Whatever Ace. But man it has been fun making hay with (not at) Jeff Gannon and at (not with) those lefty freak pods - and gettin' to tie it all in to Eason's demise - pure heaven!! Just too.damn.good if you ask me. God, I have just roared with laughter today! And who knows - this may end up looking really good on old Jeff's resume - if those moonbat bastards ever let him go!

You mean we werent actually making fun of Jeff Gannon? Well ill be damned...
Jesus its late. I tried to write a funny response to this but im so tired im practically retarded. Dont ya hate it when people dont get a joke? And then you feel like you need to explain it, but then the people that got it the first time think your a dumbass. "ya see- she said King Kongs balls...he's a monkey...you know a MONKEY-ya get it?...nevermind."
Im going to bed. Thanx for linking to the Fat Kid by the way.
Two Questions before i go:
1) who would win in a tag team match? Paul Anka and Lemy or Mike Ditka and Jeff Gannon?
2)Who the Fuck is Jeff Gannon?

Nope, not really.

I mean, yes, to some extent, as we're all making Jeff Gannon into a superhero.

But really that's incidental. We're making fun of Oliver Willis, who thinks this is the BIGGEST STORY EVER.

The only lefty to come out of this with his dignity intact is, I hate to say this, Joshua Micah Melloncamp Boutros-Boutros Marshall. I went to his site, hoping he was all over it, but at least as of last night he wasn't.

Maybe he's made a buffoon of himself since, or will in the future.

Hope, like Jeff Gannon's bionically-augmented legs, springs eternal.

Ace, you outdid yourself today. It was inspired posting and the comments were pure gold. It may be the biggest story ever - your biggest story bro. Only fitting that it would be Jeff Gannon's story. (I'm crying now! … sorry!)

Two thoughts on this:

1) I'll make you a deal. I'll get us lefties to stop crowing about Gannon when you get the righties to stop beating the Ward Churchill dead horse. Now that's an equivalency.

2) Having said that, I would like to point out that everyone was laughing at Woodward and Bernstein in 1973. Just don't say I didn't try to warn you if this Gannon thing turns out to go all the way to the top.

Yeah, ALL the way to the top, baby.

You're going to prove that they gave credentials to a conservative partisan reporter who maybe didn't have the requisite number of years of experience to deserve them.

Start drawing up a Bill of Impeachment now, Auguste. Why wait for the rush?

I'll make you a deal. I'll get us lefties to stop crowing about Gannon when you get the righties to stop beating the Ward Churchill dead horse. Now that's an equivalency.

And, um, no it's not, dude. Softball questions are not the equivalent for blaming the victims of 9/11 for their own fucking mass-murder.

And I admit that Jeff Gannon is "on my side."

Do you admit that Churchill is on your side? Oh, what's the word-- a fellow traveller, perhaps?

You're never willing to admit that people like that have anything to do with you... except inadvertantly, I guess.

And one more point:

Why do you think I WANT you to stop flogging poor Jeff Gannon?

As a human being, I sympathize with him, but as a blogger, this is good stuff. You guys are making perfect jackasses of yourselves and I've finally had something to blog about.

There are three kinds of jokes i make:

1) unfunny jokes I just throw in because it's expected I'll say something at least amusing at the end of a post

2) actually funny jokes, which are more rare

3) actually funny jokes which I and all the readers can then riff on and beat to death, which is my favorite sort of joke of all

I don't get many of type 3. And you knuckleheads with your breathless WE GOT JEFF GANNON triumphalism have served me up one.

I haven't had that in a long time.

So, my dear Auguste:

Don't stop. Don't ever stop.

I can't think of comedic premises myself, and I outsource that work to you.

And you're doing a terrific job.

Why the hell would we want the lefties to stop? This is grade-A prime blogfodder. I mean, even better than trying to nominate Howard Dean...

Ace, you're on f---in' fire this week. Hope this gets you more hits somehow.

Damn, I'm seconds too slow.

Yeah, I got good hits today.

And not just good hits. I'm painfully aware when I'm letting the readers down with just linking crap and not adding anything original.

But I can't make stuff like this up. No one can. Let's be honest-- this sort of thing has to just be dropped in your lap.

Ace,

I question the timing of your disclosure. Is it because you're a lesbian?

Did you hear the news, we got Eason Jordan!!!

Take that, leftie blogs!!

P.S. Anybody heard from Dan Rather lately?

I'd like to take down Laurie Dhue. [/sigh]

Laurie Dhue is 50% midget.
The only way they can make her attractive is by applying industrial hi-sheen lip gloss to her with a trowel and then park her behind a piece of large heavy furniture.

I'm just sayin'

...and I mean that in the nicest way possible, don't get me wrong. No disrespect.

Fair enough, Ace. And fuck it, you've been completely on fire with this stuff, as I said - by golly ya done it again.

I just added a haiku. More will be coming.

I think Ace's semi-mea culpa here is right on point. But I think a lot of people around here could be (should be?) saying the same thing. And it's our OWN damn fault.

For too long, we've made a false god of a man. We've placed all our hopes and dreams on a man's shoulders, then when he cannot bear the load, we all come here to pretend he never meant anything to us.

But seriously, how could one man have lived up to all we've made GANNON out to be? He was a great man, but a man nonetheless. Sure, how many of us had even heard of a "briefing-room" or a "prez-a-dent" before Gannon. I'll admit it: For me, they were just vague buzzwords smart people used on tv. Gannon made them real for me.

I think a lot of people around here are now feeling something Shelley captured:

"I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Gannon, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."

Now, of course Gannon never had that opinion of himself. It was us projecting onto him. So, you'll please excuse us. If it now seems we're making fun of Gannon, we're really only making fun of ourselves. We laugh here, but only to stop the tears.

Hey, wait a second...

Didn't anybody else think that this...

Having said that, I would like to point out that everyone was laughing at Woodward and Bernstein in 1973. Just don't say I didn't try to warn you if this Gannon thing turns out to go all the way to the top.

...is the most unintentionally hilarious point-proving post a lefty could possibly make? Guys, this COULD GO ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP.

There is a cancer on the presidency.

Good one Jeff.
Plus he seems to be implying that the Gannon and Churchill flaps are equally inconsequential- then destroys that assumption with his very next thought.

Ray, you're a SUPERSTAR

Having said that, I would like to point out that everyone was laughing at Woodward and Bernstein in 1973. Just don't say I didn't try to warn you if this Gannon thing turns out to go all the way to the top.

Heh. When in doubt, remember the glory days.

What are the articles of impeachment going to say? That this president conspired to get himself asked easy questions at press conferences?

Oooohhh. (shudder)

This has been a fine week for AoSHQ. Some of the funniest shit ever. I relish the leftoids' retardo high-fives, when there's not a one of them that isn't insanely jealous of Sr. Gannon and his accomplishments. The guy did what they wish they could do -- start an online news dealio and get some cred.

David Brock has his comforting arms wrapped around a sobbing Filet-O-Fish right now.

I wasn't saying the flaps were equally inconsequential, although I can actually see how it scanned that way.

No, I was merely trying to say that the "Who's Jeff Gannon" factor and the "Who's Ward Churchill" factor are the same. Unless you think that anyone who doesn't attend University of Colorado or follow Columbus Day protests had ever heard of Ward Churchill before the righties started bringing him up three years later.

And in my second paragraph, I was merely intimating that "Who's Jeff Gannon" or not, the obvious fact that his ability to gain access required intervention from the White House is what I was referring to.

I don't expect to win this argument, but at least I can clarify what I was talking about.

Keep laughing.

And in my second paragraph, I was merely intimating that "Who's Jeff Gannon" or not, the obvious fact that his ability to gain access required intervention from the White House is what I was referring to.

Holy hell, that was a badly written paragraph. I think my point staggers across, though.

I agree with Auguste. If someone actually in the White House actually gave Gannon a press pass for the express purpose of having him lob softball questions to the president or to eat up the limited time of a press conference, then this is a very big deal. An impeachable offence? Of course not. But it would look bad. There isnt any proof of that yet, but why should we begrudge the left side of the bloggospear for doind the exact same thing that we would do if the situation was reversed?
Is it bigger than Churchill? Absolutly. Churchill is a nobody as well, and would never have been heard of outside of his university if people on the right hadnt drug him into the spotlight. Look at all the time people on the right have invested in digging up dirt on Churchill. The bloggers have proven that even though Churchill probably shouldnt be fired for make idiotic statements, he should be fired for his many fraudulent claims about his credentials. Let the lefties dig. What if they do find something?

And speaking of conflicts of interest- has anybody noticed that Malkin has ads up for the PBS show about Alfred Kinsey? Maybe theirs hope for her yet

Seems to me the Briefing Room would be at least half-empty if there were checks into real qualifications for the reporters. My first qualifying question would be: "Can you ask a coherent question that hasn't been asked in the same briefing at least three times?" That would eliminate the networks right there.

If someone actually in the White House actually gave Gannon a press pass for the express purpose of having him lob softball questions to the president or to eat up the limited time of a press conference, then this is a very big deal.

Not it wouldn't be a very big deal, and it's unlikely anyhow.

The WH was making a gesture to the "new media" -- the media many of us say should be allowed to mix with the old media -- and gave credentials to a friendly new-media reporter.

They didn't have to ask him to lob softballs. Of course they knew he was friendly.

But who cares? They know Helen Thomas is hostile (but loved Clinton). Are only liberals permitted to express their opinions in WH briefings?

Besides, WH briefings are unimportant. The whole point of them is not to disclose important information -- background detail stuff, maybe. Actual communications are done through Presidential speeches, surrogates on TV, and "leaks" to reporters to advance an agenda.

WH briefings are a waste of pretty much everyone's time, and everyone in DC knows that.

Are only liberals permitted to express their opinions in WH briefings?

Well, YEAH.

This will be my first and last comment addressing "Gannon-gate" seriously. I apologize for it's length. No more long comments. And please excuse the following things I will say about Gannon, I have no idea as to their truth. I am using them as givens to examine the worst case scenarios the left is spinning.

Assume Gannon entered the briefing room his first day, shiny press pass in hand, already a hack. What kind of hack?
1. Hack acting on EXPLICIT WH instrucitions to either:
a) Ask question X (WH hoping it would be carried in nonpartison papers and generate favorable WH sentiment).
b) Eat up time period Y with Q's of own devising, to lessen # of hostile Q's otherwise asked.
2. No WH instructions, but hope that hack Q's of own devising accomplish a) or b) above.

If it's any version of 2. so what? This isn't dishonesty. If there was some sort of dishonesty that I shold be outraged about, then why wasn't the press corp outraged day 1 when he first showed up. Did they not realize he was the hack he was? Why wasn't the alarm sounded the moment they had realized someone had breeched their objectivity bubble? Excuse me, I just don't care who was in that room. If anything, I'd prefer it not filled with people feigning objectivity. But then who would be left in the WH press corps?

Assume it's 1. above. Yes, i'm bothered. Maybe their actions do not rise to the level of a "LIE", but I don't like dishonesty in a WH. "Realpolitik" means-to-good-ends aside, lying is an evil in an of itself. How evil? That depends on the planted Q's he asked. If they were Q's our obstensibly neutral WHPC should have asked, then less troubled, but still bothered. If it's 1(b), then the WH is also incompetent. Why not end press briefings Y minutes earlier?

The Gay angle. Let's assume he's gay for a second. Why does this mean anything to the lefty blogs?
"Uh... the white house used a person who turned out to be gay! Man did that blow up in their faces! Everyone knows the WH hates gays. Hoisted by their own petard, or what?"
"Er, no? Well, it's at least deeply ironic. Right? Right?" "No? Well, it's something. C'mon! The WH had a gay guy inside it! Unescorted. And he's GAY!"

Get back to me on whatever you find out there lefty blogs and I'll be appropriatley outraged. No more, no less.

The only way the Jeff Gannon story will become damaging to the WH is if it is somehow proved that Gannon's credentials were given to him as part of some kind of Armstrong Williams-style "conspiracy" to buy positive press coverage.

The fact that Williams was paid covertly by the WH to flog a particular agenda should be VERY embarassing to conservatives. I voted for W, I support most of his agenda, and I think he's done a hell of a job under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, but the WH paying MY money to some columnist - OVER or UNDER the table - to pimp a particular gummint program is NOT the way I want my taxes used. If they can't come up with a conservative program that the conservative press will support, THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE PROGRAM.

As much as it pains me to say it, if it IS proved that there was a WH plan to buy positive press coverage, then Auguste's point is correct - especially since such a stupid scheme is positively Clintonesque, and conservatives should give everybody involved a severe smack in the opinion polls.

IF, on the other hand, the story is that Gannon, under his real name, got press credentials on the up-and-up, and isn't some kind of porno security risk, and that there aren't any other reporters or pundits out there getting tax money to cheer the WH agenda in print, then the worst the administration can be accused of is recognizing a lucky break when they see it, by giving minimal access to a reporter who isn't a de facto Bush antagonist.

The Gay angle. Let's assume he's gay for a second. Why does this mean anything to the lefty blogs?

Two reasons: He wrote a series of articles supporting the President's anti-gay marriage agenda, and more importantly, it's not "he's allegedly gay", it's "he's allegedly involved in gay prostitution."

IF, on the other hand, the story is that Gannon, under his real name, got press credentials on the up-and-up, and isn't some kind of porno security risk, and that there aren't any other reporters or pundits out there getting tax money to cheer the WH agenda in print...

And for the record, if this turns out to be the case with fairly high confidence, I will come back here and admit freely and cheerfully that it's not a big deal.

I just don't think that's how it'll turn out.

Watch the libel, kid. The guy registered some web site names that were never actually created.

Stop claiming he was "allegedly" involved in gay prostitution unless you have some goddamned evidence of that.

Auguste: I didn't know that prostitute allegation. Thanks. But still, it seems a non-reflection on the WH unless they actually employed him as an explicit plant?
(you've made me break my no long/serious comment thing) Following possible scenarios:

Gannon not on their payroll.
If Helen Thomas turns out to be, or once was, a prostitute (shudder) or gay? Are we supposed to think something different about the WH because of that fact?

On their payroll, but gay (to WH surprise).
Is the WH supposed to be like the Armed Forces and once gayness is discoverd that person gets the boot? IF so, he's already quit. How does this reflect poorly on the WH?

On their payroll, but a prostitute (to WH surprise)
Is the left, on this aspect, crowing over inadequate background checks by whoever does that stuff on hires at the WH? Is that it?

On their payroll, gay (no surprise)
Does the WH have an explicit policy contrary? Implicit? i.e. because they're republicans, and therefore antigay, and therefore... they never hire gays and if they did here, then what a bunch of hypocrites? Maybe. Even if so, I am not that offended their hypocrasy w/r/t such a policy. Why is the left?

On their payroll, prostitute (no surprise)
If that turns out to be true, I can understand their crowing over this. (The WH is knowlingly hiring prostitutes!) But notice this has nothing to do with gayness. Why the whole gay schadenfreude?

Except for that last scenario, I think the lefts harping on this point is misplaced. They're just crowing cause a gay guy got in. Is the WH somehow worse b/c of this?

Is the left not really offended this, but are willing to throw a guy to the wolves, emphasizing his "gayness" because it's for the overall good of their cause?
What other principle of theirs' are they willing to ignore to get their prey? Why should we trust such people to live up to the principles they espouse in the future (even if we agreed with such principles)?

Nothing in that (far too lengthy) comment was meant to imply Gannon is in ACTUALITY gay or a prostitute. Don't know.

Gannon admits registering the sites. Some of the sited were about gay military escort services. Isnt that enough of a link to say that he was involved with gay prostitution- at least the promotion of it.

If i bought domain names about child pornography- names that were explicitly pornographic- wouldn you have every right to say im at the very least promoting the idea, whether i actually ever get around to adding content or not?

Even if he is telling the truth, why would someone as conservative and Anti- gay as he is go along with purchasing gay pornography domain names? Would you go buy some kiddie porn domain names if i payyed you? Of course not.

Hey I know a guy who registered *Collegename*"slaterns".com
yet he didnt go to the college & he wasn't a slatern, he was just trying to leave his options open.
Since the sites we reportedly never created how do we know that it's an escort service rather than a randy name.

Connection to a website does not necesarily connote illegal behavior.

First off who ever registered the name "______ slaterns" is a moron.
What the hell century is this? Who uses the word "slaterns"? Unless England sends us another boarload of Quackers and they happen to have a thing for college age girls your friend has wasted his money.
Secondly-ive typed as much as im going to type on the subject. Ive brought up every point i can possibly make and so if no one here is convinced yet, it just aint gonna happen. Sometimes i think that people on the right are just as stubborn as the people on the left. I guess that sounds a little rude, but hey its the internet. It just seems like no one is even willing to entertain the idea that Gannon might not be on the up and up. Hell, im not saying he is or not but at the very least im not going to dismiss it out of hand.
I think ill just go back to making my usual dumbass comments. Theres less typing involved and i dont have to hear
Andrea Harris bitch...

did i just type "boarload of Quackers"?
I think i did. Im retarded-pay no attention to me. I apologize. Jeff Gannon is a God Among men.

Hey I've been caught by ace's filter before- just trying to figure out a way around it. Everybody can guess the real word.

I'm still trying to figure out what crime was committed even if the WH paid Gannon.
Press briefing's aren't covered by the constitution, the president or his staff are under no obligations to show up for any, mush less refrain from stacking the deck in their favor.
W just haves to give one state of the union a year.
That's it.

Hmm...did you see my comments in the Haiku thread, Amish?

Amish:

Gannon may turn out to be a guy hypoctical (inconsistent?) enough to have written anti-gay stuff and also, at one time, done up a gay escort site. But this does not reflect on the White House in any way.

If the argument is that well, a guy that hypocritical (inconsistent) may be lying when he says he was never in the paid service of the WH, well then maybe. Maybe. We'll wait and see. (I would be somewhat bothered by that though.)

But w/o more than that, it's just a case of "Others in the exec. branch did it with Armstrong Williams" and this Gannon guy could be lying too because he's a 'hypocrite'."

Kos and Atrios may have brought down an obscure reporter by exposing his "hypocrisy" and outing his not-antigay-enoughness to his employer. Quite a coup guys. I'll be waiting for something more than broad "Gannon could be lying!" sentiments before getting on board with Kos and Atrios 'we've brought down a presidency' hysteria.

Sorry See-Dubya, i missed those. Haikus are for gay Anime fans and teenaged Japanes girls ao i decided to skip that thread. Its nice to see that at least someone partially agrees with me. Not that im bitter or anything.

And Ray Midge:
Boar full of Quackers= end of discussion

If he (Gannan) turns out to be gay, so what? I don't like that particular lifestyle, but it's legal here in the states.

What irks me is the hypocracy of the left who want everyone to either be gay or be one's best friend, then get uptight when one is actually found! And that's yet to be proven in this case. GET OFF IT, LEFTY. You're a stinkin' hypocrite if he is, and a lousy hypocrite if he isn't.

Amish, after being taken to task in that post I shoveled my way through Media Matters, Atrios,Kos, etc. to see what they were really saying. After bathing in tomato juice to remove the stench, I've read all the defenses including the interview linked below.

Are the lefties overreacting? Are they reveling in exposing someone's private life in a way they would find despicable were it done to them? Are they engaging in bizarre conspiracy mongering and ridiculous speculation?

Could this be bear poop in these woods?

But have they raised some fair questions about Jeff Gannon's integrity? I think so, and his interview with E&P doesn't completely dispel them. I hope he will.

But also like you, I'm not going to spoil a great running joke on Ace's site by dwelling on it too much. A shady reporter? Perish the thought!

One last thing: If Gannon were gay,or looking at gay (or other) porn, well, that's his private life. But registering domain names is business, and that's public, and open for discussion.

Ah yes, the Anti- Gannon Amish revolution begins to grow. First the Ace of Spades blog, then Hyrule, and then-- the World!

And for the record, if this turns out to be the case with fairly high confidence, I will come back here and admit freely and cheerfully that it's not a big deal.

I just don't think that's how it'll turn out.

Yeah, well, I would take your opinion a little more seriously if you weren't declaring yourself on the side of the left...the despot-loving, freedom-hating, traitorous, defeatist left.

Or how about this: when you take a stand against someone in your party, or agree with someone in the opposing party, purely on principle, then your opinion might be worth listening to.

Right now you stand with the rest of the political game players, only interested in justice when it's detrimental to the other "team".

Hey Amish,

Would a "boarload of quackers" be similar to John Madden's famous "turducken"? You know, some sort of ridiculous food item passed out to the FA cup winners.

Just wonderin is all.

What the hell is wrong with the word "slattern"? It's an excellent word, and one we don't hear enough. St00p1d liberals, always wanting to take away words. I bet you don't like "popinjay", either.

- Not a Quacker