking about it and it doesn't surprise me at all.

Redstate actively supports a Senator who thinks lesbians and gays ought not to be allowed to teach in state schools. Anyone who supported George W. Bush for President actively supported a man who thinks lesbians and gays ought not to be allowed to get married. Well, Gannon/Guckert appears neither to have wanted to teach in school or get married. We don't even know for sure that he's gay: but if he was, he was putting his sexuality to good hard profitable use, not frittering around wanting to be faithful or loving or loyal to one partner, in an unprofitable kind of way. And then he moved on from his career as a prostitute to work as a real whore, asking dirty questions for money!

What on earth could a good conservative find immoral about that?

I imagine Gannon to be like Pacino's character in Angels in America. I loved the scene when he tells his doctor he isn't homosexual just because he has sex with men. To him, a homosexual is a nobody, has no power. He was just a powerful man who happens to have sex with other men.

Any of you guys who have an opinion here actually know if Dowd was applying for the same type of pass that Gannon was?

Ignorance is such bliss...

This whole Jim/Jeff episode has Angel IV written all over it.

I would do my damndest....to try and avoid a similar situation....

Indeed. This is why I'm not referring to your personal life. And ignoring the rest.

considering that none of the posters here actually has any clout with the democratic party....

To the contrary: you (collectively) are the new base. Internet activists are now a major influence in the Democratic Party. Dean isn't DNC Chair for nothing.

don't you have a couple of other dog pounds for throwing that kind of red meat around?

Yep. Is this your red-meat-free space? No? Well.

Only an unknown can check if nobodies can easily get passes.

Wrong. Membership in group X is not a prerequisite for objective assessment of group X.

Macallan, Tacitus, doesn't this pattern bother you?

Yep. It does indeed: even what we publicly know is reprehensible and dumb of the Administration. I just think this day pass nonsense is silly, is all.

You refer to a journalists who said its easy to get a day pass, but the fair inference from that remark is that its not that hard for regular journalists to apply for and get a day pass.

No, the fair inference is that he meant what he said (and to reiterate, it's not just him saying it): that it's easy for anyone to do it.

The White House has been asked to explain its general criteria for issuing passes -- so far, I don't think they have done so.

My guess, based upon seeing Executive branch press ops elsewhere, is that there is no standard, written criteria: it's subjective, based upon the judgment of the gatekeeper in question.

Cleek: You're right, but is this relevant beyond itself? Not really. Either you disapprove of such behavior, in which case you're glad it's not happening; or you approve of it, in which case you're a hypocrite for complaining about it.

Heet: Eric Alterman <> Jonathan Alter. Thanks for playing.

Fascinating.

I would recommend Hanlon's Razor in this case, but then that's just me.

Tacitus: Either you disapprove of such behavior, in which case you're glad it's not happening; or you approve of it, in which case you're a hypocrite for complaining about it.

I think that's the point Cleek was making, Tacitus (if ze will forgive me for assuming): right-wing hypocrisy run rampant.

Heet: Eric Alterman <> Jonathan Alter. Thanks for playing.

oh snap! I was dissed! Whatever shall I do?

Probably you'll do nothing.

Jesurgislac, yes: it is indeed hypocritical of the broader right. That's also irrelevant to the point I was making.

Well, that was the point. Thanks for playing!

I think that's the point Cleek was making...right-wing hypocrisy run rampant

yes, 100%

That's also irrelevant to the point I was making.

Ah? So the point you were making was that right-wing hypocrisy is irrelevant? To what? Surely right-wing hypocrisy is very relevant when discussing the Gannon/Guckert scandal?

Either you disapprove of such behavior, in which case you're glad it's not happening; or you approve of it, in which case you're a hypocrite for complaining about it

i'm not complaining about their lack of complaint; i'm complaining about their hypocrisy. i'd just as soon they keep their holier-than-thou mouths shut at all times (censorship! wah!) - keep their proclamations about SpongeBob and other examples of moral decay to themselves.

of course, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone here that the Morality Police are hypocrites; but political blogs are special places.

keep their proclamations about SpongeBob and other examples of moral decay to themselves.

Who's this "they" you keep referring to, and what relationship (as it were) do "they" have with Gannon? If you've got a Dobson/Gannon connection or something of that nature, that'd be juicy indeed.

If you've got a Dobson/Gannon connection or something of that nature, that'd be juicy indeed.

Now you are beginning to see why we need Congressional hearings!

Now, that's not a bad idea. If we can keep Congress tied up in hearings, maybe no other harm would get done. We'd perhaps not have any new National Midwife's Day kind of legislation passed for at least a couple of weeks.

Slarti, I think the point is that Dr James Dobson doesn't seem to have a thing to say about the Bush administration admitting a gay male prostitute to the White House press room, nor a thing to say about all those right-wing pundits now advocating tolerance towards gays (well, towards Gannon/Guckert, at least). Odd, that, since he so strongly objected to SpongeBob SquarePants.

So, cleek was crying hypocrite on Dobson and fellow travelers, rather than the entire Republican party? Odd, it didn't come off quite that way.

So the point you were making was that right-wing hypocrisy is irrelevant?

Wow, man.

I hate to do the cliched "pox on both houses" thing, but both sides are really letting their biases run away with them regarding this story.

Jes, et al.: Okay, so the G.O.P. planted a softball pitcher in the press room. This is surprising to whom? It's shady, sure, and given G/G's other job, the whole thing looks really scandalous. But the conspiracy tendrils kind of disappear when examined - as far as I can tell, Gannon just posted a bunch of press room scuttlebut on Free Republic to make himself look like an insider. Someone bullshitting on FR? Aaaagh! Stop the presses!

Tacitus, et al.: Come on. Obviously they don't let just anybody into the press room of the West Wing of the White House, every day, for years (including appearances by the President himself) just because they ask politely. Your argument on this point, apparently supported only by a single sentence in an interview with J. Alter (and not the "collective experience of the MSM"), strains credibility, and just looks knee-jerk. This is a legitimate, if minor-league story. It doesn't look good, but it ain't going to bring your guy down, either. Telling everybody to shut up about it or risk "public irrelevance" just makes you look scared, more scared than you ought to be, really.

We'd perhaps not have any new National Midwife's Day kind of legislation passed for at least a couple of weeks.

Speaking on behalf of the American Midwives' Association, I cannot believe this kind of intolerance is allowed to occur here. If Congress will not stand up and recognize our midwifery, who will? Who, I ask you?!

I have to say even with a National Midwife's Day, I still wouldn't recognize a midwife if I saw one.

Wonder what sort of Google ranking this is going to give us for someone looking for a midwife? Midwife midwife midwife.

Obviously they don't let just anybody into the press room of the West Wing of the White House, every day, for years

st meet Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas this is st. You kids need to chat.

Wonder what sort of Google ranking this is going to give us for someone looking for a midwife?

I wonder to what extent the comments get indexed. Remember that "Journalist Slartibartfast" thing from awhile back? Still 0 results. I wonder if Google stops seeing new comments on a thread after a certain point.

Helen Thomas, let's see...reporter with 61 years of experience, 57 of them with United Press International, beats included the Federal government, the FBI, and Capitol Hill, covered every President since JFK. I don't know how sharp-eyed you are, but perhaps you may notice a few small differences between that record and the record of a whore with a fake name and no experience as a reporter?

Slarti: So, cleek was crying hypocrite on Dobson and fellow travelers, rather than the entire Republican party?

Well, certainly crying hypocrite on those Republicans who screamed about Kerry mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, and who openly supported Jim DeMint (link) - yet who are now blandly claiming that the presence of a gay prostitute pretending to be a journalist in the White House press room is no scandal at all.

How far does this constitute "the entire Republican party"? I don't know. Perhaps Tacitus could run a poll on Redstate and find out.

Tacitus - "When Jonathan Alter -- no conservative or Administration friend he -- interviewed me last Thursday, he too remarked on how easy it was to get a White House press pass. In his opinion, this angle of the Gannon story is nonsensical. Which matches up with what my right-wing White House press familiars tell me as well."

Last weekend, Jim Pinkerton, a former official in the Reagan and Bush I White Houses, said on "Fox News Watch," no less, that such a feat "takes an incredible amount of intervention from somebody high up in the White House," that it had to be "conscious" and that "some investigation should proceed and they should find that out."

We report you decide.

I don't doubt there has been an investigation and the reason for Gannon/Guckerts privileged access has been determined. I also have no doubt that such information will never become public during the life of this administration or any subsequent R administration.

felixrayman,

Oh, I thought we were talking 'bout partisan hacks having easy access to the White House press room. Apparently the "whore" angle is more important to you. Good luck with that.

"Do you guys really think there is any there there in this Gannon stuff? No offense chaps, but this is more paranoid and pathetic than the 'Clinton off'd Vince Foster' nonsense I used to see from the right."

Well actually I don't think anything could be more paranoid and pathetic than the 'Clinton off'd Vince Foster' nonsense (wasn't it Hillary who did the deed as part of a satanic ritural also involving the Whitehouse dog?)

But isn't the whole point or lesson from the Clinton years that the Republican party and the broader right (complete with its looney fringes) was not consigned to irrelevance and political oblivion by the endless scandal mongering? In fact, quite the reverse seems to have occurred.

(How real or relevant or true any individual "scandal" is is not important, nor is how looney the particulars are. Just keep grabbing onto anything that appears, magnify, twist and hammer away. When it fades, repeat and repeat and repeat).

So watching non-looney members of the broader right (Macallan and Tacitus on this thread) tsk-tsking away as the broader left attempts to apply the lesson-learned is more than a little amusing.

Oh, I thought we were talking 'bout partisan hacks having easy access to the White House press room.

No, we were talking about the difference between Helen Thomas and G/G. Apparently you think both a whore with a fake name and no journalism experience and a reporter with 61 years of experience are equally qualified to report on your government. Explains a lot actually. Oh, and good luck with that.

yet who are now blandly claiming that the presence of a gay prostitute pretending to be a journalist in the White House press room is no scandal at all.

Why does his being gay or whatever have to do with anything? Do you know the sexual bent or proclivities of the rest of the people who've been in the pressroom over the last 100 years? And you want to talk about hypocrisy? Do I have that correct?

Macallan - Oh, I thought we were talking 'bout partisan hacks having easy access to the White House press room. Apparently the "whore" angle is more important to you. Good luck with that.

You call a lifetime career in journalism "easy access"? whatever you might think of Helen Thomas's questioning of the President you cannot deny she earned the right to be there. Something, sans person or persons in the WH wanting him to be there, Gannon/Guckert clearly did not.

postit,

Perhaps you had not seen the news, but Ms. Thomas resigned from UPI and retired as journalist in 2000. She followed up her "distinguished" career by writing a barely syndicated column that could be the dictionary definition of partisan hackdom. Yet, she had a front row seat for years after having no credible purpose being in the pressroom. That was the point in response to st's comment:

Obviously they don't let just anybody into the press room of the West Wing of the White House, every day, for years

Because obviously they do let some people into the pressroom who have no business being there. Gannon and Thomas appear to be excellent as well as embarrassing examples.

"I still wouldn't recognize a midwife if I saw one."

They look a lot like doulas. Doula doula doula.

Mac, HT gets grandmothered in. Even if she hasn't had the grace to withdraw, she was the lead voice in the press room for generations. Bush shouldn't call on her if he doesn't feel like it.

Big difference in my view between "Let's let the geezer die without humiliating her" and "let's bring in a zero-qualification ringer in violation of policy and give him extra access".

Big difference in my view between "Let's let the geezer die without humiliating her" and "let's bring in a zero-qualification ringer in violation of policy and give him extra access".

If that were the case, I might agree with you. However, that would be ignoring Hanlon's Razor and I haven't seen any reason yet to do so.

yes, but macallan, Helen Thomas is not "just anybody;" see all of the previous discussion of her extensive credentials, which you are studiously ignoring.

To say nothing of the fact that the presence of Thomas, a lefty partisan, says nothing about (a) what kind of pass helen thomas has, or (b) or what kind of vetting was done on her. As it is pretty safe to say that the amount of vetting done on G/G was, ahem, none at all, beyond perhaps a brief party affiliation check, then I think you can't compare the two until you have information showing that Thomas got the same light treatment.

Wow, you guys really are scared of this story, aren't you? Yikes.

Well, certainly crying hypocrite on those Republicans who screamed about Kerry mentioning that Mary Cheney is a lesbian, and who openly supported Jim DeMint (link) - yet who are now blandly claiming that the presence of a gay prostitute pretending to be a journalist in the White House press room is no scandal at all.

Not sure what inconsistency you're seeing there, Jesurgislac. Care to elaborate?

Remember that "Journalist Slartibartfast" thing from awhile back? Still 0 results.

Still much less of a journalist than Ann (she's a journalist because Google says she is) Coulter. How humiliating. OTOH, if I'd really wanted to be a journalist, I could have dispensed with the engineering and math.

So, cleek was crying hypocrite on Dobson and fellow travelers, rather than the entire Republican party?

yes.

specifically, the legions of moralizers, and their enablers, on the right. but i don't think the whole GOP fits into that group.

Oh, and visavis Hanlon's Razor, frankly, I agree with you. I think the scandal here is that the Bush press folks acted with naked incompetence in the pursuit of their goal - a reliable partisan go-to in the press room. That's the story. It's a legitimate story. It is, like I said at 11:59, minor league, but it is legitimate, even seen through the Hanlon lens. You guys are running the country. F**king grow up, take the hit, and move on.

the Bush press folks acted with naked incompetence in the pursuit of their goal

That's not using Hanlon's Razor. You're still assuming malice, that they were pursing a goal, rather than just being stupid. You really need to get a grip, what the heck good does G/G really do the White House? Who ever watched his questions or read his dumb little stories? He influenced exactly zero people.

Wow, you guys really are scared of this story, aren't you? Yikes.

Oh yes! My quaking is epic! How dare you see through the yawns and uncover my dark sinister intentions… I curse you! Well, actually I don't. I tried, really I tried, but I just couldn't muster it. Sorry. I'll work on it.

The comments to this entry are closed.