Let's formulate it: why Ganoonarama matters

This is based on my post in another thread, and there have been many threads either about the reasons it matters (or doesn't matter), or ones that digressed into that discussion.

So let's hammer it out, and discuss what relevance this story has and why we should pursue it.


1) If it doesn't matter that Gannon is a gay hooker, it follows that it shouldn't matter that Bush, who specifically enacted laws which sent thousands of cocaine users to prisons in Texas, was himself a cocaine user, does it?

And that's just one angle in which it matters: ideological hipocrisy. An angle that has been overplayed, I think -- the following two are much more important.

2) Why are laws in this country more and more becoming simply handy tools for enacting political agendas? I'm not talking simply about parking rules whose only purpose is to increase the tax base through parking ticket collections, because "raising taxes" is one of those tabboo phrases no candidate for office wants to utter. It's true on a larger scale: laws tend to only apply if you are not instrumental to the political agenda of the elites. Otherwise, you can make a profession out of an illegal activity (like Gannon -- I believe prostitution SHOULDN'T be illegal, but it is), and you will suffer no consequences even if the highest levels of the government are aware of what you do? (and it's stupendeously naive to think they didn't know) It works both on the individual and collective levels: they literally execute demographic engineering with drug laws targeting inner-city neighborhoods, for example.

3) Finally, and maybe most importantly: why did the White House get THIS GUY, of all people, to pitch them softballs? The dude was a ticking time-bomb! It doesn't matter that I DON'T DIRECTLY CARE that he's a hooker -- I am sure that most of Bush's base does care. I'm sure every Freeper would give his or her right arm to be allowed access to Bush for some personal boot-licking -- why JEFF GANNON?!?!

Feel free to discuss and add to the list.

....
http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_juliusblog_archive.html#108300556134138351

Isn't that jeff getting a little head love from bush?


LOL

Gannon is not Bush. Gannon is not sending gay hookers to jail. Your analogy doesn't make sense.

Part one: The administration who literally has their moralistic, and specifically gay-bashing agenda, to thank for being in office, according to even conservative analysts -- grants special press favors for a gay hooker? That's equivalent to being in office based on your "tough on crime/war on drugs" agenda, while being a cocaine user yourself.

Part two: whether most people on DU are thinking about it or not, I am. And I think that a lot of people are, if not exactly in those terms: this "you can't touch us, we can do whatever the fuck we want" attitude is what's pissing off a lot of people here.

Part three: I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that Rove is not omnipotent, and that on balance, I don't see how this could be a good story for Bush. If they needed distraction, firing Rummy and appointing Lieberman would have provided a much more favorable distraction, don't you think?

It matters that Gannon was a rough trade gay hooker because somebody fairly high up on the food chain had to run interference with the FBI and Secret Service to get him into the White House and keep him there for two years.

Find his sugar daddy, and I'll just bet you'll find out who's responsible for the Plame outing.

It's not only hypocrisy, it's bald faced arrogance, and it had the potential of seriously compromising national security had someone besides patriotic bloggers discovered this guy's true background, people who would have blackmailed him with it.

THAT is the real point. I doubt anybody much cares if a high official is gay and has a taste for rough trade for hire. We DO care that this guy was hustled into the inner circle when even a cursory background check would have prevented his access to the White House under any other administration.

Which makes me wonder which is more likely: to have a roomful of people who tell the truth about who they are yet lie about the administration, and one person who tells the truth about the administration yet lies about himself...or a roomful of reasonably honest people and one guy who lies about everything?

News regarding John Kerry's service in Vietnam. It would be interesting to look at all the issues that were a thorn in the side of the Kerry campaign and see how many flames were fanned by Gannon.
As I have written his sexuality is an issue only as it relates to Republican hypocrisy. The fact remains that he was a huge security risk and should not have been given access to confidential classified information and a daily press pass. I think many are losing sight of just how much he was a part of many of the talking points that the Bush WH wanted out there. Take a look at how many different news services picked up on Talon news. I don't give a crap about the prostitution issue but I wonder how many of us would willingly openly admit that we consort with prostitutes. Why would many be reticent to disclose this factoid? Because it is fucking ILLEGAL and not generally accepted by society. Whether it should or should not be legal isn't the issue. Discussions about the legality of prostitution in this instance are distractions from the overriding concerns or red flags that should have gone up if anyone did any kind of background check at all. I'm betting they knew exactly who he was and didn't care or thought his background was useful. These folks do not see compassion as anything but weakness. Flame away if you want that's just how I feel.

If it's just to pitch softballs, then damn, any asshole Freeper would have been happy to oblige.

If his purpose there is to fulfill a promise or a blackmail, WHO that had the power to let him in there did, and why??