Ahh, but I too can play that game,

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2952

What game? Highlighting a person with ideology that doesn't match up with the ends is not the "game." The point is the merit and morality of the argument and methodologies, notindc. This isn't merely a pissing contest.

The questions posed in the link that you keep dropping in my comments are just speculation - which can be valid, but doesn't mean anything in a vacuum.

Unforntunately, much of the post's speculation is idiotic - "gay blackmail" (based on what?! that he was gay?!) isn't even reasonable speculation. Whether Gannon had special treatment might be, but at some point guessing needs to give way to evidence, not just the perception of fact.

It's apparent that you don't understand the difference.

Bill, this guy wasn't from Fox or the Washington
Post. He isn't the persecuted 'journalist' you want him to be. He has no journalistic credentials to speak of whatsoever, certainly none that would earn him the right to a WH press pass.

James Guckert is/was a male escort who advertised the fact all over certain seedy corners of the internet. James Guckert the male hooker gets a revolving day pass to the WH press office where he gets called on regularly by the WH press secretary who addresses him as "Jeff" to field softball questions.

Feigned indifference and missplaced outrage don't cut it. Somebody's got sum 'splainin to do!

He isn't the persecuted 'journalist' you want him to be. He has no journalistic credentials to speak of whatsoever, certainly none that would earn him the right to a WH press pass.

I don't want to ennoble him as a "persecuted journalist" you fool - I just find the nature of persecution disgusting. As should you.

And guess what?

He has no journalistic credentials to speak of whatsoever, certainly none that would earn him the right to a WH press pass.

Neither do I! But I scored press credentials to the Republican (and briefly) Democratic National Conventions. What EXACTLY are "journalistic credentials?" A BS or BA in journalism?

I think that Gannon was a crappy journalist and a stooge, as evidenced by his silly question to Bush about Dems being "divorced from reality." But that is a completely separate issue from digging up the man's personal life and shaming him in front of the world.

I may not find you very bright, and I may find your politics abhorrent, but when I start interviewing your ex-boyfriends or girlfriends and dig up your tax returns to destroy and humiliate you, I'm a dirtbag.

The speculation over him being a plant is

1. not inherently unreasonable, but needs to be PROVEN before it's ASSERTED

2. A separate issue from his tax returns, sexuality and porn past, unless there is evidence that they were relevant to the story (none)

As for this:

gets called on regularly by the WH press secretary who addresses him as "Jeff" to field softball questions.

This is merely evidence of your staggering ignorance. Calling reporters by their first names is common practice, and getting called on "regularly" is not an innately astounding feat, and is a subjective characterization, unless you have some statistics that you care to provide me with (NOW) and source.

Prove that Gannon's personal history is directly relevant to your accusations about specific special treatment by the WH, and then prove the link to the White House, or shut up.

It's very simple.

Bill this is politics we are talking about here not the evidenciary standards for a criminal prosecution. Indeed Guckert/Gannon probably hasn't done anything that would rise to the level of a crime, reserving my right to revise and extend regarding the Plame leak.

I submit that scoring a press pass for the WH press office should/ought to be considerably more difficult than that of a party conference, unless of course you have an inside track. Particularly in this post 9/11 security conscious world. Speculation? sure.

There are rumours floating around that Ken Mehlman is gay, I find THAT a reprehensible intrusion into his private life! If the rumours were supported by web sites where Mehlman solicited himself as a male escort with pictures to boot I submit that the public's right to know would at that point trump any percieved invasion of his privacy.

Calling reporters by their 1st name is common practice as you say but calling them by a 'working' name, the same name 'working' name used in their er, 'other' job, while issuing them with a WH press pass in another name and not once but repeatedly over a period of two years? Well just how common is that!

I submit that scoring a press pass for the WH press office should/ought to be considerably more difficult than that of a party conference, unless of course you have an inside track. Particularly in this post 9/11 security conscious world. Speculation? sure.

A reasonable speculation. But once again, you have to bridge the gap between "inside track" and "the White House planted him." Understand? There are lots of "inside tracks" to get things in Washington, typically relying on relationships (friendships, contributor-politician, business etc.). So just because strings were pulled for Gannon (assuming they were) is not a smoking gun that he was a White House plant. There are a variety of politicians and media players that might be able to score a conservative news outlet a press pass to the White House.

The thing is, I'm not claiming that I know that the White House is separate from this - I think that they probably are, but i don't know - and you cannot extrapolate "it takes special connections to get a pass" to "he was part of a (bad) White House media conspiracy."

but calling them by a 'working' name, the same name 'working' name used in their er, 'other' job, while issuing them with a WH press pass in another name and not once but repeatedly over a period of two years? Well just how common is that!

Do you think that Scott McClellan (the man calling names) issues the press passes? I (and you) have no idea how information is routed in the White House Press office. Is the security clearance the same thing as the press pass? As the list of reporters given to McClellan? Or since it's common for reporters to interact personally with the Press Secretary, can one establish their identity that way?

This is thin speculation. Until someone seeks and finds answers that buttress your more incendiary suspicions, you cannot move the ball.

During Rathergate, I read the fake memos and thought that they sounded fake. Bloggers opined from far and wide why they thought they were fake, taking up the mantle of amateur typeface analysis (hilariously, Kos). And aside from a few sites that produced their own very compelling evidence, much of it was useless speculation that didn't move the argument forward.

Which is why I went and got a forensic document examiner to begin study on the papers. The court of public opinion may not be a court of law, but it's not strictly a rumor mill, either.

And you are going to have to do better than your circumstancial speculation and leaps of logic. Way better. It's obviously enough for you to declare case closed, but you are just voicing suspicions - some resaonable, some completely unreasonable.

He has no journalistic credentials to speak of whatsoever, certainly none that would earn him the right to a WH press pass.

How dare a common man ask questions of the powerful!

Case closed? far from it Bill.

I consider this 'case' to be in the preliminary stages and we both know that what determines whether a story like this ultimately has any 'legs' is not any inherent standard of truthfulness or factual content of the story but rather will the MSM as you like to call it decide to run with it 24/7 and force a real investigation.

Whitewater - Jones - Lewinsky anyone?

I admit we are swimming against the tide, what with a R congress, a seemingly cowed press and all, but perhaps the story like Watergate will eventually bubble up and then again perhaps it won't. But you and I aren't going to be able to cross all the t's and dot all the i's in this forum. I will continue to fan the flames and you and your ilk will continue to p--s on same and for the same reason, because we both know something just doesn't sit right about this whole mess.

I consider this 'case' to be in the preliminary stages

Ok. Then couch your accusations in appropriately qualified language and don't leap to conclusions.

And if you feel strongly about your suspicions, pick up the telephone and build the case.

Bill this is a blog comments section not the front page of a widely read newspaper so prefacing every bit of speculation with the word alleged might be a little redundant don't you think.

You have often championed the effectiveness of blogs in the face of a lethargig or unwilling press but you seem to be in denial of the 1st law of what I would characterise as the partisan activism so prevalent in the blogoshere, what goes around comes around and the rules or lack thereof are the same for both sides.

The case is being built as we chat, believe me.

Ok, and in the mean time, based on current evidence, I think that your speculation about Gannon being part of some nefarious White House information conspiracy (a la Armstrong Williams) is silly. But we'll see, if the case is ever built.

And aside from that, your rise to defend the nasty tactics of digging up porn and personal financials (a separate issue) is deplorable.

Events have layers. Portions of the attack on Gannon are horrible, aside from the issues that might constitute relevant charges.

notindc,
To help you move from screeching, partisan, hyperventilating, conspiracy-laden, Kos-bat to reasonable, consumer of news, kindly consider some of these questions in your, doubtless, thorough and professional follow-up on the Gannon story:
1) What exactly is the process for getting a press pass, and how much research is done on the WH press corp. applicants?
2) Who, specifically, allowed Gannon access and what is his/her relationship to Gannon?
3) Has Gannon worked elsewhere for the GOP?

See, you really have to firmly establish 1)that he is connected to the Administration before proceeding to 2) trashing him, and thereby, the Bush White House.
Bill's point is that putting step 2 ahead of step is scurrilous speculation; proceeding from step 1 to 2 is a story. Got it?
Bill, have to disagree with Pennywit's assertions about the penury of positive contributions by the blogosphere: they were the first venue to offer good news from Iraq, increased visibility of the Oil-for-Food and Darfur miasmas and were the first to set-up charities for the tsunami victims.

A few things:

...because we both know something just doesn't sit right about this whole mess.

I think you're confusing reasonable debate with something "not sitting right". I'm pretty sure--correct me if I'm wrong, Bill--that he's NOT feeling like something isn't sitting right. Do you think that because he hasn't resorted to slander that he isn't sure about his belief?

Prove that Gannon's personal history is directly relevant to your accusations about specific special treatment by the WH, and then prove the link to the White House, or shut up.

It's very simple.
[Bill]

Bill this is politics we are talking about here not the evidenciary standards for a criminal prosecution.
[notindc]

So, since this isn't a criminal prosecution, you don't have to back up your assertions with facts?
What a cop-out!

He has no journalistic credentials to speak of whatsoever, certainly none that would earn him the right to a WH press pass.

Bill answered the "credentials" non-issue, but you make a good point. The guy was no big-time MSM journalist. Why on earth do you think ANYONE in the White House would have a clue about his extracurricular activities? Do you suggest that everyone who gets a press pass should have a full background investigation, to include all sexual activity? For Chrissakes, Dick Morris was hired as a senior adviser to Clinton, and look how he ended up leaving under sleazy circumstances. I hated Clinton, but I didn't blame him or criticize him for Dick Morris' personal issues! God only knows what goes on behind the closed doors of people who work or report from the White House--or anywhere else in government. And I don't WANT to know, as long as it's on their own free time.

I still don't understand your implication, notindc. You say an uncredentialed reporter got called on by his first name and he asked a dumbass softball question. Basically that's all I see you saying, beside the nastiness about his off-duty life. What's the connection??? Do you suspect he was banging someone who got him the press pass? Well, then who, and how do you get to that conclusion? Is it someone who "looks gay" to you? I think you just have an overactive imagination (a.k.a. paranoia).

Sure.

notindc spends a lot of time to justify his core idea, that his random partisan outrage justifies him trading in slander.

There is a hilarious exercise in amoral rhetoric.

notindc: There is 'fanning the flames' and then there is arson.

What started as a WH story has transformed on the left into the gleeful destruction of a human being. There is legit. story in whether or not the WH paid, ala Armstrong Williams, a hack to ask pro WH q's during press conferences. Get to the bottom of it. That troubles me somewhat. Completely untroubled if it turns out they just gave a press pass to a sympathetic not-on-the-payroll hack, but that's just me. Other's may be. Get to the bottom of it.

But then there is the personal destruction of a man no one had heard of a few days ago. The spear head of your attacks was primarily that the guy was a 'faggit.' And murdering your own deeply held prinicples [a man shouldn't be made to suffer because of his sexual nature] had never been so fun. But because he was on the right, well, it was too good to pass up. Besides, it was others who would make him suffer, you only got the news out, cackling all the while. You only put the gun up against his head. Others would pull the trigger.

Now you get to get your prinicples back by adding a couple new words after "faggit," emphasizing those instead: "Whore" and "Tax Cheat" Well, congratulations, now you're no longer a hypocrite to your own principles, you can destroy him and feel good about what you're doing. Fantastic.

Sure, some might pause and wonder what these facts have to do with WH impropriety, but come on... it's just so much fun! Watch the guy squirm. What else can we dig up on him? Besides, it's gotta mean something.. right? Maybe...it's... the WH has such lousy screeing they, um, they let a tax cheat within 40 feet of the president. Yeah, that's it, it's a security issue! Hey everybody, this guys a faggit, tax cheatin' whore. Man that WH is incompetent! Maybe he even only got access cause that WH is loaded with faggits! Man we should get some stuff on some others in there! Quick, anybody got any rumors handy?

Now you get to destroy a man, cackle with glee over his personal destruction, say anything about him you want, because it's a WH related issue. And if you feel any twinge in your conscience, just tell yourself, we're only destroying here on the blogs, no one really notices this stuff. If that doesn't work, if the right winger start getting to you, making you question yourself, well then just tell yourself they'd do it too.

Maybe we would, maybe we'd be just as bad. But you would be right in saying we're bastards. Saying, we're doing something deeply wrong in destroying another for no better reason than it feels good. Mabye the only reason we're so outraged is that you're doing it to one of 'us.'

What does that matter? Actions are right or wrong without regard to which side does them. I wish you'd think about that when you go about your 'fannin the flames.' Maybe this is over the top, a little cheesy, but the left has tossed their own decency on to their bonfire with this one.

I note your sensitivities on the outing of Gannon/Guckert and believe me I wish we were not wallowing in revelations about male hookers and seedy websites anymore than we were wallowing in revelations about blowjobs in the WH not many years ago. But facts tend to be facts even when they are uncomfortable and until such time as Gannon/Guckert denies any of this or institutes a lawsuit to protect his good name then I will continue to believe my lyin' eyes.

Is this WH, the same WH that apparently can't find the leaker of the Plame memo despite the presidents plea likely to admit that anything seedy might be going on? Gimmee a break.

Exactly which permutation of whoring for the WH and whoring for real whilst collecting tax judgements is not a public right to know? and in case you forget we have the potential for not just any two but all three. Can you honestly tell me that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be calling the R blogosphere to cease and desist?

Please.

And the concept of relevance flies right past him, again.

The people whipping up the crowd to go after Guckert are, I think, wrapped up in their own mythology. It's kinda sad to watch, really, especially since it involves them destroying someone.

notindc -

Exactly which permutation of whoring for the WH and whoring for real whilst collecting tax judgements is not a public right to know?

None of it, if you've proven no conspiracy. Just because you don't like a reporter's hackdom does not make the fact that they have a seedy personal life or bad tax dealings public information. The guy was barely even a public figure.

Your repeated rationalization of this aspect of the story marks you as ethically challenged, and we are at a permanent impasse.

Fagit!

Perhaps an uncomfortable fact but not a necessary building block. The man is a male escort. I am given to understand that male escorts do not necessarily limit themselves to servicing men but also offer their expertise to women or both or whatever. In this case I believe we can safely establish the fact that Gannon/Guckert confined himself to offering services to men and that Gannon/Guckert is/was a homosexual or 'faggit' as you prefer.

Mr Midge, Homosexual - irrelevant, male escort - relevant, get it? Male escort subject to tax judgements working as WH press shill, super dooper relevant. Male escort subject to tax judgements working as WH press shill, connection to Plame outing, super sooper dooper relevant to public right to know, get it?

HOW IS IT RELEVANT?!

That's what's not clear.

The rest of the assertions are just that. Heck, you don't even know if any laws were broken in the Plame "outing".

Now I'm getting pissed.

WTF is "working as a White House Press shill?!"

Until you have proof that he is somehow in a two-way information relationship with the White house, in fact a "plant" vetted and picked by the WH, - something other than a simple partisan hack (a la reporters for the Nation or Helen Thomas), SHUT UP.

Without proof of a conspiracy, none of the other stuff (escort, sexuality, taxes) is relevant, anymore than it would be if Wolf Blitzer was the target. THE CART IS BEFORE THE HORSE.

Christ you are fucking dense.

Safely establish? You have not "safely" established anything at all, notindc. Instead you tread on the edges of a non-frivolous slander suit. Which as I and Bill have noticed tells us a lot of your ethics.

Heck, you don't even know if any laws were broken in the Plame "outing".

Oh no, you just distracted "notindc," because in order to argue this with you, he/she will assert that it's been proven that Gannon was leaked the secret memo.

ANALYSIS OF EVENTS INDICATES THE OPPOSITE.

Bill, I am in complete concurrence with you.

Being a hypocrite is not a crime. Clearing a hypocrite to ask the president questions is not a crime. A hypocrite asking the president questions is not a security threat. That is why they have the Secret Service. The goal, openly stated at Americablog is that by defaming Gordon that Bush’s WH “values” are similarly defamed. Posting someone’s personal secrets and information as defamation attached to vague allegations of illegal activities is libel. Nothing else. Your story HAS to be associated to the white house. If there is NO association to the white house, then all you have accomplished is a mob-style personal defamation of a journalist do to his legal lifestyle. That is libel and illegal.

All the left proved was he was Gordon was a hypocrite and voraciously destroy him. Is the left actually proposing that the white house press corps do checks on people’s sexual orientation, drug usage, financial standings, tax withholdings, business associations and family life for clearance to be a journalist? That is called a top-secret security clearance and very few people can get close to clearing one; never mind the inherent contradiction to freedom of the press. Does the public need to be privy to Helen Thomas’s sex life for legitimacy?

And if you can ever, concretely prove that he was leaked CIA documents or planted by the white house ~ being gay or an escort is absolutely irrelevant. Several blogs should prepare for a lawsuit.

notindc:

I understand your point. Really I do. And you've at least got the decency to distance yourself from those on the left who cried out "homo," claiming it the black spot on a hack's soul.

But now you turn to "Whore." I am not saying that this doesn't reflect poorly on his character. Nor am I saying that the left is hypocritical in screaming this epithat. Generally the left is far more foregiving of consensual sexual activites, but you've never announced the principle that prostituion isn't immoral. I gotcha. And you've certainly never said it's okay to cheat on your taxes. Granted.

What the problem is however it seeing how this isn't just the gleeful personal destrucition of a human being no one had ever heard of two days ago. You claim to have good reason for running with the photos, the stories of whoring, the tax cheating stories because they somehow tie into WH wrongdoing. I don't see it. As I wrote above, you stretch that point to legitimize your pleasure in a man's destruction. It's a security issue you say? Really, Gannon must be destroyed or else the WH might end up allowing another tax cheat or another whore within 40 feet of the nation's chief executive? Our nation is in peril?

No. You chortlingly go about emphasizing Gannon's flaws (very real flaws if your rumors and innuendno are true) because it serves the great cause of destroying the right. And really, what wrongful action doesn't can't be legitimized when the stakes are so great? When Bush=Hitler, a few innocents, a few prinicples are expendable to bring down the great evil.

Maybe you're right. Maybe the right would do the same thing. No one side is comprised of decent people and the other of "scum." We are flawed also. But that doesn't make your actions are right here. It doesn't lend moral legitimacy to drawing pleasure from personal destruction. One does not judge one's actions by whether "the other side" would do them were the shoe in the other foot. The other side may be a bunch of bastards. If you haven't realized that, well, you'll just have to take our word for it.

"Is the left actually proposing that the white house press corps do checks on people’s sexual orientation, drug usage, financial standings, tax withholdings, business associations and family life for clearance to be a journalist? That is called a top-secret security clearance and very few people can get close to clearing one; never mind the inherent contradiction to freedom of the press. Does the public need to be privy to Helen Thomas’s sex life for legitimacy?"

Sure does sound like that's what the left wants.
If that's the case I guess they won't mind that the press will be waiting 18-24 months to get their freaking press passes. I happen to be going through that lovely process now. Just as a side note: TS clearances don't get into one's sexual orientation anymore.

And good lord..*I* don't need to know or want to know about Helen Thomas' sex life.

Come on people its not like this or something very similar hasn't happened before, try googling Craig Spence, hint - ignore the golf links (sic).

I don’t think that anyone has even proven yet that Gannon is a hypocrite. And when I see the “hypocrite’ label being spewed so freely, I can’t help but feel that there’s another force at work that’s driving this story.

Even if Gannon is gay, and even if he was an escort or prostitute, that doesn’t make him unqualified to be a Republican. Or even a Republican shill, if it comes to that. I know a few Republicans who are gay. And I am neither gay, nor Republican (not there is anything wrong with either).

Face it, this ain’t your father’s Republican party. I think this is something the left just doesn’t understand. Or maybe some of them do understand, and it really, really hurts their brains. They refuse to admit it or accept it because to do so would destroy their concept of the world’s order.

But it seems as if the Republicans today believe that all members of the party don’t need to march in lock step, or agree 100% on all issues. Their tent is bigger than it used to be. And I can assure you, as the Democrats continue to move further and further to the left, more people will fall under that Republican tent. Hell, I might even sign up.

I can understand why this could be such a big issue for some lefty bloggers. They believe the Republican party is a gay hating, “holier than thou”, religious fest. The fact that some in the White House would actually work cooperatively with someone who might be gay, or is even admittedly gay, or who might possibly have a less than perfect past, is anathema. It can’t be resolved with their dichotomous, black and white view of the world. So they fight to create their own reality. They can’t handle the truth.

Hey, not indc!

Something just occured to me. Maybe this Gannon has /had a "liquids" problem. Get what I mean? Maybe he likey the drinky to much-y. (wink, wink). Mabye there's some photo's out there with a drikypoo in his hands? Is that a coke or is it a rum-n-coke? Has he denied it? Anyone seen him at an AA meeting?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Just imagine, the White House background checkers gave him a press pass. Get on it!

"Notindc" -- you're still not arguing your case. You're just waving your arms and shouting "don't look at the facts!"

Why is Guckert's sexuality relevant to any other accusations?

Would the left get on one page when it comes to outstanding public debts, please. I am tired of hearing about Gannon's unpaid state taxes/court judgements and then reading things like this:

"(Councilman Larry) Gossett (D-Seattle) said it was "demagogic" to crusade against voting by felons, who he said are disproportionately African American and who often don't have their voting rights restored because they are too poor to pay their legal debts."

Which is it? Do you need to pay your outstanding taxes, parking tickets, library and court imposed fines in order to reap the benefits of society, or are those things optional?

Whining about Gannon's unpaid taxes is really inconsistent with many left positions. Some might even say it is hypocritical.

(quote from today's Seattle Times)

Just as we suspected Captain, outrage meter reads zero but the bulls**t meter's pegged, the whole place could go up any minute.

Time to beam me back up Scottie our job here is done.

Hmph.

I guess it WAS all just bluster and posture.

notindc, here's a hint:
Point the meter away from your own body.

Notindc: I presume your referring to your comment wanting us to google above. No, you're right. I didn't look at it. I suppose it's something to the effect that republicans did the exact same thing to another person. Let's say I do that work and come back and say "You're right." Or, let's say I come back and say "You're wrong." Either way, you'll notice that has nothing to do with whether the left is right of wrong in their destruciton of this man Gannon.

You seem to have tired of trying to explain to us why their actions toward Gannon, their rumor and innuendo, are wrong. My suspicion is that you can no longer explain to yourself why they were right. Instead of admitting that, you want to say "Well you guys are just as bad." Maybe we are. I guess it just sucks to be Gannon then, huh?

Step back a second. Often times we argue with others to prove we're smarter than them. Sometimes, rarely (maybe very rarely) we argue with others to get them to change their mind. Even more rarely, they do. You no longer seem to argue why it is right to screw Gannon. Rather it's only "pot-kettle-black" on his defenders. An honest man, when confronted with opposing views he cannot counter, changes his mind? Will you?

Perhaps, it's asking to much to do so in a comment here. Perhaps no one, left or right, can admit in front of his "enemies" they are right and he is wrong and that he has changed his mind. Then don't suffer that shame here. But perhaps you could go over to your lefty sites comment there. Takes Bill's advice. Perhaps it could start "Wait a second, fellas..."

No one is saying the left is always wrong or that you personally are stupid. I used to be a raging lefty myself. I don't know you but I'm sure you're a decent person. Do the decent thing.

Hmmm.

I tried googling this but the amount of chaff out there is just extreme.

1. White House Press Passes come in two flavors.

1.a A "Hard pass" means the reporter is given a permanent electronic card that he can simply swipe through a reader, along with a security check, to gain access to the briefing room. A Hard pass requires an extensive background check. Whether or not this also requires working for a large network or newspaper, I don't know but I assume so.

1.b A "Daily pass" means the schlub has to stand outside the gate, along with everyone else, present some ID and apply for the Daily pass each and every day. Whether or not a person gets a Daily pass depends on how many are being handed out and where in line that person is. A Daily pass has lower background check requirements and, evidently, lower requirements on the size of the network or newspaper.

Guckert applied for a Congressional pass, but that privledge is jealously guarded by a panel of journalists and was refused. There is no similar panel controlling White House press passes, though quite a few journalists want to create one, so getting a White House press pass, particularly a Daily pass, is much easier.

Jeff Gannon/Guckert stood in line for 2+ years and applied every single time for a Daily pass. Now he's accused of skirting the rules and getting special favors, but nobody has stated that you CANNOT simply continue to apply for Daily passes. While it might not be the normal path that journalists take, it is not either unethical nor is it illegal.

Hmmm.

"James Guckert the male hooker gets a revolving day pass to the WH press office where he gets called on regularly by the WH press secretary who addresses him as "Jeff" to field softball questions."

1. Ok. Give me proof that Jeff Guckert is/was a male hooker. Until then it's just libeleous speculation.

2. As for the "Jeff" name calling, the guy spent 2+ years attending the press briefing room. Isn't it part of your antagonism that Jeff had been given access to the press briefing room? Now you're complaining that someone calls him by his first name, after having gotten that access for 2+ years?

Would you be happier if everyone called him "hey you"?

oh what's the use.

Bill from INDC,

You DO realize you have been arguing with a moron (notindc).

Hmmm.

I wonder if writing a blog filter plug-in would be a good idea. It would probably work for TypeKey and Blogger. Keep the list on the client. Have the plug-in scan the incoming webpage for specific username/email/URL pairs.

I really need to think about this.

Give me proof that Jeff Guckert is/was a male hooker.

I think americasblog has demonstrated he was involved in an escort service or performed the duties of a person involved in an escort service. This seems pretty irrelevent to me and it strikes me as odd that a congressman gets a free pass when a lover of his runs a prostitution ring from the apartment they share(d) in DC.

The Valerie Plame story seems to be the big fish but we'll see.

And exactly how many times did Gannon ever ask questions?