I'm sick and tired of the 'gay' angle of the Gannon story.

He's gay-- so freakin' WHAT? Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick!

:grr::argh::nuke:

He is a shill for an administration (and an ideology) that is decidedly homophobic.

But for accuracy you have to tell it as it is, gay prostitute.

He bashed gays.

Just the hypocrisy of it - not if he is gay or not.

I've not seen a link to that. Care to provide one?

He's a republican.

You want a link that proves the world is round?

:eyes:

In fact, I think it's homophobic to ignore that obvious fact.

Nice stereotyping.

:eyes:

Homophobia is as much a part of the Republican party as antisemitism was a part of the Nazi party.

It's not stereotyping to assume that Nazis are antisemites.

I know many Republicans who are NOT homophobic, and to smear him by association IS stereotyping, whether you have the intellectual honesty to admit it, or not.

No ifs ands or buts.

If you're gay and voting Republican, you're a self hating homosexual.

It's like a Jewish man voting for Hitler.

over my guns? :shrug:

there's nothing antisemitic about being a Nazi?

though I own guns? Can you say "pigeon hole"?

I used 'stereotype', but as my Gran would say, "Same whore, different dress".

you can't be a dem if you're not pro-choice, or anti gay marriage. Good enough examples?

Now answer my question.

who are pro civil unions yet anti-gay marriage. Not good enough. Issues are issues.

Terribly analogy. You're trying to worm out of the question. Please stop dodging it.

If people are against gay marriage, they're fucking bigots. They shouldn't even call themselves American, let alone democrats.

You know, I remember this phony gun control thing came up back during the big "should democrats abandon gays" debate. Hmm.

Sorry, I'm not buying. Issues truly are issues. Do you not remember when the assault weapons ban was going to expire? Or are you choosing not to, to make yourself appear right? Sigh...I can see this is going nowhere. I'll tell the people who voted Kerry and yet are anti-gay marriage not to next time. Because you said so.

Was the Nazi party antisemitic?

:eyes: Your position is pointless.

nt

nt

The gun question is a red herring.

Maybe I've been asleep at the switch, but the last time I checked the democratic party was not actively pursuing a "gun-grab" agenda, nor are they continually trying to discriminate against gun owners in the workplace, in their private lives, etc.

If you seriously believe the democrats are out to grab your guns you've swallowed a bit of that particular flavor of republican koolaid.

Like my dad's said for YEARS - if our guns are taken away, it ain't gonna be by the democrats.

Gun CONTROL != Gun GRAB.

You need to do some further studying of the issues. :shrug:

It's all perception. I also know some Dems who wouldn't mind seeing Roe v. Wade overturned, as do you if you keep abreast. Somehow, anyone who doesn't walk in step should be kicked out of the party. We must all adhere to stereotypes. :shrug:

That's one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard a progressive say.

It simply is not true.

Are you a one issue voter? Have you ever held your nose to vote for who you think is the best candidate, because some of his/her positions you just couldn't abide but you thought we needed him/her in office?

Or if you're in that kind of quandary, do you just say "fuck it" and not vote?

Don't you imagine Republicans might be in the same position from time to time?

yes, I'm single issue.

If the republican party ran a platform on outlawing interracial marriages, would you still deny they're racist?

I know from experience that Republican DOES NOT MEAN HOMOPHOBE OR GAY BASHER.

It does NOT.

Stuart Bowen.

Ross Erick.

Carol and Jim Howard.

Jeanette Taylor.

All Republicans.

None gay bashers.

Stuart -- he was a 'phobe until he knew me. He confessed in shame that knowing me had changed his view 180 degrees.

Carol and Jim have a gay son.

Ross is my brother-in-law.

Jeanette is my friend.

All Republicans. None of them gay bashers.

Quit with the stereotype, please!

If they're against gay marriage, they're gay bashers.

Would you be friends with somebody who was a Nazi?

All his articles have been pulled of the net though... (from what I've heard)

I'm not going looking though.

It's enraging, the hypocrisy.

And, of course, all the other stuff about access and top secret memos etc.

At first, I thought it was great to point out the hypocrisy of the situation. Now, after reading many posts using the same old homophobic wording, I have to agree. "penis smeared" did it for me.

It's not enough that he's a shill, or a RW press whore, or a prostitute, oh no--- it's never complete until someone points out that he's GAY, too, Allen. That's why.

Is it untrue?

What the fuck sort of question is 'so?', Allen?

:wtf:

... is that really where you want to take this?

>> What the fuck sort of question is 'so?', Allen? <<

It's a shortened version of the question "so what?"... big deal! Is he NOT gay? Is it all a big ignorant lie? If it's technically untrue, is this how he presented himself, is it a lie that he created?

How is the fact that he is/may be gay relevant? The fact that he is a shill/plantis relevant the fact tha he got a press passis relevant, the fact that he is a tax delinquent is relevant, but the fact that he is GAY isn't. I have seen language used in talking about gannon/Guckert hee tha would do Free Republic proud.

:wtf:

it? It's not as if he represents the gay community, but he has CERTAINLY done a lot of harm to it. His hypocrisy is the issue, and that hypocrisy can only be shown through his RW stand on gay issues compared to his hustling of gay men, as a gay man.

whole bunch of the same homophobic wordage that I find disgusting being used to describe the situation. As if that is alright because he's a right winger. I understand the hypocrisy angle, but let's keep it there without bringing down an entire group of people.

:shrug:

problem pointing out the hypocrisy, but playing their game is only becoming them.

but how some people use it.

No?

with pointing out the hypocritical angle of this particular situation, it's how many are dealing with it.

this thread is simply saying that it's objectionable that Gannon's "gayness" be a focus of the story. It's impossible to get away from the fact that it will be a focus... it's expected that people would be curious about something as scandalous as "gay pornography"... not that it should be any different than if he were involved in straight pornography, and frankly, I don't think it would be much different. It would still be as scandalous. Unfortunately, we also have the gay angle mixed in here.

I totally appreciate you defending us against bigotry, but this thread wasn't about whether or not homophobia is permeating the site because of the scandal, it was only about whether his being gay should be an issue. I think it is inevitable.

n/t

actually it never was.

This is an administration that gone way the hell out of its way to cultivate right-wing Christian voters and to be as anti-gay as possible, just shy of promoting a constitutional amendment to promote gay-bashing. What's more, Gannon/Guckert has written several anti-gay articles for the Talon News website.

If the GOP was not so vehemently anti-anything- other than the missionary position between married couples of the same race...then it wouldn't matter.

However, this time it does. It matters very very much who he was blowing in the WH.

but let's not confused the small minded people with the facts

it's amazing the amount of homophobia on this board right now

but i haven't read most of the gannon threads - i just assume it's the same in each one. :shrug:

:eyes:

What homophobia is on this board? :wtf:

No proof that he is gay? Well, technically I suppose you are correct. He could be a hetro that takes advantage of homosexual men and has sex with them as the dominate partner just to make money.

offensive to me. Call me thin skinned, but I don't want to drop to their level.

and if the posts are silly or raunchy, I go past them. Did you alert the mods, that type of post probably should have been deleted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3115987#3116006

As a veteran mod, I know the rules...My alert? Went unanswered. :hi:

for his opinion about whether or not it should be deleted?

Again, I read for substance. I read that thread, but had overlooked the post as it had no purpose or substance. That being said, if a television show offends you, turn the station.

is so and so gay?

:thumbsup:

or is "rove gay", then you are mistaking the focus or the purpose of the inquiry. It is not to ridicule, but to find out if they are hypocrites. These are people that have bashed gays, used gay hatred to further their political agendas and promoted policies that are harmful to their civil rights.

In order to weaken their voices, to take away their power, it is useful to know if they are gay, the people that they have attacked and ridicule.

To think the inquiries are made to ridicule is being too sensitive as is taking offense to referring to Gannon as the gay prostitute. (imho)

if you remove the gay angle you've got lots to go on.

It's damned disheartening.

Instead of the sheer fun of it?

It's the irony. Here we have this oh-so moral "Fambly Values" administration, and they go and hire a "Fuck for the money" guy to be their "media" shill....

It really wouldn't matter if he was fucking wealthy middle-aged women (I wouldn't mind a job like that myself)for pay, it's just the fact that he's more than ONE kind of whore that's so laughable...

that democrats are being homophobic for pointing out Gannon's hypocritical sexuality.

is what is even more interesting.

A lot of reporters are gay---this one is a self hating homophobe on one hand and a pornographer and a male prostitute on the other

…as this story begins to gain traction in the Corporate Media, they're not playing up that angle so much as the genuine issues here:

From the Frank Rich column today:

"But it shouldn't distract from the real question - that is, the real news - of how this fake newsman might be connected to a White House propaganda machine that grows curiouser by the day."
(snip)
"Is the banishment of a real newsman for behaving foolishly at a bloviation conference in Switzerland a more pressing story than that of a fake newsman gaining years of access to the White House (and network TV cameras) under mysterious circumstances?"

From Maureen Dowd's column today:

"In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend?"
(snip)
"Or maybe Gannon/Guckert's willingness to shill free for the White House, even on gay issues, was endearing. One of his stories mocked John Kerry's “pro-homosexual platform” with the headline “Kerry Could Become First Gay President.”

With the Bushies, if you're their friend, anything goes. If you're their critic, nothing goes. They're waging a jihad against journalists - buying them off so they'll promote administration programs, trying to put them in jail for doing their jobs and replacing them with ringers."

I don't care that he's gay. I care that the Bush Administration is running a propaganda shop (among their other disasters) in full view of the American people; somebody's got to stop them, and if it requires exposing their hypocrisy on the gay issue, so be it.

nicely said. The Dowd quote seems to cut to the heart of the matter.

that is what makes the gay angle relevant---the fact that as gannon, he was a typical RW homophobe.
The fact that he owns several homosexual porn sites.
The possibility that he is a male escort, or a pimp---which cannot be denied.

Links? Quotes?

That's like being a Jewish Nazi.

Nice stereotyping.

:eyes:

My God, people are now whining about how republicans are being oppressed.

:eyes:

Who is whining about Republicans being oppressed? Talk about intellectual dishonesty!

:eyes:

I'm not judging republicans based on the color of their skin, or who they fall in love with, I'm judging them based on the content of their character.

If they vote Republican, they're homophobic bigots.

And I've read many.

:eyes:

is that the Republican party isn't inherently homophobic.

;)

it is ironic that this administration will use anyone to shill for them, without awareness of the consequences. And then they use the resultant firestorm as a way to criticize Dems.

Is the issue that he is assumed to be gay, or that he is a gay Republican, or what? What I had read initially was that he had done media work for gay clients and was far from being a legitmiate journalist, but a plant who asked softball questions. Granted, I haven't been following this as eagerly as many here. Not sure I understand what you are mostly upset about, P.

somewhere that had him blasting john Kerry as being a gay lover and the 'first gay president'.

I don't know where to find them. As far as I know most of Gannon's articles were erased off the net.

That story seems to turn up in most of the articles I read about him though---that he made fun of Kerry for being to friendly to gays.

calling Kerry potentially the first gay president, etc. Why are you defending Gannon? If he's gay, he's gay, there's enough proof that he sold himself as a gay escort, so even if he's not gay *ahem*, "gay" would be part of the story.

As a gay man, I'm tired of seeing my so-called fellow 'progressives' discussing him in language that would do Free republic proud, and anyone with two eyes has t have seen it here since this shit storm broke.

:wtf:

you were saying in your OP. His being gay is a central part of this scandal whether we like it or not (even if he "isn't" gay). Alert on the offensive language... of course it has no place, and maybe people are going overboard and not recognizing their own bigotry when they make such posts, but it didn't seem that that was what you were complaining about as much as the simple fact that you didn't like people focusing on his "gayness."

==================
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.

I feel I've a right to speak on this, being a woman of Bi orientation currently married to a lesbian.

At the same time Gannon/Guckert is writing virulently anti-gay articles for Talon and on the Free Republic, at the same time the White House and the Repugs are actively working to oppress the entire GLBT community -- this fraud is running a military-themed BDSM-flavored gay escort service.

I'm one of those who actually thinks the prostitution should be legal. But it's not -- so Gannon is obviously engaging in criminal acts. Furthermore, in a decidedly anti-gay Administration, this guy apparently has daily access to the press room. Even WORSE, he's doing crap that would bar him from even passing the background check necessary to be cleared for regular WH access (except as a tourist or invited guest) -- and he's literally feet away from the POTUS!

Those of us in the GLBT couldn't give a damn about Guckert/Gannon's sexual orientation. I also find the whole BDSM military thing amusing, and can see how some might like that. The problem is this asshole was simultaneously penning crap like how Kerry would be the first "gay American President." And marching in lockstep on the attempts to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution against gays. And so on.

To paraphrase Carville, "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

And for my part, I add, "And a massive security breach."

It has nothing to do with Gannon's sexuality---there are a lot of gay reporters. I could care less. Matt drudge is gay, but I do not bring that up when I hear his name. He doesn't run some sort of weird porn-escort ring

But Gannon, who has no journalistic credentials, works for an arm of the Texas GOP, writes RW propaganda for a homophobic administration but runs a gay prostitution ring on the internet...

I think it is rather unsavory. If gannon was simply gay like Matt drudge, I would agree.
But his 'extracurricular' activities go far beyond Drudge's or Andrew Sullivan

;)

...to the fruits of his own labors and alliances. He not only willfully allied himself with a party that has a platform of oppression against gay people, he actually used anti-gay rhetoric himself in his "articles" .

Fuck him. I am not apologizing for exposing him for the closeted fraud he is and letting him see how "accepting" his party really is. He is getting exactly what he deserves.

I don't feel like arguing with you today! next topic! :hug: :hi:

shouldn't be ignored. It reflects on the sleaziness of this administration and on it's hypocrisy. Don't forget sex sells or is at least an attention getter. The prostitution, the hypocrisy, the dishonesty can't be fully explored and exposed without mentioning Gannon's sexual orientation. It's what he is and how he got to where he got. While you or I may not care what someone's sexual orientation is it does matter to the right wing voters that put these gay bashing hypocrites in power.

...doesn't always determine what will matter, in the end.

"Gay marriage" as a wedge issue shouldn't have mattered in the last election, but many argue that it did. The same sorts of people who voted for Bush almost solely bacause of his purported stands on "values" and social issues are the sorts of people who will feel the most put out by Gannon's specific sexual activities. They are getting to see how far short of their "values" their mouthpieces like Gannon fall. To them, the gay sex thing matters and makes the scandal worse and harder for them to live down after all the crap they've been talking.

Why does this matter?

So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy? Not to mention the hypocrisy of a "reporter" who chooses to publish article after article defending the ant-gay religious-right point of view on gay civil rights issue.

Who in the White House is at the center of all of this? Who allowed this to go on in the People's House? Who committed the crime of exposing Valerie Plame? Jeff Gannon has the answers to these questions, and boy we know he loves to talk.

Let him talk to Patrick Fitzgerald.

...after all their anti-gay/values heavy rhetoric.

Do you honestly believe that we shouldn't jump all over that like stink on shit, shouting from the rooftops exactly what kind of hypocrites they are and revelling in the fallout as the republican party began to engage in a cannibalistic orgy of eating eating their own?

Screw that. If you want to be gay and be a republican there is nothing that stops you from being a moron and while I will stand by the statement that a gay republican is an accessory to his/her own oppression, if you hide the fact and engage in anti-gay rhetoric while living a secret gay life then your hypocrisy needs to be blasted from the airwaves for everyone to know exactly the kind of hypocritical money-grubbing, famewhore you are.

And let me just add that this "touchy-feely" compassion for those who engage in activities which oppress others who do the same thing they are doing in their closets contributes to the oft-repeated notion that democrats lack spine.

This has degenerated into a flame war.