Ace of Spades HQ

« If Denise Richards and Charlie Sheen Can't Make It, What Hope Do the Rest of Us Have? | Main | Crucifed By the FEC »

March 03, 2005

The AoS Jeff Gannon Interview

You should know that there seemed to be a misunderstanding about what sort of interview this would be. Jeff thought it would be a mostly humorous intereview. But I didn't go that way, as I thought I was already doing the humor okay on my own, and didn't want to pass up the chance to get actual first-hand information from a person in the center of a story (well, a sorta ginned-up phony-baloney story, but a story nonetheless).

Also, many of my questions presupposed certain facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say, and Jeff objected to many of these. Had this been a phone interview, I would have quickly realized there were certain areas he just wasn't getting into and dropped the point to avoid the tedium. But, as this was all done by email, all at once, all those questions were already out there.

Alternately, I guess I could have done a real-time question-by-answer email exchange, but I didn't think I should press for more of his time than he was offering. In a couple of cases, I think I missed the opportunity for a follow-up I would have liked to have asked.

Ah, well. Lessons learned.

So, this interview isn't as interesting or fun as you may have been hoping. Hopefully, though, there's still some interesting stuff for you here and there.

The email interview:

This may be a question you don't want to answer, but you've given unclear statements about whether or not you saw memos regarding Valerie Plame. Did you? And what sort of memos if you did? And, importantly, can you at least say when you saw memos when you did -- was it after the general revelations about the matter, or before?

JG: Because of the ongoing investigation into the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s identity, I cannot comment further, especially since Congressional Democrats have asked the Special Prosecutor to interview me again. Sorry to disappoint, but this is what I’m paying lawyers to tell me.

It appears that some of your earlier statements about your websites -- that you were just registering them as part of your job, for someone else -- were untrue.

JG: What I said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN regarding those sites is 100% true. They were reserved for a private client who never moved forward with website development of any kind. These domain names were never hosted nor was anything every posted to them.

First, give us your general state of mind during these revelations about you, and what caused you to lie. I imagine you didn't have access to a PR person or crisis management expert, and so you were flying by the seat of your pants; but did you think that you could put your critics off the chase, or were you just too surprised and anxious to the point where you weren't even thinking clearly?

JG: This question is so wrong in its premise that I won’t even begin to answer it.

Do you imagine that there might have been a better outcome had you been more truthful from the outset, or at least declined to answer questions at all? Or did you think you were sort of cooked at that point, and that trying to avoid further digging was your only realistic alternative?

JG: Again, you are assuming something that isn’t accurate.

What advice would you give to someone caught in a similar situation?

JG: I could not advise anyone on a particular strategy, but mine has been to focus on what is really important and not to lose faith.

Sean adds: Do you think that any of your dishonesty about your past history was a betrayal to either your employers or the White House?

JG: Once again, there was no dishonesty. Anything my past had nothing to do with my reporting.

In an article you called Kerry potentially the "first gay president." Coming from a conservative writer, that reads as an attack; it might read differently coming from a gay activist writing for The Advocate. What did you mean by that? Do you think your critics are right to point out any hypocrisy on the basis of that statement? And did you feel that, in order to please a conservative audience, you needed to make somewhat-derogatory statements about homosexuality?

JG: I didn’t do any such thing, I wrote a solid article that few of the people making these allegations have even read. Are you telling me that Kerry wasn’t proud of the nearly unanimous support from the gay community? He did so much to pander to that constituency, even his kids appeared at pro-Kerry events sponsored by gay groups, so are you saying that his description as a champion of homosexual rights isn’t something that he would want to publicize?

Do you see the hypocrisy in your question?

JG: Were I a liberal, the attacks on me would have never happened.

Jim also wants to know, basically, about your feelings about the Republican Party's acceptance of gays? How great is the tension there? How difficult is it to be gay and Republican?

JG: The Republican Party appears to me to be much more inclusive than the liberal media wants to report. Those who do not embrace the entire pro-homosexual agenda are painted by the Left to be intolerant or homophobic, when in fact the Left has a radicalized position not shared by most Americans, Republican or Democrat.

I don’t feel qualified to answer the other two questions.

This all seems to have started because of that One Partisan Question. Would you like to have that one back? And did you plan to ask it, or was it something you sort of thought up on the spur of the moment when called upon? Do you admit that it was a bit over-the-top and clumsy?

JG: I’ve had a month to reflect on “The Question”. That was the question I had prepared for the regular briefing that day. I never expected to be called on by the President, since I never have before. He took over 50 questions that day, an extraordinary amount. But in retrospect, the question was one that needed to be asked, the only change would have been to say that Harry Reid “spoke of the economy as if there were soup lines” since it has been established that he never said that phrase.

On the other hand: Tell us what you think about, say, Helen Thomas' questions, and the entire press corps' determination to repeatedly ask Bush if he had made mistakes during the Iraq War at that one infamous press conference.

G: Your question is the answer. I had a question prepared for that one that talked about judicial nominees.

A real softball, but it's a good question: Tell us how you feel about the left's digging into your personal life. And-- were right-wing bloggers to begin digging into the personal lives of the White House press corps, how do you think they would react, and do you think that more than 50% of them could withstand the scrutiny?

JG: Digging into my personal life was at first an attempt to discredit me and then to embarrass me. There has been a new standard that is to be applied to journalists from this point on, which I believe is wrong. But now, everything in a journalist’s past or that of his family and associates is going to be fair game. Everything about me is out there, so I’ll be interested in reading about my former colleagues.

Similarly, GayPatriotWest wants to know: Ask him if the left devoted so much "ink" to his story because he strayed from the "lavender plantation" and if he thinks the left has decided that the private lives of gay conservatives are now fair game for their "exposés."

JG: There is no doubt that the Left devoted so much ink to me because they hoped to humiliate and embarrass on the basis of perceived sexual orientation. They do the same thing to African-Americans and Hispanics who don’t toe the liberal line. It is clear that everything is on the table now when it comes to the politics of personal destruction.

Another softball, and this one meant humorously (please take it in the spirit in which it is intended): The left has made noise about the "security risk" you posed by simply being within several meters of Scott McClellan and the rest of the White House press corps, due to your background and sexual orientation. Please estimate the level of the security threat you posed-- how likely was it, for example, that you might suddenly wrestle David Gregory to the ground and begin quoting Pet Shop Boys lyrics to him while force-feeding him Appletinis? About a 10% chance, or closer to 1 in 3, or perhaps a little less?

JG: Who are the Pet Shop Boys?

A question from RS: Have you had a chance to look at where you are going next? What sort of work do you hope to be doing?

JG: I have nothing to report at this time, but I hope to be able to announce something in the near future.

I would add the inevitable follow-up: Are you shopping for a book deal? If so, have any expressed interest?

JG: Same as above.

Bill from InDC wants to know: To your knowledge, were ANY strings pulled to get you your day-by-day credentials?

JG: I have no knowledge of any strings being pulled for me to get into the briefings.

JeffB has a similar question: Mr. Gannon, I was wondering if you could say something about how difficult it was or wasn't to acquire day passes for White House press conferences. I'm interested in this particularly because one of the favorite talking points of the Leftie conspirazoids is that you must have had SHADY ROVIAN WHITE HOUSE CONNECTIONS in order to get day passes,
given the online nature of Talon News and your lack of a prior journalistic
reputation. Any light you can shed?

JG: Why would I want to deprive them of one of their favorite conspiracy theories?

Slublog wants to know something I think we already know: if you plan to start blogging (which it appears you have). Will you pursue it seriously, and in what direction do you imagine you'll take it?

G: Everything I do, I approach seriously. I am more of a talker than a writer, and more of a writer than a technician, but I’m hoping to make JeffGannon.com a site that people on both sides of the political divide want to read. I have a new feature: Today’s Briefing Question, where I post the question I would have asked were I still attending the briefings. I’ll compare my question to those from the briefing itself to show how my voice is still needed there.

Representative Maurice Hinchey seems to be claiming you had some involvement in Rathergate. Can you tell us when you learned of Rathergate? Was it before or after it became publicized on Free Republic and then Powerline and Little Green Footballs?

JG: I was aware of Rathergate at the very beginning. Some of this was happening in the briefing room, and I do have ears and eyes and I talk to a lot of people.

Ryan asks: Bush seemingly has a bald head fetish. He has been seen touching or rubbing many bald heads. Has he ever laid a hand on your bald head?

JG: No.

George asks: 1. Did the administration ever feed you questions, plant you in the press pool, or otherwise do anything to make you any kind of shill, barker, etc.?

JG: No. I am an independent, conservative journalist and will remain so.

Ilbis asks: I'm wondering if His Gannonness has plans for wreaking revenge upon those who defiled his mighty name? In terms of non-beliver suffering, on a scale of Al Franken to Conan, where would his plans fall? Obviously those plans must be kept confidential, but perhaps His Gannonness can give us some moral boosting hints to counter the lefties mighty victory?

JG: The Left didn’t achieve much of a victory, as Jonah Goldberg wrote, “they bagged a chipmonk.” Even though I don’t care for the comparison, he’s right about the proportion. But my detractors have sown the seeds of their own destruction. Stay tuned.

Phil asks: Jeff, one of the more recent (unsourced) allegations to surface regarding your time as a reporter is that you frequently had the scoop ahead of anyone else. In fact, it's claimed on Aravosis' blog (which, let me be clear, I find reprehensible) that you (1) were aware of the exact time of the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, (2) shared that knowledge orally with other reporters a full four hours ahead of time.

JG: Unsourced allegations? Surely that is not possible when talking about Gannongate. I have already provided an explanation to this in public statements to the press. No further comment is necessary.

Now, that's a pretty serious charge with genuine national security implications -- can you confirm or deny it? If it is true, can you tell us who gave you this information?

JG: You mean like giving missile technology to the Chinese?

An unknown poster wants to know: When did you first become aware that you were "different", i.e., that you were a "journalist." Did you candidly discuss (uncloset) your "journalist" tendencies with family and close friends, and how did they react when they found out?

JG: I like this question, but the answer I would give would be taken out of context and used against me.

Ray Midge concludes with some, uhhh, important questions:

1. In your absence, will conservatism survive or will it simply evolve into something totally unrecognizable? Follow up: Will you be able to remain the conservative 'straw that stirs the drink' now that you have lost your day pass?

JG: I’m here, I’m conservative, get used to it!

2. Can my one's life have meaning in this new world Kos and Atrious have let loose on us. I mean, a meaning worth getting our of bed for in the morning?

JG: It’s a reason to get out of bed! There is much work to do.

3. Why does evil, exist? Are you not powerful enough to stop it or are bad things somehow part of your 'plan?'

JG: Evil exists so man will know what Good is. Men prove themselves to be Good in the struggle against Evil.

..........

I think next time I will only do phone interviews. The email interview thing just didn't seem to work as well as I expected.

I should also say that I had thought maybe I would re-arrange the questions, so the questions where he gave more expansive answers would come first, and the questions he disputed would come later-- to avoid the reader having to read through a series of demurers and denials. Jeff gave me permission to do so, but, having re-read the exchange, I decided there wasn't anything particularly to be gained by doing so, so that I might as well present the questions and answers in the order they actually appeared.

And... easier that way too, to tell the truth.

I'd like to thank Ninth-Level Illuminatus Jeff Gannon for granting me the interview and answering the questions, even though he seemed to think many of them were out-of-line or presupposed things about him which he does not concede. It wasn't the interview he expected, but he soldiered on nevertheless.

posted by Ace at 01:26 PM

Comments

Awesome!

Congrats on the interview.

Posted by: Dave S on March 3, 2005 01:37 PM

> The email interview thing just didn't seem to work as well as I expected.

I dunno -- I thought it was pretty interesting. I'm glad to see Gannon has a sense of humor about it all.

Posted by: Guy T. on March 3, 2005 01:42 PM

Hmm... I still think he's dancing round my question re: evil and why he lets it exist.

Theologians will continue the debate, while eternal and mysterious remain the ways of Gannon.

Posted by: Ray Midge on March 3, 2005 01:50 PM

Good on ya Ace. I can see this triggering another instalanche... Now, all you need is an interview with the next tsunamilanchanado and you'll leave Drudge with no option but to link you.

Posted by: fat kid on March 3, 2005 02:03 PM

I'd say it turned out pretty good, good work

Posted by: johnny on March 3, 2005 02:06 PM

I'd agree that it went pretty well. It seems Gannon has a sense of humor. I'm glad he still has it after the just plain mean shit the left has thrown at him.

Good on ya both.

Posted by: hobgoblin on March 3, 2005 02:21 PM

Ray Midge,

Gannon as the First Cause? Hmmm...

Posted by: BrewFan on March 3, 2005 02:23 PM

I know this is a stretch, but it occurs to me that the Martyr Gannon intends to deny being gay. Does anybody else get that impression or have I completely slipped a cog?

And if you were going to write a book about your experiences, as I think all of us would encourage Him to do, would you deny being gay even if you were straight as Tommy Lee? I mean, who's going to care about this story if you remove the Hot Gay Man-Love?

Nope, Jeff, the ticket here is to keep 'em guessing (you may have tumbled to this), and make them buy the book. Now, how you handle it in the book, well, I'd make up some stuff about glory holes if it were me and just slap it in there any old where.

Posted by: spongeworthy on March 3, 2005 02:29 PM

I agree with the others, Ace -- this interview was pretty awesome.

I'm just glad my question came right BEFORE Ilbis (who asked His Gannonness if He has plans for wreaking revenge upon those who defiled His mighty name). Because I laughed out loud the first time I read it, and I laughed again this time around, and that's a tough act to follow.

Posted by: George at Snapshot on March 3, 2005 02:31 PM

While it's not as intimate an interview as Goldstein's interview with a close member of Gannon's "family," I thought it went well. So much so that (secure fellow that I am) I looked in on Gannon's website and found this nugget:

3:50pm

Tom Bevan has an great piece at Real Clear Politics, PLAYING HARDBALL WITH MAUREEN DOWD, in which he makes some good points about this gal who probably needs a bit of the old Jeff Gannon to relieve some of that pent up whatever. He also describes the media bubble that protected John Kerry from pesky questions like those about releasing his entire military record until after the election. This is the same bubble that keeps Sen. Hillary Clinton from having to reconcile her statements about the economy and Social Security that I so elegantly framed in "The Question."

This guy's good.

Posted by: capitano on March 3, 2005 02:46 PM

Ace--

Good interview, me liked.

Don't beat yourself up too much-- I know, you want to make news and all, but sometimes it doesn't happen.

Just be secure in the knowledge that you were fair, and that will help your similar efforts in the future.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge on March 3, 2005 02:50 PM

Thanks, all.

And Dave,

Thanks for saying I was fair. I tried to be fair while also asking questions I thought should be asked.

I think I annoyed him a great deal with assumptions about his sexuality; I guess I should have avoided that.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 02:53 PM

I know this is a stretch, but it occurs to me that the Martyr Gannon intends to deny being gay. Does anybody else get that impression or have I completely slipped a cog?

Ummm, the answer would seem to be "Yes."

However, going through Gannon's answers, perhaps there's a reason for that.

Taking everything he said as true-- that he just registered the websites for a friend -- it could be the case that while he isn't gay, and wasn't actually part of the websites in question, he did agree to serve as a model for them.

Hey, look: You see a picture of a gorgeious girl in an ad for an escort service, you don't think she's really going to be the one showing up at your door at 3 am, do you?

So I don't know.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 03:02 PM

For example, one of Hugh Jackman's first paid jobs -- and he's straight and married (alas... he just gives me shivers as wolverine) -- was as a voice-actor for a phone sex line.

I think he did the prepared script; he didn't actually work the lines or do sex talk. They hired him because he had a good voice.

I seem to remember him offering this tidbit up in an interview, probably on Letterman.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 03:04 PM

A gay phone sex line, I should have said.

As if it needed to be said.

As if a woman can't just randomly dial numbers and get all the phone sex from guys that she might want.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 03:05 PM

I want to send kudos to both Ace and Jeff Gannon. Ace for getting the interview. JG for being such a good sport. And for helping fight evil, of course.

Suggestion for E-mail interviewers generally:
Smaller questions are better. Establish the basis for the question you really want to ask. (But avoid sounding like you're deposing somebody too. It's a tough balance to be sure.)

Posted by: Birkel on March 3, 2005 03:13 PM

Tell you what, if I kept myself in that kind of shape, I'd hire myself out as a ringer too.

Yeah, he'd get the last laugh here if he really wasn't gay and just let the media go to town on his ass as if he were. He gets to expose their hypocrisy (that word!) and work up a libel case, too.

But he wouldn't win it. So if I'm Jeff, I'm going to fake like I have this secret double life as a bog-cruising ass-bandit and sell a lot of books.

My Mom would understand.

Posted by: spongeworthy on March 3, 2005 03:14 PM

About the site he was on naked (and urinating in some photos). It was him. He described himself. the size of his member his beliefs, all that junk. In the comments from previous customers they referred to him as Jeff. He WAS pimping himself out, not just a cover model. Go to the americablog site and check it out if you need to

Posted by: Anon on March 3, 2005 03:42 PM

Good Job, Ace.
I'm betting he read all the Gannon stuff you had posted. I'm hoping he didn't take offense at it.
What do you think?

Posted by: Man of Substance on March 3, 2005 03:42 PM

So his Gannonness says that they've sowed the seeds of their own destruction. Does that mean that they will be struck down when they can't reconcile their homophobia with their desire to be Gannonized?

Posted by: Iblis on March 3, 2005 03:43 PM

The tell all novel is one possibility.

The other thing that comes to my mind is that JG is deliberately not answering questions about being gay, (as opposed to simly denying it) although clearly many of us assumed he is gay, based on blogosphere reports...

...plus this little gem: "But my detractors have sown the seeds of their own destruction. Stay tuned."...

...makes me think that one Mr. John Aravosis, along with several leftish journalists, are about to get slapped.

Slapped with a libel suit, that is. Like a Viking!

After all, calling someone a gay hooker when he's just a model...who now makes his living as a conservative journalist...well, if that's what's happened, that's pretty deuced defamatory.

Posted by: See-Dubya on March 3, 2005 04:08 PM

The idea that it's hypocritical for a gay man to criticize Kerry for pandering to the gay establishment comes from identity politix. That is, that people aren't individuals, but embodiments of external ethnic/gender differences. This is the Left at once elevates & patronizes minorities, because it has no interest in them as people, only as voting blocks.

So if Gannon's gay, he must therefore be a hypocrite, because he must agree with the worst extremists in the Republican party. But two can play that game: according to this logic, all liberal queers 1) spit on murdered American workers like Daily Kos 2) deny there's any terrorist threat, like Michael Moore, 3) view whites as the cancer of the human race, like Susan Sontag, 4) support reparations for blacks, like Al Sharpton, & 5) believe the govt should control health care & punish doctors who don't participate in natl health care, like Hillary.

Posted by: jeff on March 3, 2005 04:31 PM

Good job on getting the interview Ace!

Posted by: amish on March 3, 2005 04:32 PM

It's interesting to see conservatives joining with orthodox liberals to insist that Gannon identify himself sexually (so they can decide how they feel about him)

Posted by: jeff on March 3, 2005 04:34 PM

No offense to Mr. Gannon, but he was just a guy who got to ask a not-particularly-interesting question. The fact that the left made a public story out of this guy's private life is something I still can't get my mind around.

It is impressive that Mr. Gannon is keeping his cool after going through so much. And it's nice that blogs provide a forum for people in situations like his to reach the public and correct the record if they want to.

He declined to comment on the more interesting issues. But then again, these issues really aren't my business, so I can't complain.

To Mr. Gannon, if you're reading this: I hope your financial troubles pass, your personal life recovers, and you avoid unhealthy professions in the future. Best of luck to you!

Posted by: SJKevin on March 3, 2005 04:41 PM

Jeff--quite astute. I look forward to trying out that line of argument soon.

Anon--well, if anonymous former customers of an escort service are quoted on a porn site, we've got to believe them, right?

Maybe they knew his name was "jeff" because a certain someone whose initials are JG set up the website. Like he said.

Posted by: See-dubya on March 3, 2005 04:51 PM

Jeff,

That's a groundless charge.

I wasn't asking him to identify his sexuality. I sort of assumed, perhaps wrongly, that with all the disclosures it was now just sort of generally conceded.

And I don't have to wait until I find out his sexuality until I decide "how I feel about him." His sexuality is to me entirely irrelevant.

My questions weren't about his sexuality but about any dishonesty about the website he seems to have had something to do with.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 05:16 PM

Maybe so, but I didn't make the charge; I asked the question to allow him to respond, as he wished, to a charge that had been leveled.

Altho I do stand by my belief that calling someone the "first gay president" (which Gannon seems to deny having done) reads different when coming from a straight conservative than it might from a pro-gay-agenda gay activist liberal.

Were the second sort of person to make that statement, we would take it, immediately, as an attempt at a compliment, as that idiot author (can't remember her name) was clearly attempting to compliment Clinton by calling him "the first black president."

That statement would read differently were it come from, say, David Duke or Robert Byrd. Not that I intend to compare Gannon to either man, of course; I'm just saying that part of the "context" of the statement is the person making it, his sympathies and his antipathies.

Either way, it was a charge leveled at him, and I thought it prudent to ask him to respond to it. The fact that I asked about the charge does not mean I endorse the charge.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 05:22 PM

Hey Ace
I was wondering if your opinion had changed about the seriousness of the "scandal" and what do you think about the way Gannon has conducted himself through out the whole thing? Were you satisfied with the way Gannon answered your questions? Other than your format, were you satisfied with the questions you asked him? If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? Could Jeff Gannon climb you? If you fell on in the woods and landed on Oliver Willis- would anyone care?

Posted by: 60 amish on March 3, 2005 05:47 PM

Ace, I didn't say YOU were making the charge. I was referring to conservative commenters who seem to fall in line with the Left in insisting Gannon identify himself sexually.

Posted by: jeff on March 3, 2005 05:55 PM

But Jeff, I don't see any other commenters here doing what you say, either.

Spongeworthy asked, "Did he just completely avoid any mention of his sexuality?" Which is a fair question; again, I thought (maybe wrongly) that all of this was conceded, and I was surprised that he wouldn't answer questions that touched on the subject. Not that he has to, if he chooses not to; I just thought, well, it's sorta out there now, isn't it?

The rest of Spongeworthy's post was just humor. I don't know how much you can read into any of that.

And I don't see any other commenters making a big deal about this.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 06:00 PM

I just don't see these "demands" of which you speak. I see one post that expresses surprise at the lack of admission about something which *appears* to be (perhaps deceptively; we don't know) established by the various pictures and profiles.

Again, he might have just been a model, a possibility I never considered before.

But that raises a whole 'nother set of questions... I mean, if they're real, these do appear to sites advertising male escorts.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 06:03 PM

I was speaking more in general terms. Spongeworthy's not the only one surprised Gannon won't answer the question. An idea has crept into the culture that any prominent person who happens to be gay must make his sexuality part of his public persona or else he's a hypocrite & a closet case.

Are Michael Stipe & Jodie Foster closet cases because they don't bore us with their sexual lives? Or do they have the good taste not to turn themselves into jokes like Rosie O'Donnell? Obviously, if those are Gannon's pics, he chooses an odd time to get coy, but that' s his choice.

Of course calling Kerry the first gay prez will be received differently coming from David Duke or David Brock, but on the other hand, if gay activists are going to turn the word gay into a political statement, it's hypocritical for them to cry foul when others use it that way too. The gay establishment, like the feminist establishment & the civil rights industry, are nothing but shills for the DNC

Posted by: jeff on March 3, 2005 06:27 PM

To believe that jeffgannon/jamesguckert was unknown to the those in the whithouse is a real stretch. Rove knows EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYONE that comes into contact with the powers in the WH and I just feel Rove and others know who mr gannon/guckert is and why he was there. I'd like to know why he suddenly left after being "discovered" and why did Talon news close shop if there is nothing wrong or improper? I want to hear truthful , honest answers to the questions being asked. I'm less than impressed with the trustworthiness
of this admin lately. It's time to be honest and open with the people. Mr gannonguckert says he's no plant and that the whitehouse would surely pick someone other than himself to be a plant. OK. His only other talent is he's a prostitute! Was that why he was there? Frankly neither of the reasons are OK with me. Enough of the dishonesty.. I also have to say Mr gannon is no hero to me. I've seen his websites that were indeed and some still are ACTIVE and they are disgusting.

Posted by: sandy on March 3, 2005 06:39 PM

hey Sandy, you wouldnt happen to know the addresses of a few of those sites would you?....uh...the Fat Kid wants to know...

Posted by: on March 3, 2005 06:49 PM

Damn you anonymous!

Actually, Jeff just ruined my day... Jodie Foster is gay? WTF?!?

Posted by: fat kid on March 3, 2005 07:11 PM

And that's actually one thing that kinda pisses me off about these comment things - Ace, you should talk to your site admin about getting typekey or something. Right now, we're all relying on everyone's good will, and respect for eachother that we won't steal someone else's name - with the increase in troll activity, it might be a good idea to get people to register. A few samples why to come...

Posted by: fat kid on March 3, 2005 07:15 PM

Hey fat kid, your blog kicks so much ass.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 07:15 PM

Yeah, Ace, I agree -I can't understand why I get all this traffic and Fat Kid doesn't get anything.

Posted by: Glenn Reynolds on March 3, 2005 07:16 PM

I'm a Karl Rove plant.

Posted by: The Mighty Gannon on March 3, 2005 07:16 PM

come on man- you didnt know Foster was gay? Who cares anyway? I havent been able to get an erection since since 1994 when i saw her playing a topless retard in Nell.

"Tehinnawinn! Tehinnawinn! Tehinnawinn!"*
anybody thats seen that movie can translate that for you.

Rumor has it that Jeff Gannon opened his first website shortly after viewing that movie. I cant say i blame him.

Posted by: on March 3, 2005 07:17 PM

Ace, if you need some solid gold bandwidth in order to "assist" with the typekey implementation, shoot me an email - I'd be happy to help out.

This only spooks me b/c as a regular commenter here, I have time (aka sweat equity) invested, and all it would take is 1) cedarford or 2) sandy to get all pissy at one post I don't read, and post a whole bunch of crapola while posing at me. BAM, my street cred = gone.

Which would suck.

Posted by: fat kid on March 3, 2005 07:19 PM

Amish has got a cock twice the girth of Ted Kennedys head.

Posted by: Aces Mom on March 3, 2005 07:20 PM

Yep I sure do have mr gannon's "websites"...****Please be warned they are very "graphic".**** He is no saint and not someone that I would think ran in the same circles as those in the WH.

****WARNING Sexually Graphic photos*******
http://americablog.blogspot.com/USMCPT%20PHOTO%20GALLERY.pdf
http://americablog.blogspot.com/bentoverjpg.jpg
http://americablog.blogspot.com/bdnud.jpg
http://americablog.blogspot.com/mydo018.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/20010701023911/malecorps.com/x/usmcpt/

Posted by: sandy on March 3, 2005 07:20 PM

Fuck registering to comment. People immitate me occasionally. So what? If their funny its cool. If their not, i will call them on it or just ignore it. If it ever became a major problem i figure Ace would take care of whoevers doing it just like a spammer. If he doesnt, fuck it, ill make up another name. How does Pegleg Swantoon sound to you?

Posted by: formerly known as amish on March 3, 2005 07:25 PM

yeah, fuck registering.

Posted by: small penis amish on March 3, 2005 07:40 PM

Oh No! all my street cred with the ladies is ruined! Now i'll have to stay at home masterbating to pictures of Lieutenant Uhura! Its like ive woken up and im 13 years all over again.

Wanna see a sexy teacher?

Posted by: fan dancing amish on March 3, 2005 07:49 PM

"thirteen years old"

Thats what i meant to type. People may copy my name but theyll never be able to spell as badly as me.

Boar full of Quackers

Posted by: unelite amish on March 3, 2005 07:52 PM

Ignore everything I just wrote. Typekey rules.

Posted by: elite amish on March 3, 2005 07:59 PM

That guys the Evil Amish. You can tell by the goatee. I hate typekey. Its for bloggers who havent got the balls to defend their opinions.

Posted by: atomic_amish on March 3, 2005 08:06 PM

I think you've got that backwards - the only thing you'd lose out on amish is your pet names for yourself.

Posted by: fat kid on March 3, 2005 08:23 PM

Hell amish, I have over 200 gmail invites, you could make a BS account for each of your personalities. :-D

Posted by: fat kid on March 3, 2005 08:25 PM

Ace, Why do you feel that Gannon took the interview the wrong way? I didn't get that feeling.
Also, you said that calling Kerry the first gay president is different coming from a straight conservative than a gay one, but the person who called Bill Clinton the first black president was a black activist herself. He could have sorta making fun of that statement as well.
One more little thing, well..two. There is such a thing as bi-sexual. He could be that you know. No one seems to have even considered that. OR......he could have gone through a conversion that made him a very different person who chooses to live a different way than he did in his past.
Either way, it is his business and if he wishes to "tell all," he will.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on March 3, 2005 10:54 PM

"bisexual" equals fag with an image consultant.

Posted by: on March 3, 2005 11:09 PM

Oh, please, go away, anonymous homo-hater.

Really, not funny, and just a gratuitous attack.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 11:31 PM

Well, you sort of accused conservatives of joining with the gay left on this point. Which I don't think is the case.

I've been bitching about the gay left's outing campaign forever. I take the position that if they want to tell they can, if they don't, it's none of my business.

And I don't see a lot of conservatives taking a contrary view.

I don't really know all the conservative commentators you're thinking of. Can you name them?

If you had just said "I don't like the fact that the *left* is using homosexuality against conservative homosexuals," I wouldn't have said a peep. But you included conservatives, and I don't think that's right.

Even conservatives who don't particularly like gays don't press them on their sexual orientation, because they'd like to keep the whole gay-business quiet, as a general matter.

Posted by: ace on March 3, 2005 11:35 PM

Hey Ace:

"Are you a total fucking faggit or what? Pick up your fucking gun and start shooting, asshole."

"No one who likes baseball can be a faggit. -- ed"

"What-- he couldn't have named one Monsieur Faggsworth?"

"We're going to switch here, pretty much exclusively, around Tuesday or Wednesday. Right after we figure out how to make our site-design look less, what's the word? ah yes: faggy."

Who am i quoting?

Who misspelled Snuffleupagus as Snuffaluffagus? Ok i admit that ones a bit of a stretch...but now that i think about it Snuffleupagus sounds kinda like a Greek name doesnt it? And we all know nobody enjoys man ass as much as the Greeks right? Just ask Oliver Stone or John Stamos.
Do you hate gays Ace? Why else would you use derogatory terms like "faggit" and "faggy"? Or maybe you were just making a joke?
As far as being anonymous, well, you try coming up with a lame word to go with Amish everytime you post a comment.
Maybe i hate gays, maybe i dont. Its still a funny line. Lately it seems that your on some integrity kick and dont want to offend anybody because you want credibility as a "mainstream" blog. You know something? Mainstream blogs arent funny. You dont rip any right wing blogs, except for Sullivan, because want big name bloggers to accept you. You think its offensive to say Michelle Malkin is hot because it "completly sexualizes" her? You dont make fun of Judy Woodruff because she mentioned your blog on air? WTF? You should have immediatly done a post about the reason why she mentioned your name was because you banged her. Hell do a Top Ten things Judy Woodruff says in bed. Im betting "nobody makes me cum like Bernie Shaw--Nobody" would be number one. Donations a t-shirts suck too. I like your blog Ace, and i like you as well. I also like my friend Bob. Im not going to shell out 20 bucks for a t-shirt with "Bob" written on it just because he lets me come to his house and bullshit with him. As far as donations go... well who the fuck is stupid enough to fork over their hard earned money to some anonymous dude who posts about "Retard Apples" and "Filthy Adolphs"? (My two favorite posts by the way) I think im going to start carrying around a tip jar, and everytime i make one of my friends laugh im going to start shaking it until they give me their spare change. If bandwidth costs were killing you that would be one thing. You have the blogads and i figure that they probably offset most of the cost of the HQ, but im not going to going to be giving you any money just so you can take a trip to hangout with with a bunch of "mainstream bloggers." Unless you take me with you or you promise to bring back naked pictures of Malkin and Coulter.
This is the Internet. Fuck Integrity. Fuck Class. Honesty is all that matters. If people cant take a joke, well fuck 'em. Let them read Powerline or TKS. You dont have to kiss anyones ass.

This post comes off as very angry. It isnt. Your still my favorite blogger.

Posted by: Amish Hates Anonymous Homos on March 4, 2005 06:36 AM

Rightwing Sparkle,

Well, he disputed many of my presuppositions, including one with the rejoinder "This is so wrong I cannot begin to address the errors contained within," or something like that, and he wrote that he had been expecting humor. So I do think he was a little annoyed.

However, he's emailing me in a friendly manner (asking about why BlogAds takes so long to get started), so I guess all is forgiven.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 06:36 AM

This 'fraud' is freely allowed into the
White House, and NYTimes reporter, Maureed Dowd, isn't?

"another technique used by the Nazi's and others.........
was to "manufacture news," through the use of paid shills posing as reporters, seducing real reporters with promises of access to the leader in exchange for favorable coverage, and thinly veiled threats to those who exposed his lies. As his Propaganda Minister said, "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."

We are on such a bad road.

Posted by: Arlene Montemarano on March 4, 2005 06:43 AM

Amish,

First, I didn't know that was you.

Second, I admit there is an extremely fine line here, and it's one that easily can say isn't a fine line at all, so much as a double-standard.

The thing is, when I say "Hey, are you gonna use stealth? How much of a faggit are you?," I know I'm joking around. Yeah, I'm using the word faggit, but in the schoolyard sense of pussy, or mama's boy, or, you know, homosexual.

When an anonymous poster says "a bisexual is a fag with an image consultant," 1, I don't know if he's joking, and 2, I don't see the joke, really, except to rip on gays.

Look, I was just arguing with some homo about this-- kidding, again. I was arguing with Jeff from Beautiful Atrocities about this. I don't want to endorse the liberal double-standard -- we can, you can't-- but I do accept that there is SOME amount of context in these calls, and some of that context has to do with the assumed or proven sympathies/antipathies of the speaker.

Am I giving myself all sorts of ridiculous truckloads of benefit of the doubt? You bet, because I don't think I'm homophobic, or at least not *too* homophobic (look, I wouldn't want "one of them" to marry my sister, you know), and so yeah, you better believe that I think that *I* can toss around the words "faggit" and "homo" and "gaywad" all the doo-dah day without calling myself on it.

The way, you know, liberals do.

Look, I didn't know who was writing that, and I didn't know if it was just some really bigoted conservative or some liberal provacateur hoping to embarass the site. If a joke seems funny to me, I don't question it, because, as I've said, You Can't Fight the Funny.

But I really didn't see what your joke meant, and didn't think it was funny anyhow, and I didn't know the speaker was someone I knew, so yeah, I challenged it.

There's a difference, I contend, between using the term "faggit" (misspelled, by the way, deliberately, to capture that fourth grade feel) as a joke in a piece about video games and just calling gays "faggots" in an otherwise straight post as Cedarford did.

I think one passes muster under the Irony Exemption, whereas the other one just doesn't.

And yeah-- you know what? This "rule" isn't very clearly defined and I know that, and yeah, I have no problem with me calling the Swedish Ice Niggers but I'd freak out if someone used the word "nigger" in its usual way in the comments. I do employ a self-serving double-standard; I don't mean to, but I know myself better than anyone else.

I've wrestled with this question over and over again as I've seen comment sometimes go into areas I thought it best they didn't-- how can *I* raise an objection when I'm the guy cracking the jokes about faggits? And generally I haven't said anything, because I knew I didn't have clean hands.

I didn't mean to offend you. But, what can I say? There's a sliding scale for all of this. You can justify the most un-PC of jokes as long as it's funny enough. When it just seems like a mildly-funny put-down of gays, it starts to sound a little, well, intolerant.

Does any of this make sense? It probably doesn't. It doesn't even make much sense to me.

I employ something I think of as the Saturday Night Live standard. If they can get away with a particular joke on SNL, I think it's fair game.

But a lot of jokes get written by SNL writers, too, that the producers say, "No, that crosses a line" or "No, that's just not funny enough to risk the chance of offending people."

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 06:54 AM

But as to that crap about selling out and stuff:

1) I will sell out in a fucking heartbeat.

2) I will sell out for practically nothing at all.

3) I'm not apologizing for that. I announced the first week of this stupid fucking blog that it was my intention to sell out as quickly as possible.

4) I have this rebel schtick going, but, in case anyone's in the dark about it, I'm as fucking mercenary and corporate as they come.

5) All that said, I don't really see how it's selling out to suggest there be *some* modicum of restraint in the comments regarding hot-button words and such.

Yes, if there was a really killer joke that went very un-PC, I'd say, "You know what? Offensive, possibly, but funny as fucking hell. It passes."

But a not-very-good joke just doesn't get the same latitude.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 07:03 AM

Nothing offends me. I know your joking. The joke lies in the fact that some people think that being bisexual is something completly different than being gay as one of the commenters seemed to think.

"Excuse me- are you gay?"

"No im not gay! Well maybe just a little bit on the weekends."

Its a silly distinction to make. It assumes that a conservative who disapproves of gays would just love bisexuals. Cause ya'know their only half gay -on their mothers side.

I could have wrote all of this out before, but i decided to go with the shorter 'joke' route.

As far as the "Ice Niggers" thing, im pretty sure a lot of people would be offended by that. Not me-im not Swedish. How about we just call em "Ice Backs"?

Using the word Nigger is a very tricky thing. Black people get to use it. Why shouldnt other races? It is an odd thing that in America you can call Michael Jackson a podophile on national television, but you would be burned at the stake for calling him a nigger. Is it worse to insult someones race than it is to accuse them of molesting children?

Something to think about.

Posted by: atomic_amish on March 4, 2005 07:14 AM

"But a not-very-good joke just doesn't get the same latitude."

Im going to point out every unfunny post you make. And even if it is funny im going to make you explain it to everyone just in case they didnt get it and were offended. ;)

"Yes, if there was a really killer joke that went very un-PC, I'd say, "You know what? Offensive, possibly, but funny as fucking hell. It passes."

I promise that all of my racist posts will be much funnier from here on out.

A jew, a mexican, and a retarded nun walk into a bar....

Posted by: andrew dice amish on March 4, 2005 07:21 AM

Coupla more points:

1, about selling out: That's a bit of schtick too. I wouldn't actually sell out anything I consider important.

But yeah, I've been approached, informally, by on-line organizations about the possibility of coming over and getting some steady pay out of this crap.

And yeah-- you know what? I told them immediately, "You know, I don't have to say the f-word every five minutes."

I don't think that crap like that is important. I think that profanity is funny, when used right, but if someone wants to pay me but they don't want any more of this "cocksucker" or "douchebag" talk, well, that's a compromise with my conscious [sic] I'm willing to make.

I think it's funny. If an employer doesn't-- hey, he's paying the bills.

As for not criticizing other right-wing blogs-- you're all wet on that. Here's a dirty little secret: I don't read a lot of blogs, right-wing or otherwise. I read my email for tips, check my trackbacks, look at technorati to see if I can be nice to link back to someone who's nice enough to link to me.

But generally I read FoxNews, Drudge, Lucianne, FreeRepublic and stuff for news I can riff on. The only blogger I read regularly is... guess who? Instapundit, and not so much for his blogging, as for his unquestioned status as primary news aggregator for right-leaning commentary. When something's big in the blogosphere, Instapundit has it. Sometimes he's slow to pick up on it, but generally, if you want to know what's being talked about, you go to Insty.

He serves the same function for the rightosphere as the New York Times does for the network newscasts.

So, as for being critical of other right-wing blogs, I'm not avoiding criticizing them to suck up to them; honestly, I just don't read them that often. I will check out Malkin and Kausfiles and three or four others, depending on whether or not I think I have enough stuff to talk about myself; otherwise, I don't really cruise other blogs.

So, wrong on that score.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 07:28 AM

Finally, on the Irony Exemption:

I believe in this exemption, though I make fun of others for claiming it, because when Ice-T says to shoot cops, he means it, and it's not irony.

But there is, in fact, a difference between something said ironically and something said straight.

"It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is not funny when it's MEANT to be funny. If someone thinks this is actually funny (or, worse still, an effective debate point), they're, well, kinda dim.

OTOH, during gay marriage debates with conservatives and liberals alike, I myself have said "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" and it actually WAS funny, because I didn't think it was actually funny. It was funny only ironically. Funny only because the way I said it indicated that I didn't actually think this was really a very good argument at all.

So, there is that.

And I also don't call Andrew Sullivan a "faggit," because, quite frankly, he is one, and I think that would be gratuitously offensive. OTOH, I don't think it's so terrible to write an article intended primarily for straight male dweebs asking them "Are you some kind of faggit?" because that word, to straights, doesn't mean the same thing it does to a gay man.

I just didn't read the irony in your statement. To me, it just sounded like a put-down, without the mitigating virtue of being terribly funny.

Again, this is all highly subjective, and I admit that, and I give myself breaks I wouldn't necessarily give to others. I admit that too. I'm human. These are judgment calls.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 07:28 AM

And just so you know:

I did in fact attack Instapundit on numerous occasions.

But I did sort of ease up on that, partly because he wasn't annoying me as he had for a time, but also, partly, because I don't really want to piss off someone who can give me an extra 5,000 hits in one day.

Let's say just say that when I have a dispute with him, I'll write it in a serious fashion, and not in the snide, sarcastic manner I used to.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 07:31 AM

Finishing up the last bits before I give this a major rest....

"As far as the "Ice Niggers" thing, im pretty sure a lot of people would be offended by that. Not me-im not Swedish. How about we just call em "Ice Backs"?"

Ummm, yes, a lot of people would be offended, which is why I pulled it down off my site after being up for about thirty seconds, and only provided a link, with a warning, to an entirely separate blog in the comments, and only after people ragged on me for being a "pussy" for taking it down.

So, yeah, Amish: I censor myself too. I thought it was funny, but I weighed it in my head: Is it funny ENOUGH to justify this level of offensiveness? And I decided: No, it is not that funny.

As for Ice-Backs-- yes, dude, that's what I changed it to. I wrote a post a couple of months ago in which I used watered-down, PG-rated jokes from that riff, and I changed the big offensive line to "Ice-backs." I think it was a top ten about Canadians or something.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 07:36 AM

"...you're all wet on that."

Yes... nothing makes me hotter than hot RW blogger on blogger action.

Your Adam and Steve argument has me completly befuddled. I have no idea how that idea ties into what were talking about- you know about 'how much i hate you and the blog you rode in on.' I cant argue with a deep socio-theological argument like the Adam and Steve defense. Its like the wookie defense- i just cant win and if i try im pretty sure my head will explode. Im going to bed.

Posted by: goodnight sweet amish on March 4, 2005 07:41 AM

atomic, For one thing don't assume things. Just because I suggest he could be bi-sexual doesn't mean squat about what I believe about someone. I form an opinion about people on a one to one basis. Kindness being the number one thing I like about someone, so get off your high horse.
I think there is a difference between someone who is only attracted to one sexual gender and someone who is attracted to both.
Stop looking for insults that aren't there.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on March 4, 2005 08:34 AM

You can call Jackp a pedophile because because it's something (allegedly) did, not something he is/was, which is black. That's Derision 101.

And yeah, I've been meaning to talk to you about this new PC shit, which is loose shit. If you don't un-PC yourself I will go away and you will lose one (1) hit a day.

You know what you got to do.

Oh, and the reason I asked about Jeff's silence on the turd-burgling was to suss out his strategy going forward. Guys like me only care if someone's gay so we can use funny terms like "turd-burgling" and "stinky starfish".

Posted by: spongeworthy on March 4, 2005 09:16 AM

Solid interview, Ace. I'm impressed that Jeff has maintained his sense of humor.

Posted by: Brainster on March 4, 2005 12:03 PM

Ace--how come you didn't ask him about the plagiarism? Do you think he wrote anything he couldn't copy?

Posted by: Cal on March 4, 2005 12:11 PM

I support the idea of comment registration.
For example, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, could sign on here pretending to be me, and tell everyone that I was arrested in a movie theatre once for masturbating during Schindler's List.

That would be wrong. Wrong, and bad.

Posted by: cedarford on March 4, 2005 12:55 PM

Ace--how come you didn't ask him about the plagiarism? Do you think he wrote anything he couldn't copy?

I have to tell you, the plagiarism charge is new to me.

Besides, several lefties like David Corn went through his reporting deal and pronounced him pretty unobjectionable. If there were something easily proven like plagiarism, they would have caught it.

Posted by: ace on March 4, 2005 01:04 PM

and tell everyone that I was arrested in a movie theatre once for masturbating during Schindler's List.

Well, I *did* read that somewhere, but, ya know, to each his own. Didn't even cross my mind that it was at "shrek 2" either I mean, who am I to judge, right? :P

Posted by: fat kid on March 4, 2005 01:49 PM

Mr. Gannon claims that "Those who do not embrace the entire pro-homosexual agenda are painted by the Left to be intolerant or homophobic, when in fact the Left has a radicalized position not shared by most Americans, Republican or Democrat." Doesn'tworking as an -- apparently quite successful -- gay manwhore (which Mr. Gannon was and perhaps still is) make one part of the "entire pro-homosexual agenda"? Or does that apply only to Liberal gay manwhores? In other words, if one is sufficiently right wing on most other issues, then one's being a gay manwhore isn't such a big deal? Could Reverend Dobson please clarify this seeming conundrum? Thank you.

Posted by: Rev. Conway Benson III on March 4, 2005 02:15 PM

Golan Cipel also denied being gay. Remember him?

Posted by: Bill on March 4, 2005 02:21 PM

The left made a point of his private life? HE WAS A MALE ESCORT! What about that illegal professional do you not understand? Republican or Democrat, whether he was whoring with men or women, the Right makes all kinds of moralistic appeals, yet lets this uncredentialed shill for W act like a journalist and get into daily press briefings when he's engaged in activities that are illegal in the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia. Do any of you pious right-wingers seriously think that if a Democrat or even liberal Republican president had a call-boy tossing off softball questions that stole words and phrases from a noted "Air America" host (the analogy is to his blatant "soup lines" borrowing from pill popper Rush) that the Right wouldn't be all over such a person? Seriously, guys and girls, stop the false piety and hypocrisy. Feel no sadness for this fake who's been totally exposed. George W.'s ideas and actions, if they pass muster, don't need the cheap and sordid Stalinistic propping up that the likes of Gannonguckert and his masters Eberle and so on engaged in. They don't. Champion your man, George W., and let Gannonguckert go claim his brass ring of temporary infamy. Though with those piss shots, he might actually win some new friends in the gay SM community.

Posted by: Josiah_Quincy_Bragg on March 4, 2005 04:50 PM

For many years I employed a gay man. During that time, he ended an eleven-year relationship and, subsequently finding himself very lonely, spent hours on the internet looking for a new one. After some disastrous local meetings (including one very creepy dude who showed up at the coffee shop in flip flops and filthy toenails), a series of abortive passionate emails with Russians (ultimately) looking for money, my friend met a gorgeous young man via a gay website and conducted an online and telephone romance. To make a long story short, my friend discovered the GQ-perfect young man in the pictures was NOT the man with whom my friend thought he'd fallen in love. Actually, it was like the difference between a young Warren Beatty vs a 5'3", 400 lb. Pancho Villa look-alike, to be precise. My point? Gannon's pictures may have been used on the internet by someone else (even with Gannon's approval, who knows?). Hundreds of people get suckered into internet relationships by people using phoney pictures and phoney bios all the time. I'll bet you every person reading this blog has an HORROR story about exactly this type of bait/switch. I don't think this angle in the Gannongate controversy has been discussed enough.

Posted by: LCM on March 4, 2005 06:06 PM

Josiah,

Bush won dude. Get over it.

Posted by: BrewFan on March 4, 2005 06:30 PM

Josiah you get it. BrewFan it's not about who won. I take offense to a prostitute prancing around in the whitehouse. Prostitution is illegal. And I want to know why he's there. If Kerry had won I'd be asking the same question. This administration needs to start being accountable. I won't continue to be an enabler.

Posted by: sandy on March 4, 2005 10:52 PM

"JG: What I said to Wolf Blitzer on CNN regarding those sites is 100% true. They were reserved for a private client who never moved forward with website development of any kind. These domain names were never hosted nor was anything every posted to them."

This is a lie.

Posted by: Steve J. on March 6, 2005 05:27 AM

"JG: Digging into my personal life was at first an attempt to discredit me and then to embarrass me."

Another lie.

Posted by: Steve J. on March 6, 2005 05:29 AM

Ace wrote:

For example, one of Hugh Jackman's first paid jobs -- and he's straight and married (alas... he just gives me shivers as wolverine) -- was as a voice-actor for a phone sex line.

"Alas"...? Is there something more you want to tell us Ace?

Posted by: Acme Fumigation on March 8, 2005 04:09 PM