Who's Next?

While one side pounds the drum for Eason Jordan's scalp, the other has successfully hounded a pseudonymous pro-Bush correspondent from the White House press corps. Which supports my earlier hunch that Jordan won't resign in disgrace until the inquest shifts focus to his sex life.

Comments

[joe]

How Republican - getting caught posing as a journalist while actually working for the people you're covering doesn't seem to be a problem, but being publically indentified as gay is a career killing scandal.

[Franklin Harris]

How Democrat - Can't get a guy for being a fraud, then call him a homo.

Two sides, same coin.

[R C Dean]

I'm expecting the howls of outrage from the radical queer community any minute now.

[ExReporter]

Dude was a GOP shill posing under a phony name inside the White House press corps. The sex life / hypocrisy stuff spices it up, but he would've pushed out regardless.

The WH Press Pack protects nothing more zealously than its station in the DC pecking order, and they're all diminished if any dummy with a phony name and overt agenda can get a WH Press Card. Only dummies who use their real name and cloak their bias in faux objectivity are allowed.

The shill deserves his comeuppance. But the smug response of "legitimate" WH correspondents will be gag-inducing. They're undoubtedly circle-jerking today on the boastful myth of journalism as a "self-correcting" community, while secretly fearing the damn bloggers who threaten their club....

[Morat]

Yeah, got to wonder about the White House Press Corp. They had to know this guy was a ringer, if just for his ability to use a pseudonym. (Everyone else has to register via birth name. Not legal name. Birth).

It's a close knit group. So why didn't they think it was news that the White House has such an obvious ringer? Especially after it came to light that the White House was paying reporters for good PR?

[joe]

RC, I don't think the fact that the GOP won't let a gay man serve it in a public capacity is really howl-worthy to most gay activists. Too "dog bites man."

[TheReincarnationOfPaulRevere's]

I'm missing something here. Was the guy getting paid by the White House to ask softball questions? If not, where's the scandal? I mean whether he was a 'real' reporter or not, if he was asking his questions independently, where is the conflict of interest?

[TheReincarnationOfPaulRevere's]

Oh, here it is, duh:

One hour prior to his resignation, MediaCitizen sent an interview request to the now former correspondent. As part of the request, I outlined a series of questions regarding Gannon's background in journalism, his relationship to members of the White House staff, to Talon News' parent company GOPUSA...

[Morat]

No one really knows. The problem is that he DOES have a close relationship with a purely -- and openly -- partisan institution, and he was granted a great many special privaleges by the White House.

Not the least of which was the ability to register for a press pass under a pseudonym.

[Vexen]

This is but small potatoes. Wait 'til the "Condi's a dyke, not that there's anything wrong with that" theme starts getting heavy rotation on the leftie blogs in about 18-24 months.

The left doesn't hate homosexuality as much as the right, but they are far more likely to use it as a weapon.

[dhex]

"they are far more likely to use it as a weapon."

ummmmmmmm...

DOOOMA

D-O-M-A

DOOO-OH-OH-OOOOMA.

[Brian]

What other country could a gay escort get a press pass under a pseudonymn to cover the White House for a GOP-backed fake news service where "cover" = lob softballs at the President's hack? God bless America.

/I'm not sucking dicks, but I'll hack for the GOP if the price is right. Right is cheaper than you might imagine. We're talking low 5 digits here.

[Vexen]

DOMA is a legislative weapon used by the right to attack homosexuals. Using a person's homosexuality to attack them is a thing done more by the left than by the right. Sorry I hadn't spelled it as though speaking to some one only paying partial attention. Some coffee will help you with that problem.

[Rex]

The left doesn't hate homosexuality as much as the right, but they are far more likely to use it as a weapon.

The weapon is hypocrisy, not homosexuality. It's amusing to watch the gay-haters on the right squirm when their (self-loathing gay) brethren are outed.

It's just as amusing when hypocrites on the left are outed for their own dishonesties, which are manifest.

[joe]

"[Leftists] are far more likely to use [outing] as a weapon."

Probably true. The right has discovered that the constituency of their opponents are NOT anti-gay bigots. "Outing" Barney Frank to the voters in his district would accomplish what, exactly?

Somehow, as a lefty, I don't feel insulted by the accusation that I'm not an easy mark for homophobic politics.

[Vexen]

I agree it's fun to watch the some on the right squirm when they find out there is a homosexual in their midst. But this fact does not make it acceptable to out some one, nor does it change the fact that doing so is using some one's homosexuality as a weapon against them. Hypocrisy? Beam in your own eye and all that.

[R C Dean]

What qualifies as "dog-bites-man", joe, is the sudden silence from leftists concerning their principles when someone who isn't on their ideological plantation gets the shaft.

Here, someone is rousted from the White House press corp because of homosexual innuendos, but that's OK because he was a Republican. During the Clinton administration, strict liability for sexual harassment became the "one free grope" rule.

Next time you here the usual suspects whining about gay-bashing, remember their silence on this case. That should give you the measure of their commitment to principle.

[Vexen]

joe,

This is true and does account for the lower numbers on the right side of using this practice. But this doesn't excuse those on the left that do use one bit. "If the right wasn't so homophobic, it wouldn't matter" is not a defense. Throwing some one to the wolves is not absolvable by the fact that it's the wolves that bite.

[c]

The gay thing is an evasion (sort of "I-didn't-pay-taxes-for-my-Nanny" for the "not-wealthy-enough-to-have-a-Nanny" set). Where did this "recently discovered photo" come from anyhow? Am I the only one who thinks that somebody might have a file folder full of soon to be recently discovered photos?

And let's not forget to give it up for the delicious irony that this ideological whore turns out to literally be a prostitute. That is some good stuff.

[SM]

How come the usual suspects are not extolling this as proof of the incredibleness of blogdom vs "MSM" ? Guys ?

[joe]

RC, it has never been a leftist principle that hypocrites should be able to maintain the credibility of their false faces.

This is no different from Reason writing about Bill Bennett's slot machine hobby.

[c]

Bad analogy, vex. Are you saying that conservatives are no more culpable for their anti-gay attitudes than wolves are for biting? That expecting a conservative to be rational about sexuality is like expecting a wolf to be merciful? Where are you going here?

[free form]

Vexen, the right doesn't have an exclusive on DOMA as a weapon against homosexuality. Plenty of weaselly Dems have supported this piece of misguided legislation, including the former leftists' hero Bill Clinton (and we know what a fine example of marital defense he is!).

[Vexen]

c,

You are correct, that my analogy (like all analogies) is not perfect. However, if you'd look you will see that my analogy was not being used to defend homophobes on the right (which would make your critique relevant) but to illustrate the culpability of those doing the outing/tossing. I'm sure your misdirection was an honest mistake, glad I could explain it to you more thuroughly.

[Vexen]

free form,

You are correct, but if you glance above, you'll see that DOMA was introdued by dhex to (assumingly) criticize a prior statement I had made. I only responded about it to put DOMA in perspective as DOMA being a weapon against homosexuality, rather than being a suituation where homosexuality was used as a weapon. You are correct that both left and right are responsible for this legislation.

[joe]

"You are correct that both left and right are responsible for this legislation."

Sort of like the left and the right are both responsible for the American withdrawal from Vietnam. In that special, equally culpable manner that occurs when one side mobilizes a substantial political movement, and the other grudgingly goes along for the ride because they realize they have no hope of changing the outcome.

That former conservative hero Gerald Ford approved pulling out of Vietnam, so it's pretty obvious that the right was just as opposed to the war as the left. Right, Vex?

[c]

Appreciate the thurough explanation, but the culpability lies with the "thrower" because wolves can't be culpable. Culpability doesn't lie with the "outer" because the people who are tearing him to bits are rational humans, from whom we should expect more than the behavior of wolves.

[dhex]

i'm hard pressed - no gay pun intended - to think of something more weapon-like than legislation. aside from weapons, that is.

now in terms of expecting people's ideological alignments to match their sexual alignments, yeah, you have a point. it's part of what makes them such annoying fucks at parties. but...

in terms of "weapons" - i don't think being criticized by richard goldstein, et al is quite the same as using "TEH HOMOSESHUALS" as fundraising and legislative fodder. have you seen some of the shit that gets published under "defending marriage?"

it goes beyond paranoia - and, now that i think of it, would make a good case for reeling in the alex jones/david icke crews with "the occult link between america's far right wing and aleister crowley!" shit, i have to go write a book now.

[Vexen]

Joe, you'll note that my initial assertion was to blame the right for DOMA, but indicate that it was a legislative weapon against homosexuals rather than a use of homosexuality as a weapon. As for the quote you mention, I was responding to free form (go on, check, I'm not lying) who noted there were some on the left involved.

If you wish to disciss the degree of blame on for this legislation on the left and the right, take it up with free form. I have no problem blaming the right for it, as I initially did.

[Vexen]

c,

I think you're nitpicking here (though correctly mocking my spelling error), while still trying to misdirect any blame of shitty away from those doing the outing. The homophobes on the right are responsible for their homophobia, certainly. But that doesn't wipe clean any blame of the outer in these cases. It is still a shitty thing to do and a shitty thing done far to often by people on the left who then throw up their hands and go on about how they have no problem with homosexuality. Shitty behavior should be called out, left or right.

[Vexen]

"i'm hard pressed - no gay pun intended - to think of something more weapon-like than legislation. aside from weapons, that is."

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that DOMA was the use of a legislative weapon against homosexuals rather than an instance of some one using a homosexuality as a weapon. That was all I was saying, not really disagreeing with you about it.

[c]

Good, I'm glad we can start to get past the gay thing. "Shitty behavior should be called out, left or right." What's shittier: outing somebody, or changing your opinion about a man because he likes cock? I don't know, or care. FWIW, lefties involved in the very debate are not denigrating the guy's homosexuality, but rather his journalistic credentials. "This is not a story about sexual orientation but about the viability of our Fourth Estate" sez MediaCitizen.

Which returns me to my original point: the coincidence of the gay discovery and the not-who-he-says-he-is, getting-paid-to-shill discovery is probably the best thing that ever happened to this dude. He can leave his position, claim intrusion into his personal life, and no one has to own up to the fact that he was forced out because he was being dishonest and professionally irresponsible. This coincidence is so beneficial to him and his cause that I have submitted - for the consideration of the crowd - that it might not be a coincidence.

dhex, I find your assertion that you can't "think of something more weapon-like than legislation" hard to swallow. And the use of "hard pressed" as a gay pun is flaccid.

[dhex]

actually, i would argue DOMA is indeed using homosexuality as a weapon - it works as a fundraising tactic, for example, upon those impressionable middle-aged folk who seem to believe sexuality is something which is exchanged via osmosis.

c, i will attempt to keep my limp-wristed puns where they belong - ON THE DANCE FLOOR!

[my_view]

Actually, it's not Condi but another staffer in the White house. Ken Mehlman has rumors floating about his sexuality.

[Dennis]

There is something seriously wrong with the process for vetting shills for infiltration of the WH press corps.

[Phil]

In that special, equally culpable manner that occurs when one side mobilizes a substantial political movement, and the other grudgingly goes along for the ride because they realize they have no hope of changing the outcome.

In reference to DOMA, this is such an utter characterization of what happened that I'm tempted to call it a lie. President Clinton actively supported DOMA, called for its passage, and indicated publicly that he would sign it when it did pass. Both Bill and Hilary Clinton and Al Gore are on record as publicly opposing gay marriage. Democratic Senators and Congressmen who had nothing to lose by voting against it -- and, as you note, could not have affected the outcome anyway -- did the unprincipled thing and voted for it.

Having principles means that when you know your side is going to lose anyway, you still make your voice heard. It doesn't mean you ride the wave.

[Eric the .5b]

I'm tempted to call it a lie.

I'd just call it a lie. But hey, this is one of those issues where any legislator with a blessed (D) after his or her name gets completely absolved for any manner of horrible things because those terrible (R) folks went along with it.

PATRIOT Act? Why, only those Democrats who fell all over themselves to pass it can save us from the Republican bastards they helped. DOMA? Greet your rescuers, the Democrats who were just forced to vote along with Republicans.

I guess it's a matter of symmetry. The Republicans get to say they're for fiscal responsibility and small, limited government. The Democrats get to say they stand for equality, tolerance, and justice. Neither group is really interested in any of those ends, and they don't have to do a damned thing to pursue them.

[joe]

"Having principles means that when you know your side is going to lose anyway, you still make your voice heard. It doesn't mean you ride the wave."

I didn't say the Democrats who supported the bill were principled. Just the opposite, that they were "riding a wave" out of a self-protection. I'd put Clinton in this category, though there were certainly conservative Democrats who genuinely did support the bill.

DOMA was a righty bill, that was so popular that some lefties felt compelled to abandon their principles to vote for it. The fact that some of the (social) conservatives who supported were conservative Democrats doesn't change this formulation at all.

PATRIOT, on the other hand, is a much more complicated deal.

[Phil]

joe, I'm afraid that I'd need a little evidence -- preferably contemporaneous evidence -- that Clinton or any Congressional and Senate Democrats who voted in favor of DOMA did so for any reason other than that they actually supported it. Interviews, comments made to the press, statements on their websites or campaign literature, something. Your assertion is not going to be sufficient, and even as LBGT-friendly as he purported to be and often was, Clinton had used gays and then thrown them to the wolves before. (Don't Ask, Don't Tell being the benchmark example.)

(Here's the link to the roll call vote, for the record. How many Ds in the "Yea" column were at any real electoral risk at the time? And how many would have realistically taken a major negative hit for voting "Nay" on the bill?)

[Eric the .5b]

Joe reminds me - I forgot to mention "civil liberties" in the list of things Democrats don't stand for, but get to posture about.