Two Jeff Gannon scandals
I'll admit I haven't completely kept up with the whole Jeff Gannon thing. (Hell, I'm still trying to sort out the whole Eason Jordan scandal.) It's certainly outrageous that this guy, whoever he is, managed to get White House press corps credentials under false pretenses. Christ, does this White House never do background checks?
The left half of the blogosphere has been having a field day with this, and it's hard to blame them (Dan Rather- and Eason Jordan-sized megastories are hard to come by on their side of the internet, so they have to get their jollies where they can.)
In reading about it on the lefty sites, however, there's something that bothers me. It's the way the liberals play up the gay porn aspect of it (examples here and here.) The real scandal, of course, is that he's a "fake" reporter with access to the White House, not that he's gay or even a gay pornographer.
The liberals can couch this as much as they like in "this doesn't really matter, of course, except that it highlights the hypocrisy in the Bush administration, blah blah blah," but I'm sorry, that's just crap.
They can dress this up however they like, but it's backhanded gay-baiting, plain and simple. It's also not an isolated incident, but rather part a disturbing new pattern. They've done it with RNC chair Ken Mehlman, with South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, and with Montana Republican Mike Taylor.
This kind of behavior is ugly, no matter which side does it (and both sides do!) Nevertheless, it's worrisome to see how exploiting homophobia has become a standard political weapon in the arsenal of the left these days. And I think if you were to ask Dick Cheney's gay daughter, who's a lesbian homosexual, she'd agree.
UPDATE: Bill and INDC has more.
Comments
But as bad as it is that a certain element of the blogosphere might be focusing on the gay angle (myself I just find it funny - it's kind of like the icing on the cake for me) the real issue here is that he got access.
And as I mentioned when I brought this to your attention I'm not convinced that this was a simple case of not doing a background check. There's a clear pattern of McClellan using "Jeff Gannon" (it's not his real name - it's a pseudonym) to field softball questions when he wanted to control the tone of the room.
It doesn't seem too far fetched to imagine that the White House knew exactly who "Gannon" was and used him as their tool to manipulate press briefings. There are few enough briefings as it is - do you really think it's far-fetched to believe that "Gannon" was just another means to an end?
Posted by: Z | February 10, 2005 12:23 PM
No, I don't. The fact that he got press corps ID with bogus info is outrageous in itself, but it's certainly possible that there's more to it than that. We'll see what transpires.
Posted by: Barry N. Johnson | February 10, 2005 12:34 PM
Yeah, you're right, BNJ, they should just leave all the gay-related stuff out of it. It's not at all relevant. Even though I think this guy is a cretin, his sexual proclivities are none of my business, just as Pres. Clinton's shenanigans were none of my business. (Man, I wish we could have back all the money we spent on that investigation.)
I have no problem with most pornography, certainly no problem with gays, or gay rights (I support Gay marriage), or gay porn. The issue is all about his fake credentials and his eagerness to bring his obvious consverative-bias into the White House briefing.
This kind of thing casts doubts on the integrity of the people who keep an eye on the press there. They should be striving for journalists who ask tough questions, but not "journalists" who use valuable White House press time to bash the other party.
Posted by: Tracy Miller | February 10, 2005 04:08 PM
It's certainly outrageous that this guy, whoever he is, managed to get White House press corps credentials under false pretenses. Christ, does this White House never do background checks?
From what I now understand, he got his credentials with his real name and identity. "Gannon" is just his pen name/radio identity, I suppose.
Posted by: Bill from INDC | February 11, 2005 01:38 PM