comsc US Politics | AMERICAblog News: Did Gannon update the naughty URLs just two months ago?
Join Email List | About us | AMERICAblog Gay
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff

Did Gannon update the naughty URLs just two months ago?

| Reddit | Tumblr | Digg | FARK

1. Here are the URLs in question, when they were first registered, and when they were last updated:

2. When did Gannon start working at the White House - he says two years ago, which would put it at 2003 - so he registered the naughty URLs before he went to the White House.

3. The records for the naughty URLs were all updated last November 26, 2004 - just two months ago, and well after Gannon had been at the White House for nearly two years, by his counting. Did he update those URL records himself? And if so, what exactly did he update? And who is paying the annual fee for those domains? This is important because Gannon is saying he's now born-again and that forgives his sins related to his building certain Web sites for a client - when exactly was he born-again, before November 26, 2004, and if so, did he update the sites last November AFTER he was born-again and while he was still paying regular visits to the White House?

4. Gannon posted his shirtless picture on AOL on February 23, 2000. In the photo he's wearing military dog tags, and he called the photo "usmc-07.jpg" (i.e., again reiterating the military theme).

He uploaded that military-themed sexually-oriented photo to the Web just two and a half months before the military-themed sexually-oriented URLs and were created on May 11, 2000. I have no idea if there's a connection here, but it again begs more questions.

5. Putting aside the "escort" questions, for a moment, this guy wrote a slew of anti-gay articles for Talon. He wrote an article that defended Rick Santorum's man-dog-sex comments. He wrote an article calling Kerry "the first gay president." He gay-baited in his articles on a regular basis - albeit very deftly (article after article was a presentation of the religious right point of view on gay issues, while at the same time presented as an "unbiased" AP-style format). And now we find that he may own Web addresses that deal with gay sex, and may have updated them as recently as two months ago. That is family values hypocrisy and as a gay man it really pisses me off.

Gannon had no problem saddling up to the worst of the worst when it comes to gay civil rights issues, and now we find that there may be some gay skeletons in his closet that at the very least need some more explaining. Yes, Jeff, it's relevant. If you're going to write articles that consistently promote the anti-gay point of view, that defend Rick Santorum when he accuses us of bestiality, then you can't go doing stuff in your private and professional life that implies a more pro-gay bent. It doesn't work that way. As your favorite president likes to say, you're either with us or you're against us. Pick a side.

blog comments powered by Disqus