February 20, 2005
Gannon Fodder
The easiest way to drive traffic to your blog these days, is to include some manner of the word ‘Gannon’ in the title or body of an entry post, and just as quickly as one can type it into their search engine of choice, a multitude of lurkers with a Springer ‘jones’ shall appear at your web site’s front door.
I have been following the developing scandal closely, familiarizing myself with the daily revelations, acknowledging the prominent voices weighing in, and verbally battling the shell-shocked Right bloggers who are currently mining the very depths of ad hominem attacks, steeped in hypocrisy and distortions. Which reminded me that I've yet to check in with Gay Conservative Andrew Sullivan, only to find the self-hating, gutless pansy is conspicuously mute on the Gannon Scandal.
My main point here, is that now 25 days since the first Media Matters.org posting on 'Jeff Gannon'/Talon News, my long held cynical certainties of an infallible Bush White House, a sustained, whipped MSM (Murdoch Seduced Media) and the envious influence of a simpering, dishonest cabal of Bush Apologists - are all being tested.
The palpable anger of November's Election returned this week, as I read the continuingly frustrated truths suggesting this controversy would look quite different if this arrogant manipulation was hatched in a Clinton White House, or involved some perceived outlet of the now debunked 'Liberal Media'. I noticed the three Washington Post articles written so far by media critic Howard Kurtz, were all buried in the publication's web site with no corresponding link on the WaoPo homepage. MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann was again out front on the story, obviously comfortable enough with their sexual identity not to be intimidated by the salacious details, that unfortunately in the Bush administration are now the proclivities that dare not speak their name.
If it were not for the ongoing, daily revelations (of a non-sexual nature), the continued disinterest of the media on this story could not have been challenged. But, it was this Raw Story post that gave me the first hint ever, in an attempt to understand the reluctance of the non-Conservative wing of the news media. In this era of corporate media behemoths, high stakes competition and expansion into profitable mediums carved up by a vengeful administration, threatening the career of a journalist writing critical pieces on the Party in power should not be considered an empty threat, anymore.
* * * *
What is fueling the (thankfully) so far unbroken string of stunning Gannongate revelations is the equally astonishing proof that a controlling and manipulative Bush White House can also be arrogant - to the point of being blatantly careless.
President Bush demands that while standing in the Oval Office ever man present must be wearing his suit jacket and tie, but we're suppose to accept the fact that neither Scott McClellan nor Ari Fleischer knows who gave 'Jeff Gannon' press clearance, and that a side gig as an alleged Washington male escort would not necessarily be uncovered in a routine security background check?
The latest revelations detailing 'Gannon's' alleged penchant for bragging to others about big stories soon to come out of the White House, actually reminds me of an episode of The West Wing. In it, Vice-President Hoynes resigns after previously confidential information showing up as news leaks, are traced backed to a gossip columnist who he was having an adulterous affair with.
Hey, it's a heck of a lot more plausible a scenario now, if you just accept the fact that being a married Republican is no longer an unequivocal confirmation of one's viral and exclusive Heterosexuality!
* * * *
Imagine what would happened if ABC News' Peter Jennings purposely distorted a Ronald Reagan quote, in a partisan endorsement of a controversial plan of the Democratic Party? What Fox News' Brit Hume just did in the ideological reverse further extends the boundaries allowing those in the Conservative Media to deceive and distort - with no threat of accountability.
So, it really should not come as any surprise, that their minions of the Conservative Echo Chamber have followed suit. Yes, the party of James Dobson, Alan Keyes, Rick Santorum and the Gay Marriage Ban Amendment are accusing the Left blogsphere of 'gay bashing', and of being 'morally bankrupt'. The same party in power that would dismiss badly needed Arab language linguists for being gay, and bar the Log Cabin Republicans from one of their state conventions.
Furthermore, the spiritual leader of the GOP, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, made it clear how tolerant the party is:
Falwell also suggested that gay conservatives are not welcome in the Republican Party. When Russert noted that Newsweek magazine describes Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry as a "conservative gay Republican," Falwell replied, "Well, the fact that he's a gay Republican means he should join the Democratic Party."
* * * *
This certified Beltway scandal, possessing all the necessary elements from salacious skeletons to Nixonian 'dirty tricks', is the talk of Washington. However, you'd never know that from watching this weekend's broadcasts of CNN's Capitol Gang and The McLaughlin Group. And, don't expect it to be addressed on the Sunday morning political chat show circuit either.
Letting columnists like Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich of the New York Times, Joe Conason and Sidney Blumenthal weigh in, holds no feared consequences for news editors still hedging their bets on this story. White House correspondent Dana Milbanks of the Washington Post can yuk it up with Keith Olbermann over Gannongate all he wants, just as long as reporters are not dispatched and this story does not end up on the front page of his paper.
The quieting indictments of the Lefty bloggers as reckless, unaccountable rumormongers, unearthing unsubstantiated 'revelations', while operating far above their pay grade, found maybe for the first time, the entire Mainstream Media in complete agreement.
By the way, for those of you playing along at home, you can now check off number #7, on your list of The 14 Signs of Fascism.
You said,
“The most easiest way to drive traffic to your blog these days, is to include some manner of the word ‘Gannon’ in the title or body of an entry post, and just as quickly as one can type it into their search engine of choice, a multitude of lurkers with a Springer ‘jones’ shall appear at your web site’s front door.”
Guess not.
Sounds like Hume and Bennett were ‘discussing’ what they thought * if FDR were alive he could tell us himself exactly what he meant * as it is we only have the way people understand it * including his grandson.
From Olbermann * “Roosevelt Jr. echoed Air America Radio host Al Franken’s call for Hume to resign, saying that “he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation.”
As we know, Olbermann and Frankin are the pillars of truth with absolutely no distortion or self serving opinions.
After focusing on the Brit Hume thing, I don’t understand what the distortion is.
The actual FDR quote, as excerpted from Media Matters:
“In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions.
“Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.
“Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.” That’s one of the Hume quotes there. “It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”
It sounds like FDR saw a welfare program for seniors, the current SS system and self-funded accounts all in the Social Security program—with the current SS system getting phased out by the self-funded accounts.
What am I missing? Are there other FDR quotes to clarify?
Posted by: mike at February 20, 2005 09:48 AMGentlemen,
The intention of my post was to discuss a subject I feel is equally important as the Social Security debate, which has been covered extensively here at WatchBlog, on numerous occasions.
I am not here to discuss the proven distortion and manipulation by Brit Hume, satisfied that the Media Matters.org post taken in it’s entirety, makes a rock solid case. Not surprised that the similar reads by Olbermann and Franken are challenged as questionable ‘pillars of truth’, the fact that they originate from the examination of Hume’s deception by a former head of the Social Security Administration and grandson of F.D.R., are conspicuously absent facts. Furthermore, the fact that no prominent member of the Conservative media, Republican Party or Bush White House has come the aid and support of Hume, is a telling sign.
I used the Hume controversy only to show how outrageous, debunked manipulations in the Conservative media, find no accountability.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 20, 2005 11:10 AMMike * You aren’t alone.
Support Hume for what? Discussing FDR & SS ? Having an OPINION about a statement made 70 years ago? It was an opinion segment, was it not?
You have got to be kidding if you think you can rely on Olb & Fr for all your news (and straight facts).
Yes you gave other examples but you did choose to use a link that included the two of them.
Bert said;
“I used the Hume controversy only to show how outrageous, debunked manipulations in the Conservative media, find no accountability.”
If one looks hard enough (and is honest with themselves) they will find “outrageous, debunked manipulations” on both sides.
Posted by: bugcrazy at February 20, 2005 12:23 PMSupport Hume for what? Discussing FDR & SS ? Having an OPINION about a statement made 70 years ago? It was an opinion segment, was it not?
bugcrazy,
This is exactly the kind of disingenuous, distorted debate from those of you on the Right, that I’m experienced enough at WatchBlog, to know when to avoid it. It’s the same type of opinion vs. the facts you’d rather ignore (Swift Boat, Brit Hume), and the ‘Liberal bias’ vs. the evidence you’d rather not refute (Richard Clarke, Olbermann and Franken).
In the words of Bush #41, ‘not gunna do it’.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 20, 2005 01:06 PMBert —
A full examination of that post didn’t prove it to me before my last post, nor does it on further review.
I understand your wanting to move on with your thread, but your response was dismissive and without substance. Who is involved in a criticism means nothing to me (unless maybe FDR himself could chime in). An argument either stands on it’s own merit or does not.
That said, on digging deeper into a different Media Matters post, I see the point of confusion. To me, it’s easy to read it the Hume way (#3 will replace #1 & #2), but it probably make more sense to read it as #2 will replace #1 over time. The guys criticizing Hume can’t even agree on whether FDR was referring to public or private accounts in #3. The whole thing is less than clear.
The feeding frenzy that follows is remarkable. Words like “premeditated” and “fraud” should not be thrown around so easily. Manufacturing intent is irresponsible.
Sorry to puke on your post, but one of your premises needed refuting.
Posted by: mike at February 20, 2005 01:08 PMGannorgate is a trap for Democrats. Finding fault is a Republican characteristic. It’s part of the “us vs. them” society they love. If Democrats do the same thing, even if they win, they are encouraging just such a society. In the end, the Republicans will win future elections.
Democrats believe in the “we’re all in this together” society. Let’s pick fights where we can prove it. In this regard, there is no better issue than Social Security. Here we can prove that Republicans believe that everyone is on his own and Democrats believe we are part of a community.
By focusing so much on Gannongate we take our eyes off Social Security. Social Security is THE issue. We must fight it not only to prevent Bush from scuttling the program but to show the whole country where Democrats stand.
Posted by: Paul Siegel at February 20, 2005 02:21 PMPaul,
From what I’ve gaged of the Social Security debate so far, the effectiveness of the opposition to Bush’s scam cannot be credited to the Democrats alone, nor can sustaining the effort be assumed solely as their burden, as the debate continues. Equal credit must go to groups like AARP, for galvanizing and educating their members, and dare I say also, members of the news media like Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who I heard debating the issue recently on NPR. I also believe that NAACP Chairman Julian Bond’s entrance into the debate, is an important, weighted voice that must be respected.
However, I’d like to impress upon you the shared significance that the Social Security debate, Gannongate and the newly released secret Bush tapes all have in common - and it’s value to the Democrats.
If you bypass the Republican spin and go straight to the content of the Lefty bloggers, you’ll see their efforts to expose the blatant manipulation of the news by the Bush administration, through supposedly non-partisan ‘journalist’. The details of the secret tapes will show an ambitious politician with genuine compassionate principles, though willing to abandon them to anyone who can deliver him votes. And last, the SS debate has already proven his aversion to open debate, lip service when it comes to bi-partisan engagement, and cooking the books to hide the costs of his plan.
The American people have already signaled their belief that he’s lying on Social Security, and with the specifics of his budget’s deep cuts revealed, many who voted for him feel duped and betrayed. Now, think how your plan fits in with this scenario:
Here we can prove that Republicans believe that everyone is on his own and Democrats believe we are part of a community.
Bert,
Interesting to contrast the coverage of the mainstream press of “Jeff” with the coverage of Social Security.
My local paper, The Oregonian, acknowledged the “Jeff” story for the first time yesterday, in an editorial. Letters to the Editor addressing the topic have yet to be printed. CNN is presenting a little more. I’ve yet to see FOX mention the story.
In contrast, Social Security receives quite a bit of attention for a simple reason; the Bush administration brought this issue to the forefront in the State of the Union address (and the days immediately preceding). The damage done to the Bush has not been the result of an adversarial press. It has been almost entirely self-inflicted.
Most Americans may not care about a fake reporter with a fake name asking fake questions. They may not care about a plant, even with salacious side issues thrown in. Just recently, a poll asked Americans what they thought of the First Amendment, without identifying it for them. Incredibly, 36% of Americans thought the amendment went “too far.” So much for an adversarial press & freedom of the press.
Social Security, however, is an issue which hits people where they live. It’s a pocketbook issue, not abstract at all, and it hits everyone- particularly members of AARP- where they live.
Using the usual tactics, the administration declared a crisis, used terms like “flat bust,” and did its best to panic the citizenry. Sadly, the plan proposed changes in terms of privatization, and never did actually address the long-term demographic problem. Worse, the plan turns out to be so ill-conceived and costly, it’s hard to believe some adult was actually paid to come up with this!
Republican congressman won’t touch the Social Security proposal with a ten-foot pole. In an almost humorously transparent ploy, a few are declaring a need for a bi-partisan approach to Social Security Privatization. Can’t you imagine the Committe meeting? ‘I’ll give you anything you want, Mr Democrat, if you’ll vote for this Social Security proposal, and let me vote against it. Anything! Anything at all! Pleeeeease? Ah, c’mon. I’ll be your pal…”
Posted by: phx8 at February 20, 2005 07:16 PMBert *
“This is exactly the kind of disingenuous, distorted debate from those of you on the Right, that I’m experienced enough at WatchBlog, to know when to avoid it.”
Some of us on the ‘right’ do not take a conversation Britt Hume is having with a guest as the whole truth and nothing but …
Same as some of us don’t hang on every word Keith Olbermann has to say. I actually liked his show at first because it was different. Now I watch infrequently because his way of giving the news is in much more of a tabloid sense than I care for. The same can be said for a variety of shows on all the networks.
As for S.S.
I do not see why the program cannot stay as it is with an added incentive for people who would like to opt in to a personal savings account.
?Maybe people should start paying in at an income level of $87,000 and go up to no limit. Then when we start collecting, reverse the payouts and give the lower income worker the bigger check - Dems want community ? How’s that for community? Give the people who waited on the rich all their lives a nice retirement.
The main problem with any of it is that our government likes to spend money that they shouldn’t be spending. That is something that Dems and Repubs can say they do together.
bugcrazy, it drives me crazy these days to continue to read people stating The main problem with any of it is that our government likes to spend money that they shouldn’t be spending.
The control on Congressional Budgeting, hence spending, is the people who vote and those who don’t. If Congress (i.e. the Gov’t.) is spending too much, it is up to the voters to vote their asses out of incumbency. Given that they don’t, and given that the majority believe the gov’t is spending too much, the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that our Constitutional experiment in representative democracy is failing. And when the gov’t. bankrupts the economy with its exorbident lack of prioritization, one will be able to say our experiment in democracy FAILED!
The only parties demanding responsible fiscal policy are third parties, and the Republicrats have regulated them out of any competitive playing field. So, it is up to the voters, but, they don’t get it either, because they believe their major parties bullcrap.
Posted by: David R. Remer at February 21, 2005 07:49 PMI hate to say it…but, David, you’re right!
Republicans vote republican.
Democrates vote Democrat.
Both are afraid of supporting anyone else because the “other” party may get elected (the Perot/Nader effect).
It’s time we, as America, speak. The way the parties are spending money they don’t have, it may not be long before one of the two majors is replaced. I’m quite frustrated with BOTH parties at the present!
Posted by: Tom at February 21, 2005 09:51 PM On those third party’s
Are you refering to the deal Kerry cut with
Nader?
phx8 wrote:
Most Americans may not care about a fake reporter with a fake name asking fake questions.
You’re right. But, do you agree with the Right, that the investigation of Gannon by the Lefty bloggers was ‘gay bashing’, by using salacious, non-criminal, personal behavior against a gay man simply because he was a Conservative?
I didn’t think so.
Go to AMERICAblog or Media Matters.org, and you’ll find the questions being asked paint a picture of an administration trying to manipulate what Americans read in their supposedly non-partisan news, the lies and distortions in their selling of the President’s Social Security plan - and candidate Bush’s willingness to do the same to his true beliefs, just to get elected.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 21, 2005 10:26 PMDavid * “bugcrazy, it drives me crazy these days to continue to read people stating The main problem with any of it is that our government likes to spend money that they shouldn’t be spending.”
Yes, and it just seems to get worse every year since people vote the same people back in over and over and over and over and over again.
How many of these voters, who vote by name recognition, do you think are in any of these blogs?
Posted by: bugcrazy at February 22, 2005 07:48 AMI’ve got a question for the Republicans here.
Guckert said Talon News was his first journalism job. There could have been none before that date.
Talon News was founded in March 2003.
C-Span Cameras caught sight of Guckert attending a press conference in February 2003.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2005 11:39 AMI’m beginning to think the WH’s strategy of ignoring/refusing to talk about this issue was quite masterful. The story is dying as we speak. I thought after the pictures came out that it’d be all over the news and I kept waiting for Leno/Letterman/O’Brien to start making all the usual “sex in the white house” jokes (think Ms. Lewinsky but with the extra salacious hooker angle).
But nothing…
Sad day ;-(
Posted by: Nikita at February 22, 2005 04:20 PMStephen:
“How did Guckert get in?”
Yeah, and with a hard pass no less!
Yuk. His moonlighting as a hooker seems to give that term a whole new meaning now, doesn’t it? :^0
Nikita:
“The story is dying as we speak. I thought after the pictures came out that it’d be all over the news”
“But nothing…
Sad day ;-(“
I know what you mean. I got pretty depressed yesterday after reading this on a comment page in “The New Yorker” entitled: NEWSHOUNDS.
“One might imagine that all of this had the makings of an old-fashioned, months-long, television-friendly Washington scandal—not as important, obviously, as, say, the Iran-contra affair of the nineteen-eighties, but more so than, say, the flap about the dismissal of several employees of the White House travel office in 1993. One would probably be wrong. The non-Fox cable news outlets began to pick up on it last week; msnbc even assayed a special logo, “Gannongate.” A better name for it, though, would be “Nothinggate,” because nothing is what is likely to come of it. What all the memorable scandals of the past thirty years—real and fake alike, from Watergate to the Clinton impeachment—have had in common is that the opposition party controlled at least one house of Congress, which gave it the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. If Bush ends up having an easier time of it in his second term than any of his two-term predecessors since F.D.R., it won’t be because the scandals aren’t there. It’ll be because the tools to excavate them are under lock and key.
Last Thursday, Bush had another press conference, to announce the appointment of a director of national intelligence, and he made an elaborate show of familiarity with his interlocutors. A dozen of them got to ask questions, and the President called upon all but one by name. Perhaps he was simply letting the world know that from now on the reporters who are vouchsafed the privilege of asking questions at Presidential press conferences will actually be reporters. But be careful, White House correspondents. He knows who you are.”
I felt so horrible after reading this that I decided to call and complain about the non-coverage of this story to all the major television news affiliates in my area.
Nothing wrong with being a squeaky wheel, IMO.
And even though one lone voice never makes much of an impact, at least I felt like I was doing something, rather than remain silent over the Neocon-directed stupor of the Media.
In case you haven’t heard about this explosive development…
Sen. Durbin Calls For Accountability In Gannon Scandal
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at February 23, 2005 01:14 AMBert:
“Sen. Durbin Calls For Accountability In Gannon Scandal”
Thanks, Bert! That is such good news!
:^D You’ve made my morning.
Time to e-mail your senators folks, and demand them to support Durbin in seeking a full investigation!
I’ve got a great opinion piece a friend of mine sent me yesterday that I’d like to share with you, entitled: The Truth Shall Set You Free, Propaganda-Gate Marches On. by Anthony Wade
It’s some powerful writing.
In it, he even lays into David Corn’s article on the subject that appeared in The Nation. I read this part with relish, because I was thinking the same kinds of things when I read Corn’s article myself - even though I’ve always appreciated his writing in the past.
Here’s a taste:
“People are lining up on two sides. On one side are the people that want this story to just go away. They are in support of government sponsored propaganda as news. They think that Sean Hannity allowing Karl Rove to talk for a half an hour without any journalistic questions being asked, is an “exclusive.” They think that Wolf Blitzer allowing a liar to lie for ten minutes without so much as a logical follow-up is an “exclusive.” They think that a gay male prostitute pretending to be a reporter, asking softball questions of the President of the United States is not a big deal and people who question it are just being “hysterical”. They are lining up to tell you what to think. They are lining up to package your news for you. They are lining up to sell you their product. Two years ago it was WMD. One year ago it was moral values. This year it will be a social security scam. At its heart, there is nothing journalistic about it, nothing honest about it, and nothing real about it.
On the other side, real people are lining up to try and desperately hold onto the truth. They see Jeff Gannon as a cancer in our system, but only a single cell of that cancer. He is not the story. No matter how many naked pictures they find of him, Jeff Gannon is not the story. The story is about an administration that would allow a Jeff Gannon to become a story. It is about a president that thinks the news is something he can manipulate, package and sell you. It is about an administration that thinks it can sweep the Jeff Gannon’s of their world under the rug and you will let it happen. The bloggers and new media are lining up to say no more. When you remove the cancer that is Jeff Gannon, there will be another there willing to take his place unless you solve the real problem. That problem has a name and it is propaganda. The cure has always been there and has been used for centuries. That cure is the truth and it shall set you free.”
Posted by: Adrienne at February 23, 2005 11:06 AM
