Will Man-dategate bring georgie down?

I have read a lot of the threads on here and it is looking like the Guckert story is growing legs. In my opinion, this is the story that will start the downfall of this administration.
I know a lot of you are a little pissed off by how the "gay" card is being played, but I think that is the one that has to be played to get the public to see what is going on. I know it sucks stooping to the rethug level, but maybe it is time we bite the bullet and do what we can to get the truth out.
Sorry that I don't really have anything juicy in this thread.:). I just wanted to see if you think this story will continue to grow or if it will die like the rest?

if by "bring down" you mean impeachment, I doubt it very much. In fact, I still don't know of any laws broken in this matter, beyond whatever Guckert himself might've done.

But it certainly has the potential to be very embarrassing.

The idea that the bush administration leaves office with more of an embarrassment mark than they tried to leave Clinton with would be pretty cool though.

but it might produce alot of terror alerts. Might even prompt a war or two.

Let the witch hunts commence! :eyes:

I feel a bit uneasy about how much the gay aspect is being thrown around, but on the other hand this administration and the "moral majority" have done much worse to the gay and lesbian community than this forum has.

to me its not aiding in the demonization of being gay that matters. I guess we have different principles.

In fact, they said nothing about Gannon being a "hooker". So, your comment doesn't really apply.

funny how Drudge and Ann Thrax can preach their hate ...


... to the right wing nutz... BUT THERE IS no mention of this or Ashe-gate (any truth to the Victor Ashe rumours?) by Smudge and Ann Thrax to their right wing soldier-bots.


"... Drudge can NEVER resist reposting *any* article that mentions his name. What's he to do in this case? He has studiously avoided mentioning Gannongate. Now what if tons of major media coverage talks about the history of blogs, blogging, and mentions Drudge's "pioneering" role -- while at the same time covering the fact that the President of the United States called upon a gay hooker at a White House press conference?

I mean, the President calls upon those people he KNOWS or is FAMILIAr WITH. He wouldn't call on a complete stranger -- too dangerous. No, he calls on people whose questioning he can relatively predict.

Any major media types reading this -- mention Matt Drudge in your coverage on how Bush called upon a prostitute. Let's watch Drudge squirm. And let's see how long it takes before he caves under the irresistable urge to reprint his name ..." -Thaxter

I'm not gay so I can't speak from that point, but I'm not homophobic either. I guess I just look at it that the repug party are so homophobic that it is "funny" to see that their biggest "fear" might be shown to be such a big part of the leader's lives that they worship.

heck, you even admitted it was wrong in some way when you said the following:

"but I think that is the one that has to be played to get the public to see what is going on. I know it sucks stooping to the rethug level, but maybe it is time we bite the bullet and do what we can to get the truth out."

Those were your words, right?

I'm not trying to disrespect the gay community here. I have read your posts and I know you are very pissed off at that angle, and it is not my intention to piss you off more. Truth be told, it is the only thing that will make the American public take notice. I wish that the mass murder of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have done it, I wish that the death of 1000 plus American soldiers would have done it, I wish that the evidence of election fraud would have done it, I wish that just about every other fucking thing that georgie and his pals did to screw this country would have done it..but so far this is about the best shot we have.
One of the biggest things that pissed me off about the election is when they used 11 states by putting the gay marriage issue on the ballots to bring out the bigoted morons so they could win their election. That was bullshit and shameful. To me, what would be the best thing to watch is to see these assholes go down because of their own prejudices.
In the long run, it could actually help the gay community.

and respect that you at least feel some remorse at feeling like you have to play the gay card. Which it makes it even more frustrating to me, that you feel like the end justify the means. We often say the same thing about Bush. Think about it, please.

If that would be proven (remember the blue dress), Shrub is outa there! Other than that, you could see a few minions gone, but that's it.

...
The Clinton Impeachment articles concerned an alleged purgery and obstruction of justice. The public battle was about the sex.

In any case, the bar for impeaching the Republicans own president is one too high to be met.

There are a whole lot of pub=gs that would want to kill him over something like that! Santorum, and all the pugs from Al, SC, Ms, and Ga.

I don't think they could stand 4 years of scandal.

...

They'll bend over backwards to defend Bush irregardless of what he does.

Getting a Republican congress to impeach Bush would take some incredibly outrageous.

I seriously doubt that Guckert was Bush's own loverboy, but if he were, then I do think that'd get Bush impeached. That's about the only thing that'd do it, though.

you are saying that being gay is an impeachable offense. Since, so far no perjury has been committed, I assume that is what you are saying. Heck, what are you saying?

Its a shame you don't see an end-around of the 1st Amendment by funding a false propaganda machine out of the WH, or providing unscreened people classified materials as impeachable offenses. Just being gay.

party, and he'd be vulnerable to impeachment on any number of other charges. They'd want to get rid of him- and there are plenty of excuses for doing so, if Congress were so inclined. The outing of Valerie Plame, the fraudulent excuses for invading Iraq, the (at best) incredible ineptitude leading up to the 9-11 attacks... the list is very long. Bush has done about 30 things that would've brought him down if there'd been a real press and a true opposition party in control of Congress.

That's what I was saying. I thought it was obvious.

Just out of curiosity- why are you so determined to take offense? You seem to be straining awfully hard to find some righteous indignation.

due to only that. Never underestimate the height of hypocrisy that anyone will achieve to maintain political power.

As for straining for righteous indignation...isn't that what the unrighteous always do? :-)

Can you imagine though- if Bush were gay, his fundamentalist base would completely disown him in a second. He'd have absolutely no shirt tales to hang on to, and career Republican politicians would want to bury him as quickly as possible.

I don't know. They've surprised me with their capacity for doublethink many times, so maybe I'm just being naive. But I think a revelation like that would end Bush's presidency immediately.

In one way, it might be the best thing that ever happened to the gay rights movement, oddly enough.

.. you'd pretty much conclude that Bush is a self-loating gay. It is very possible for aka Jeff to be his man-date. There is nothing wrong with Bush being gay.. hell, that's been pretty much bounced around for decades. BUT.. it's his pandering to the evangelicals, and his attacks-for-show on gays that make it an issue. AND.. the influence that could have been bought through sexual liaisons. Isn't THAT what brought the Governor (new jersey?) down a few months agO????????????

Who's wearing wearing the dress? * or gukert?

I think that if they had live footage of * boning Guckert in the Oval Office the Right Wing spin machine would just make excuses for it and the 'sheeple' would lap it up...sigh....

The RW would be devastated!

They should feel devastated as it is.

:argh:

For chrissakes we've spent the past 3 months hearing about how John Kerry lost because of Gay Marriage and Values and Morals. How fucking dare they attempt to brush this story off by whining about how "they're picking on Guckert because of his personal life! Wah!" when they made gay-baiting a huge undercurrent of their campaign. What do you think all that crap about John Kerry's hair and tan were all about? It was to appeal to stereotypes held by a lot of Americans. Also, this Guckert asshole wrote a blatantly homophobic article about Kerry, calling him "the first gay President". Screw him.

This guy is SCUM. He bashed Kerry 9 ways to sunday as his crowd cheered.

How much more a hypocrite do you need?

We are basically obligated to "gay-bait" back. Screw our principles!
:eyes:

hypocricy....its the hypocricy...

...but I will say, the propaganda aspects and security issues are paramount.

too bad you want to chuck your principles on the small stuff. Oh well. Legitimize the demonization of a person being gay all you want. Whatever floats your boat.

It does nothing for me.

"Legitimize the demonization of a person being gay"

Please, this is so melodramatic...if he said his favorite color was blue and said he hated green...then I found out he lied and indeed his entire house was painted green...I'd call him a hypocrite.

Ok, bad analogy, but I think you get the point. Mentioning he is gay only speaks to his HYPOCRICY. The value judgement is made by the listener, not the messanger, who is merely stating fact.

In any event -peace.

and I haven't read any posts on DU from people who do. I've even heard some question whether he was actually gay, or just out for power and money. The prostitution and the hypocrisy are the issues. Unfortunately, it is impossible to discuss the subject of the prostitution and hypocrisy without mentioning the "gay" issue, or at least alluding to it.

but not actually true at all if you think about it.

The situation does bring up a dilemma for us liberals. I know how I have decided to go. And, the best thing about my choice is that it actually addresses the more important things about the Gannon issue, AND I get to maintain my core principles as well.

Too many DUers seem to be doing the exact opposite.

that there are aspects to the Gannon story which are valid? Leave out the gay angle. He's a guy with no journalism background, an alias, in trouble for not paying taxes, who gets coveted press credentials while people like Helen Thomas and Maureen Dowd, and others, are locked out due to "security" issues. And what about who he was working for...a GOP front organization paid for with Texas oil money. And the press conferences themselves. Listen to Gannon's questions, or, rather, his rants against liberals.
This is a story with merit. It's about the state of our media and how the Bushies are perverting and manipulating information. Gannon comes on the heels of Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, infomercials sent to TV stations flogging Bushian legislation under the guise of "news" reports. And taxpayer money paid for all of this propaganda.
Besides, if Monica Lewinsky having sex with the president is valid, then Gannon possibly having intimate relations with a White House staffer is valid. The guy was given insider information, an FBI clearance, and incredible access. We're not wrong to wonder why. If women have used sex to gain influence/information...then it's possible a man working in the sex trade did the same. That's not gay bashing. That's looking at the situation objectively.

of your post ARE the issues we should be focusing on.

Everybody keeps telling me its notAbout "gay-bashing", its "about their hypocrisy". But then, they add, "well look at what the Rethugs did during the Monica L thing, we should do the same". Now, who exactly are the hypocrites? I thought we took the high road during the Monica L thing.

'But then, they add, "well look at what the Rethugs did during the Monica L thing, we should do the same". Now, who exactly are the hypocrites? I thought we took the high road during the Monica L thing.'

Is not the LACK of outrage by the RW...over a gay (mentioned because they are homophobes) HOOKER not hypocricy?

Just clandestine unvetted fake journalist/ professional HOOKERS shaping public discourse is mad hypocritical, add to that their homophobia deal and its just out this world so.

I am sure you can reply with what you feel is a solid reply, and we'll just go round and round I guess...but we can just agree to disagree. Cool.

not hypocrisy as well. Heck, I thought we spent about 2 years fighting that side-by-side. Quite disappointing (and a little naive possibly) of me to find out that most of my colleagues weren't sincere at all about their beliefs during that. In fact, it sickens me.

But just like you said that you and I would go round-and-round on posting, please feel free to use sex as a weapon. And, then the next time they do it to us and you look for help, I'll be the one on the sideline.

He wasn't just having affairs, though that would've been enough to shock the fundies. He's a prostitute who may have traded sexual favors for access to classified documents and high-ranking officials inside the White House. Prostitution itself is a crime, so anyone who "hooked up" with Gannon for pay broke the law. If they leaked classified documents, that's even worse.

regret about having to play the "gay card"? Why have there been jokes about Bush and Gannon being in love on this board (Hookers and johns don't love each other)? Why did one DUer write the lovely ditty about Bush and Gannon "First comes love, then comes AIDS"? Why did DUers get a few giggles about shoving this one down Bush's throat? Why did one mature DUer in the Bush/Pretzel link snort about "it not being a pretzel, it was a sausage"?

Please, don't try to fool yourself and me at the say time. It's all about his sexual orientation. With the glee that some DUers have jumped into this, it obviously makes it more fun for them, plus since its about gays, people must think they get a free pass, becuase I mean, "its just about gays".


Sickening.

But I personally think that there are bigger issues here. Unfortunately, the "gay" issue is what will make the American public take notice. If it was reported that this guy got a press pass under a fake name, nobody would give a shit. We are still a society that has a long way to go before we can consider ourselves as truly intelligent. Sex is about the only thing that 99% of the public understands.

take notice? Because gays are one of the most discriminated groups in this country So, you are going to use that fact to admittedly discriminate against them some more.

IMO, that is exactly what your proposed plan will do.

a man date?
:evilgrin:

what has been the bete noir of Republicans and their like is not gay or gaybashing it's hypocracy. It's about setting up whisper campaign's suggesting someone was gay (or a pedophile) and making sneering references to "pansies and faggots" and solemnly denouncing same sex marraige while you are being banged by eight inch, body waxed aging party boys--and even that is not so bad but

there is something here deeper than hypocracy--and that is that you are getting sexual pleasure from sneering and denouncing and all that. You know when people talk about homosexuality that much that they have something vested in it that most straight people don't--but all the stuff I've seen about Bush's white house--apparently his campaign stops always began with a lot of fag bashing with the worst kind of invective--but they would do this and then let the press in for the more conventional part of the campaign stop

I read this--I don't know where--NYT maybe--and thought--you know. . .they've got to be getting off on this stuff because otherwise it makes no sense.

to the above confused comments--
I had a friend who worked in a prison--she told me that the old trope about pedophiles being prime victims for prison violence--and I said--well even prisoners have a certain decorum about some peoples crimes--she said, no, it's not the fact that they were abusing children that got them into trouble--it was that they wanted to talk about it--relieve the experience with the con sitting next to them--people would get pissed off if they thought you were using them to get their kicks sexually--

if the bible belt finds out the all this gay bashing actually--ahem--heightened the sexual pleasure of chief players--whow

It'll put a chink in his armor however. Good enough for now. Maybe we'll get more later.

Reasons:

a) Republicans are too brainwashed. They will forgive ANYTHING Prince George does

b) If it gets nasty, someone will get paid off to be a "fall guy". That is, if it's Turd Blossom, someone else will take the fall for him.

c) Republicans control Congress. They won't impeach their own guy unless he rapes a boy on live TV while defecating on a picture of Jesus.

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

no way

they'll ignore it until the M$M gets tired of it.

But it's a fun story: Sex, homosexuality, nude pictures, prostitution, intrigue, hypocrisy and politics.

A year from now Gannon/Guckert/Bulldog will have a book deal and a radio show.

Stop kidding yourselves. The minute AmericaBlog.com posted the "prostie" links, it was over. The * team is sitting in the WH trying to figure out the best way out. They know they're done.

Any one who doubts this is either unaware or blocking awareness of the attitude of the vast majority of Americans toward male prostitution with a substantial kink. The fact that "Gannon/Guckert" is tied at the hip to the White House and other Republicans is the deal killer for middle Americans. This is a mind blower. As CM (corporate media) titrates out the revelations and Bush ='s homosexual prostitute reaches a critical point, we'll see disapproval ratings in the low sixties. Remember, we only need 20% of his voting block to come on over and we've got a 60-40% disapproval/approval ratio.

How to get there...just wait and watch. How did Bush tar Saddam with 911?; simply by mentioning the two in the same sentence over and over. Well, that's what will happen when lines like "Gay prostitute gains inside access to Bush White House" are all over the place. Simple, isn't it. Those of us here and elsewhere among the "seculars" look past the sexual aspect (other than the hypocrisy) and focus on security implications. Middle America is entirely different. Their version of acceptable homosexuality is "Will and Grace." The idea of "gay prostie SM newsmen" being buddies with the WH will make them run from Bush in droves.

We just need 20% of his base to get to 60% disapproval. When that happens, * is fucked. Watch Olympia, Susan, Chaffee, and some House members flee to our party. Watch Bush acclaimed the biggest frekazoid, failure in our history. Watch him leave in a helicopter.

It's all good (for us).

Remember, "bring georgie down" means the Republican party actually has to lose popular support as a result of this activity. It's not gonna happen.

What, do you think Americans actually care that the administration plants allowed propagandists in the press briefings? We have Fox News, for chrissakes! Do you think people mind that this self-styled "reporter" was also selling his services as a boy toy? Heck, the latter was the more honest of his two careers, IMHO. None of this touches dubya; he has completely plausible deniability with respect to the gay prostitution angle, and as I said before, America really doesn't care that a shill ended up in the press corps.

There are two things that could actually damage bushco's effectiveness:
1) proof that the White House was paying Gannon's salary, directly or through GOPUSA/Talon, which could lead to increased finanacial scrutiny
2) compromising footage of Guckert with someone extremely high on the totem pole -- if not dubya, then Rumsfeld or Cheney or Gonzales. Rove is enough of a gray eminence that any dalliance on his part will do little to dissuade the faithful, but compromised image of senate-approved cabinet members would potentially be both embarrassing and discouraging to GOP faithful.

Face reality: we're stuck with W until 2009. Nothing is going to bring him down, not something as weak as a prostitute/propagandist. If you want to hope for something productive, hope that Brother Jeb gets inimately involved in this little pecadillo to the point that he can't campaign nationally in 2008.

What upsets me is *not* the fact that Gannon needs to be outed. He does. His sexual hypocrisy could unravel larger instances of sexual hypocrisy in the WH. It also must be asked: "If this guy isn't a plant, then how come they don't know he's a hooker? How come he hasn't been vetted?"

What DOES bother me is when there are long threads by progressives talking amongst themselves that seem to smack of homophobia. Such as 'So Gannon's a big HOMO after all'. I don't care how the media handles it. I just don't want to see anti-gay sentiments all over DU. And the massive speculation on who else is gay, I also find that distracting and unproductive.

and i'm engrossed. i want to know more.