My apologies if I have insulted you. Just to clear up some misconceptions. . .

1) Being gay is only a security risk if you're still in the closet. Like any secret, it's only an effective lever if it's a secret.

2) It's pretty obvious that you haven't actually read anything about this other than commentary on the right about it. Myself, that would send off rather large red claxons in my own mind about my conclusions, but I can understand your desire not to dig any further.

Cheers.

An apology mated with a new insult. An interesting strategy. You might consider that the reason I don't want to pursue this further is because people aren't trying to argue the case to me, they're just throwing out insults and innuendo.

I suspect that a significant reason this issue confuses people is a fundamental misunderstanding about White House security. A background check is not an invasive review of someone's life. It is a check of local criminal records. The fact it did not uncover Gannon's other activities should surprise no one.

If you think I should care more about the issue, please tell me why I should care about who the White House gives press passes to. If you can tell me that a press pass allows reporters full access to the White House and immunizes them from the need for a security screening then you'll set my attention. But I don't think that's the case. To the best of my knowledge a press pass will get you access to the press room after a search at the entrance. Even if the criminal background check was not done, I don't know that there would be significant added risk. What's your argument of the threat this guy posed? I'm amenable to changing my mind if the evidence warrants; I'm not emotionally involved.

I have a couple of points (no insults, I hope).

First, give the right wing's use of personal smear tactics for the last decade and a half, are you that surprised that the left is responding in kind?

(I suggest you look at Ann Coulters use of the word 'treason', for example - and there are far worse and more personal examples out there).

Second, the issue for me is less Gannon than it is the tactic of the current adminstration to refuse to face and admit facts - from justifications for the war in Iraq to the cost of the Medicare Drug Benefits to the way they are pretending that their current proposals will cut the deficit - while pretending vast amounts of costs that are a part of their budget don't exist.

And - this adminstration has used tools like Gannon to avoid telling the truth. I could not care less about what Gannon does - or who he does it with - but I find the willingness of this adminstration to talk about 'morals' (as in taking anti-gay positions) while using folks like Gannon quite hypocritical.

The issue isn't Gannon, it's corruption and an aversion to truth.....

Heh, I had to add this from Joe Conason Column

"Such questions are evidently of little concern to our liberal media outlets, whose leading lights prefer to deliver prim lectures about the unwarranted invasion of Mr. Guckert’s private affairs and his victimization for his conservative views. In fact, everything known about him comes from material he posted on public Web sites, but that’s beside the point.

Imagine the media explosion if a male escort had been discovered operating as a correspondent in the Clinton White House. Imagine that he was paid by an outfit owned by Arkansas Democrats and had been trained in journalism by James Carville. Imagine that this gentleman had been cultivated and called upon by Mike McCurry or Joe Lockhart—or by President Clinton himself. Imagine that this "journalist" had smeared a Republican Presidential candidate and had previously claimed access to classified documents in a national-security scandal.

Then imagine the constant screaming on radio, on television, on Capitol Hill, in the Washington press corps—and listen to the placid mumbling of the "liberal" media now. "

My point here being that the politics of personal destruction is not new, and has been praticed (I think) more by republicans than democrats over the last decade and a half.

I'm not, and I don't condone it. The question becomes, how can we get past it to issues? And, there are a lot of issues around Gannon's role in the White House press corp. The liberal blogosphere shouldn't be (and I frequently support them) looking at Gannon's past, but the role the White House used him for in avoiding facing real issues.

Wow, Andrew. My comment wasn't meant as an insult. Sometimes I think that most insults in life are due to complete misunderstandings. Again, I apologize. My point #2 was just an observation and it wasn't meant as an indictment. But you really are slapping us around and then crying victim when anyone even remotely suggests that maybe your slapping is a bit biased. Again, that's not an insult. Believe me, if I wanted to make it an insult, it would be extremely clear.

Wow Andrew, that last comment wasn't meant as an insult either. But I just got to say that you're repeatedly insulting the "left" (what ever small portion you think is deserving of the insult) at least as much as you claim we're insulting you here on your blog. My point #2 was an observation only, and I do understand - given your feelings expressed - why you wouldn't want to dig deeper. But it is quite clear that you're only reading one side of the issue, and of that, only commentary. That really is okay, but what isn't okay is to go around insulting people based on that extremely biased viewpoint and then crying victim.

If you don't want to deal with it, don't. But don't get all huffy and look down your nose when you aren't even informed on the basic facts of the situation.

Oh wait. I'd have to say that to the entire blogosphere ;)

(that was meant as a light joke to attempt to get you to smile)

Darn, multiple commments - and my editing revealed. Oh well. My apologies.

Hal,

Fair enough; I apologize for overreacting. But how am I slapping you around? We disagree on the meaning of the data.

As I see it (and perception is always a tricky thing), we have three issues: is Gannon's non-reportorial personal information relevant to the discussion; is the White House using a different standard to allow people into the press pool based on their ideological standards; is the White House not vetting press passes properly. There are probably other issues I've subsumed into one of those or forgotten, but let's work with those.

On #1, I don't think it's appropriate to dig this sort of information up about someone unless there is clear relevance to the issue. The fact Gannon is/may be a gay prostitute may be odd, but I have a hard time seeing it as germaine to the discussion of whether or not Gannon should have been permitted inside the White House.

On #2, I suspect that the White House does tend to be less vigorous in its examinations of ideological allies than opponents. I'm less convinced that this White House is any different in this respect than prior White Houses.

On #3, I think I've addressed this above. As long as people with press passes aren't being waved through without security checks I'm not really concerned about it.

Again, I invite you to convince me otherwise: why should I care about Gannon? Why is it ok to divulge various personal information about him, regardless of whether or not it is in the public sphere? I suspect there's a lot of information that is nominally in the public domain that most of us would prefer not to have broadcast.

Hal,

As it is not my intent to either insult people or cry victim, please elaborate. As I've said, I just have a hard time seeing this as a big deal, and I think it's a little creepy that people are digging up things like this. Nor do I think I'm not informed on the 'basic facts,' although I'm open to correction. I think our dispute is in the interpretation of the facts, not what they are.

And if you'd like, I can remove the first comment to remove the evidence of your editing.

While I agree that the personal side of this has gotten unseemly, I think it is good that this affair has happened. Future administrations will be much more careful (or devious) about stacking the press pool.

This administration, more than any other I've seen, takes controlling the message to absolute extremes. Either alot of us are paranoid, wiser, or Orwell is creeping closer and closer.

What really bugs me is that I wonder if this is really all about controlling the spin, or if another goal is to control or validate a leaders view of reality. I mean, from what he's said himself, GWB doesn't talk to his dad about Iraq. He doesn't read newspapers, etc. Condi writes a vetted foreign policy paper in 2000 about the administrations goals - a reporter points out that that reality and today are worlds apart, and what does GWB do? He laughs and says he didn't read it. Then he seems consternated when the press pool finds it strange that he'd know what his foreign policy plans were.

Strange indeed.

My point here being that the politics of personal destruction is not new, and has been praticed (I think) more by republicans than democrats over the last decade and a half.

I don't know why we can't get past this kind of justification. Up until the comma you were totally spot on. The fact that other people do it is no reason to join in. I know this happens on both sides--we only notice when it happens to someone we might agree with. Nobody deserves personal destruction and we should all be standing up against those who are doing it on both sides. Standing up for one side's right to flay someone because the other is "meaner" is the politics of grade school. Lets try and grow up.

to Jessicarrot.

Did you see my final paragraph?

"I'm not, and I don't condone it. The question becomes, how can we get past it to issues? And, there are a lot of issues around Gannon's role in the White House press corp. The liberal blogosphere shouldn't be (and I frequently support them) looking at Gannon's past, but the role the White House used him for in avoiding facing real issues."

My frustration is that politics have become focused on the personal.

While I don't have quite the sympathy for Gannon that Andrew seems to - the 'personal' information dug up was easily findable on the web - a very public place - I'm concerned that in the focus on the individuals involved, we stop focusing on the issues at hand.

The Bush campaign, in my view, did an excellent job of avoiding issues, while focusing on Kerry the man (inaccurately, to boot).

How do we focus on the issues, and get the CMSM (conservative mainstream media - I don't think there's a 'liberal' one) to focus on in-depth discussion of issues, presenting effectively boths sides of the debate, instead of soundbites and personal scandal?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: