Former prostitute says: "I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter."

We have a policy of not caring very much what former male hooker and GOP White House "reporter" Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) says about anything. His time has passed, and he's not a terribly credible source. But when a former male hooker (read our story here), who suddenly appeared in the White House a month before we invaded Iraq, and used to get called on by name by McClellan and George Bush, starts talking about how he knew the White House press secretary "better than everyone else," it still raises some questions that deserve an answer. Gannon/Guckert just wrote this on his Web site:

What I hear about the book does not sound like the Scott McClellan I knew for two years. I can say without fear of contradiction, that I knew Scott better than any other White House correspondent or Washington reporter.

Then again, if Gannon/Guckert wants anyone to listen to him about this or any other issue, he should explain just how and why he knew McClellan so well and stop playing games. Otherwise we're just going to ignore him for another year. Read the rest of this post...

Gannon fired

About fraking time. I was waiting for the Blade to hire an ex-gay columnist, along with maybe the weekly wisdom from the Klan. Now that they've finally rid themselves of their former editor, sanity returns to what was once an influential and worth-reading gay paper. Perhaps some day it will be worth reading again.

Note from John: We're breaking our "no more Gannon/Guckert" rule to bring you this news, cuz it's funny. Don't expect any more Gannon stories, unless of course it's revealed that Gannon is really Ken Mehlman's love-child, then you can bet we'll report on it, with pictures. Read the rest of this post...

The gift that keeps on giving

And for the record, this is not the man-whore-who-must-not-be-named. At least that's what he told Page Six the other day - no one has ever proven that this is him. Nor that the other 8 (or was it 9?) online hustler profiles we found are him. Uh huh.

Do not click this link at work. This link is rated R, seriously.

And do read the entire Page Six link, there are actually two NY Daily News stories about our boy. He's irrelevant at this point, I'm just posting this for a bit of fun, but also this serves as excellent insight into how tragic the closet really has been to gays who call themselves Republican. Not just in terms of how messed up he is, but also how messed up gay Republicans must be to consider this guy their representative. I mean, seriously, you guys can't do better than a self-loathing hooker? Read the rest of this post...

White House has more records on Jeff Gannon/James Guckert, GOP prostitute who visited White House 200 times - records they still haven't released

Okay, this is interesting. And you thought the story was over. More from TPM Muckraker. Read the rest of this post...

Somebody is playing games with the Secret Service logs on Abramoff

UPDATE: I just heard from Paul at TPM Muckraker who explained the following: "Conyers and Slaughter were able to get Guckert's visits because they sent a FOIA to the Executive Office of the President after they were told that the Secret Service didn't have the records." Okay, that explains that, but it doesn't explain how the White House can justify turning over the Gannon records but not the Abramoff records - what's the difference? Why release one and not the other? Man-whores are okay but convicted criminals aren't?

How is it that the Secret Service now claims, per TPM Muckraker, to have no visitor logs prior to October 2004 - supposedly the Secret Service gave all the pre-10/04 logs to the White House which you can't really FOIA - when Congress was able to FOIA Secret Service logs about Jeff Gannon's visits going back to February of 2003?

They don't have logs pre October 2004, so gosh they just can't help with that FOIA request for visitor logs on Jack Abramoff's White House visits before that date, but they had hundreds of Gannon logs from 2003 and 2004 that they were more than happy to provide.

Now, the FOIA request for Gannon's stuff seems to have been made to the Secret Service, while the response came from Homeland Security. But so what? The point is they provided the records requested. Why are we now being told that only the White House has these logs when in fact it's clear from the Gannon request that the logs are in fact available to be FOIA'd quite easily?

Somebody isn't telling Judicial Watch the whole story. Read the rest of this post...

Report from Gannon panel in Philly - organizer lied again, and moderator cut off discussion of Gannon even though she promised it could be raised

Well, what a surprise. The organizer of the entire Equality Forum, Malcolm Lazin, reportedly outright lied to a blogger last night, saying he had no idea why Pam and I pulled out of the conference - yeah, no idea since he was involved in the entire 5 days worth of emails back and forth on the topic and even agreed with us. Dude, if you're going to lie to people, don't leave a 5-day paper trail of emails to disprove it.

Secondly, we heard that Michael Rogers, who was on the panel, did raise the Gannon issue, and what happened? The moderator cut him off. This was the same moderator who told Pam and me that we were free to talk about GannonGate in our responses to any questions.

What a bunch of frigging liars. For some reason they still won't admit, the Equality Forum wanted to give Gannon legitimacy last night at any cost. They lied to me, they lied to Pam, they lied to strangers on elevators.

What a pitiful organization. I'd never heard of them before, and I certainly hope I never hear of them again. There has to be somebody else to give your money to than a pack of homophobe-defending liars. Read the rest of this post...

Another GOP Hooker Scandal

Not that we ever doubted it, but Jeff Gannon isn't the only GOP hooker. Looks like he's got company. Lots of it. TPM Muckraker has the latest update on the developing scandal about lobbyist sponsored "hospitality suites." Seems those suites were full service.

The GOP gives new meaning to the term "pay to play." Lots of action in that Republican Party which is always so concerned about everyone else's moral values (and don't forget, they'll soon be voting again to "protect marriage.")

Georgia10 at DailyKos has a good update on the hooker scandal, too.

Wonder if the traditional media will be able to cover this story -- unlike the Gannon scandal which they basically ignored.

UPDATE: Even more. Think Progress has the transcript of an interview on Scarborough Country last night with Dean Calbreath from the San Diego Union Tribune:

We and a number of other papers have been on this for about six months or so. We have all been looking for the break in this and the Wall Street Journal found it, which is the confirmation that the feds were actually looking at this. For the past six months there we have been hearing a lot of rumors that not only the Congressman Cunningham but as many as a half dozen other Congressmen may have been involved in this. And we’ve also been hearing about the limousine service that Brent Wilkes used to bring prostitutes to the Watergate hotel and the Grand Westin in Washington.

Read the rest of this post...

Guy who created "Gannon Panel" tells City Paper his goal for the Gannon panel was to discuss GannonGate

Well, now I'm really confused.

I got criticized by a Philadelphia gay group for asking why GannonGate was not going to be included as one of the main topics of discussion at the Equality Forum blogging panel next week in Philly - a panel that Republican former male prostitute Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert), top lesbian political blogger Pam Spaulding, and I were to sit on, but Pam and I have since pulled our participation after the Equality Forum refused to make GannonGate even one of the topics on the agenda.

Mike LaMonaca, the Equality Forum program director, released a rather bitter press release yesterday criticizing me for allegedly attempting to "control the panel" when Pam Spaulding and I both noted that GannonGate really had to be one of the topics on the agenda. (According to the person moderating the panel, GannonGate was NOT going to be one of the main agenda items, period. Which is even more odd since the head of the Equality Forum emailed me 3 days ago saying he agreed with me, GannonGate should be one of the agenda items.)

Now we find out that LaMonaca apparently intended all along that GannonGate be discussed at the panel. From LaMonaca's interview, it sounds like GannonGate was the only issue that interested him at all from the panel, or at least it was the one most on his mind. And LaMonaca is the guy CREATED the panel in the first place. Bizarrely, he's also the guy who publicly criticized me yesterday for trying to edge the panel back to what he apparently intended it to be.

Then why did LaMonaca yesterday criticize me for proposing the same thing he advocated in this week's Philly City Paper - discussing GannonGate as one of the panel topics? Not to mention, this is now clear evidence that the direction of this panel very much changed from where it was only a week or so ago when this article was completed. Why was that? Did Gannon put his foot down? Did a board member or a donor or a Republican in the senior ranks of the Equality Forum flip out? Did the moderator in her ivory tower (she teaches at the Annenberg School) refuse to address that icky sex issue? Growing numbers of questions, and fewer and fewer answers from the Equality Forum on just what the heck is going on here.

LaMonaca had this to say to the City Paper in their current edition:?

City Paper: Are you surprised this came together?

Mike LaMonaca: I'm pleased it came together. ... I know I'm curious to hear Jeff Gannon's side of the story and his thoughts about what transpired.

Obviously not curious enough. Read the rest of this post...

Equality Forum now lying about Jeff Gannon's attendance at conference in Philly next week

UPDATE: I just found the email dated 3 days ago in which Malcolm Lazin, the executive director of the Equality Forum, says he agrees with Pam and me about our concerns regarding the panel. So how is it that I'm the bad guy when the conference's own executive director shares my concerns? Oh the tangled Web we weave...
----------------

I just received a statement issued by the organizers of next week's Philadelphia gay conference. The release is a response to my announcement that I will not be sitting on a panel with Jeff Gannon (nor will top lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding). The press release shows that the organization running the event, the Equality Forum, is now outright lying about the entire debacle.

Too bad I have our email correspondence and will be publishing excerpts below.

But before we get into that, why is it that gay organizations always find themselves attacking the people who try to help the community, and defending the homophobic plagiarizing whores? Just food for thought...

Here is the statement just issued by one of the conference organizers:

Statement from Equality Forum re: John Aravosis

Equality Forum annually presents the largest annual national and international symposium on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights, among other national projects.

For Equality Forum 2006, our Board of Directors unanimously chose to focus on the growing influence of GLBT blogs on mainstream news media at the 9th annual National Media Panel.

One of the biggest stories last year related to this topic was the online investigation of a White House correspondent named Jeff Gannon. GLBT bloggers led by John Aravosis questioned his journalistic experience, identity and personal history. Subsequent mainstream media attention led to Gannon’s eviction from the White House.

This was not the only related story from the past year. GLBT bloggers rallied around a Tennessee teenager sent to an ex-gay camp by his parents; pressured Microsoft and Ford not to give in to threats of boycotts by religious conservatives; exposed the executions of two gay Iranian teenagers; and more. These stories were covered by mainstream journalists only after GLBT bloggers publicized these stories.

Equality Forum’s goal is to have balanced programming which explores unique opinions and engages its participants. Equality Forum invited both Jeff Gannon and John Aravosis to participate on the panel. Both knew that the other was invited.

The 9th annual National Media Panel was not intended to solely be a debate between Aravosis and Gannon. To broaden the scope of the panel, Equality Forum invited Pam Spaulding, an African-American lesbian blogger, and Anne Gordon, Managing Editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, who could represent the mainstream media’s view of GLBT blogs. As in the prior eight National Media Panels, each panelist is given time at the beginning of the panel to discuss issues of their choosing. The panel concludes with audience questions to either a specific panelist, several panelists or the entire panel. The questions are not pre-screened.

Professor Katherine Sender was selected to moderate the panel. Professor Sender is a respected faculty member at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and has been a well-regarded past moderator of the National Media Panel.

After Professor Sender contacted the panelists about the program structure, Mr. Aravosis objected to the inclusion of other topics besides Jeff Gannon.

That's an outright lie, more later.

Equality Forum does not dictate the content of programming nor censor any panelist’s opinion. It is the responsibility of a moderator to remain objective and give each panelist the opportunity to express his or her views, and to include a range of important issues. Mr. Aravosis wanted to control the content of the overall panel. When no compromise could be achieved, Mr. Aravosis elected not to participate.

The annual Equality Forum presents programming with a diversity of opinions and viewpoints. The panels are designed to facilitate open and informative communication.

--
Mike LaMonaca
Program Director
Equality Forum
www.equalityforum.com

Okay, let's get into this.

1. What happened to Pam Spaulding? Or don't the views of African-American lesbians matter to the Equality Forum? How did this suddenly become me versus Gannon when Pam, another invited panelist, who just happens to be the number one lesbian political blogger in the country, voiced the same concerns as me and has also pulled off the panel? Or is Pam just a girl, and a black one at that, so she doesn't count?

Or is it easier for Equality Forum to lie to the public and paint this as "Aravosis wanted to control the overall content of the panel," when in fact another prominent panelist raised the same concerns and has now backed out, proving this wasn't about "Aravosis" at all?

2. Did you notice how Equality Forum admits Jeff Gannon was added to the panel to "balance" me? How is Jeff Gannon, plagiarizing homophobic man-whore the conservative counterpart to me? If that isn't the Equality Forum trying to legitimate and give credibility to Gannon, I don't know what is. Not to mention, sane gay conservatives should be outraged that the Equality Forum thinks Jeff Gannon is your mascot.

3. The crux of the Equality Forum's argument is the following:

"Mr. Aravosis objected to the inclusion of other topics besides Jeff Gannon."

Powerful stuff, if it were true.

In fact, the issue wasn't the inclusion of other topics besides Jeff Gannon, the issue was that the panel was ONLY going to focus on other non-GannonGate related topics. I'd have been happy to have other non-Gannon topics along with a GannonGate topic, and said so - see my emails below.

Here is what the Annenberg professor wanted us to discuss:

I would like us to focus on such overarching questions as: in what ways has blogging changed how we think about GLBT media? What does blogging add to public discussion of sexuality? What rights and responsibilities do bloggers have in writing about GLBT issues? How should we encourage the audience to think about blogging? In order to focus the conversation, please come prepared to talk for about five minutes about an example of blogging (yours or others) as it relates to GLBT civil rights/identity/media. The more concrete illustration of these relationships the better.

Note what I wrote her back in response:

I have a serious problem with [Gannon] on the panel if his issue isn't one of the main points of discussion.

I then again reiterated that "Gannon's story [needs to be] one of the major points of discussion on this panel."

And in yet another email I wrote to the conference organizer, I made clear that GannonGate should be ONE OF SEVERAL issues discussed at the panel, including non-GannonGate issue (though, honestly, it's not clear what Gannon's gay expertise is at all beyond his own scandal - the man doesn't even claim to be gay!):

I said I had no problem [Gannon] being added [to the panel] because it seemed rather obvious that his issue would be one of the major points we'd be discussing.

Again, the issue here is whether GannonGate would be included at all as one of the main issues the panel would be discussing. No one ever said it had to be the ONLY issue discussed, and for the Equality Forum to suggest otherwise is an outright, and quite troubling, lie.

4. How am I the bad guy here if the Equality Forum's own executive director told me by email that he embraced Pam's and my concerns about the moderator refusing to add GannonGate as a topic?



(Katherine is the Annenberg school moderator.) So much for Aravosis trying to control the panel. The conference's own executive director said I was right.

The real question is why the Equality Forum believes that Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) is an expert on blogging when he's been running a blog of zero influence for only a year? What does Jeff Gannon even know of the gay community, when Gannon himself says he's not even gay? And how is Gannon, someone whose own writings (and I use the term "own writings" loosely) are terribly homophobic, in any way a valid voice on any panel at a gay conference? Had the Equality Forum wanted a gay conservative blogger, there are many - and even a few who aren't themselves homophobes. So why exactly did the Equality Forum pick Jeff Gannon for this panel, since his sexual exploits aren't the expertise they were looking for?

For a little more on Jeff Gannon's credentials for speaking at the conference as a real journalist, read this from Vanity Fair:

Among the prime offenders, he says, have been "radical gay activists," whom he accuses of "hyper-hysterical homosexual hypocrisy." Frustrated over the success of the amendments banning same-sex marriage, which has been blamed for John Kerry's loss, they were directing their rage at Gannon, he believes. "People like me are a threat to them because there are things that are more important to me than sexual issues," he says. "That's their whole world. It isn't my whole world. The people who flew those planes on 9/11 couldn't have cared less about the sexuality of any of the people they killed." Gannon refuses to discuss his own sexual orientation, though he quotes approvingly from a column by Ann Coulter, who wrote, "Unlike [former New York Times executive editor Howell] Raines, Rather and Jordan, Gannon has appeared on television and given a series of creditable interviews in his own defense, proving our gays are more macho than their straights."

"I fit no stereotype of what a conservative is," he says. "I'm sure that someone somewhere out there thinks I'm a self-loathing racist homophobe, but I'm none of these things." Some of his fiercest gay detractors had even come on to him, he claims, shedding their convictions "like a sweater on a hot day." He says he'd put the issue of gay marriage to a vote and that he would go with whatever the majority decided....

Aravosis insists that by aligning himself with homophobes, by giving anti-gay crusaders disproportionate space in his stories (in a piece on the legality of gay marriage, he devoted 3 paragraphs to proponents and 20 to those opposed) and by filling those stories with code (calling gays "homosexual," appending a "radical" or "practicing" before the term and an "agenda" or "activist" after) Gannon had ceded any right to his privacy. That Gannon went back and forth in his stories, Aravosis says, sometimes writing a bit more evenhandedly on gays, may show how conflicted he is about his sexuality, a point with which one of Gannon's friends agrees. "If I talk to Jeff about a lot of gay issues, he freaks—he can't go there," says the man. "Jeff never stood in front of the mirror, he doesn't think he's part of the gay community, and he doesn't think what he's done affects the gay community. The guy at the end of American Beauty—that's Jeff. He can't come to terms with who he is."

Yes, this is the guy the Equality Forum is busy defending as a real journalist, a real savant on gay issues, a real gay American. Read the rest of this post...

I canceled my appearance on the upcoming panel with Gannon/Guckert, the homophobic White House Republican prostitute accused of plagiarism

(Below is a longer explanation of what transpired over the past five days. But I wanted to mention this now, since Atrios had posted that Gannon/Guckert and I were going to be on a panel next week.)

We WERE going to be on a panel, but the panel moderator, who works at the Annenberg School, isn't interested in the Gannon issue being one of the main topics we discuss on the panel - i.e., she wants to have Gannon on the panel as an actual expert blogger and gay rights savant! the moderator literally told me that rather than have the panel devolve into a discussion about the Gannon issue, she'd rather have Gannon and me talk about ex-gay conversion therapy. And what pray tell is Gannon's expertise on ex-gay conversion? That he may have once charged an ex-gay $200 an hour?

Pam Spaulding of Pam's House Blend (see the link for Pam's explanation of what transpired) and I simply could not lend our names to helping giving Gannon credibility as an authentic gay journalist and civil rights pundit - as though somehow Gannon is the respectable conservative counterpart to our blogs and our voices - so we both pulled off the panel last night after five days of begging the moderator and the conference organizers to give the people what they want - a panel discussion about the Gannon affair from last year, or at least making the Gannon issue one of the main issues the panel would discuss. The response we got from the panel moderator was that we could certainly mention Gannon in our introduction or our responses to any question. Gee, that's swell of you.

It's the National Press Club all over again. Somehow the fact that Gannon was exposed as a $200/hour hooker while writing homophobic articles for some far-right religious-right suck-up rag now establishes him as a credible journalist when he wasn't before. He's been accused repeatedly of plagiarism and has yet to prove otherwise. Why not put the Washington Post ex-blogger, the one who had to quit because of his serial plagiarism, on a panel and get his expert advice on journalistic research and ethics?

Pam and I agreed to be on this panel knowing full well that Gannon was going to be on it. Some of you, and some of my friends privately, didn't like that fact. Still, I defended the decision because I "knew" - ha! - that a panel about gay blogging with me and Gannon on it was going to clearly address the Gannon affair as one of the key issues to be discussed, and that would permit me to call Jeff/James on his bull. In my wildest dreams I never imagined anyone with an once of journalist blood in them could ever consider Gannon a serious blogger, journalist, or gay rights sage. That is simply sick, and neither Pam nor I will have any part of it.

(Note: I'm not speaking for Pam, she can explain her own view on her own blog, but we have been in touch and I know Pam shares my concerns and that's why she too has withdrawn from the panel.)

Finally, I really need to address one thing. The man running the entire show in Philly next week just sent Pam and me an email suggesting that we were "hiding behind our computers" by canceling our appearance on the panel, as if Pam and I are afraid of Jeff Gannon.

Putting aside the fact that Pam and I had agreed months ago to appear with Gannon, so there obviously wasn't any fear on our parts, I do have to admit I was nervous about one thing.

Whether Jeff would sock me with a bill for $200 after the debate was over.

(PS Pam dropped a couple of hundred bucks on her plane ticket to Philly. She tells me she's gonna go to Philly anyway, even though she's not speaking on the panel anymore. Perhaps some of you could donate a little love to Pam to thank her for her courageous stand.) Read the rest of this post...

Man-whores for Lieberman

James Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon), ex-$200-an-hour-GOP-gay-prostitute, thinks Joe Lieberman is swell.

From Guckert's Web site, that I will not link to:

Truth be told, JFK would recognize the Democratic Party because his BROTHER is a member of its radicalized leadership as is the "other JFK", whose cheap imitation of a war hero would be repugnant to the commander of PT-109. He'd more than likely be sickened by its treatment of Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the few in his party who takes the threat of Islamofacism seriously.

That's a pretty strong position, James. Tell us about your other favorite positions. Read the rest of this post...

Jeff Gannon connection to new Swift Boat attacks on Murtha

Oh how I wish I were kidding.

From the Washington Post:

"Cybercast is part of the conservative Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, who accused some in the media of ignoring the Swift Boat charges, but Thibault said it operates independently. He said the unit, formerly called the Conservative News Service, averages 110,000 readers, mainly conservative, and provides material for other Web sites such as GOPUSA."

You'll recall that Jeff Gannon/James Guckert wrote for TalonNews and that TalonNews was basically indistinguishable from GOPUSA:

Talon News apparently consists of little more than Eberle, Gannon, and a few volunteers, and is virtually indistinguishable from GOPUSA.com.

Hey, Cybercast. Is that a man-whore in your pocket, or... Read the rest of this post...

Jeff Gannon goes to Iraq

Only metaphorically, sorry. Read the rest of this post...

JimmyJeff GuckertGannon is writing a book

I'm breaking my "no more news about GuckertGannon" rule because this is just too damn funny. Yes, he now claims he's writing a book. Though you'll note in what he says that it sounds like he's "writing" a book, not that anyone has offered to pay him to write a book. Slight difference there.

And I'm training to be an astronaut.

From The Hotline:

Columnist/ex-Talon news reporter/man about town Jeff Gannon can soon add "author" to his list of titles.

"It is the book that so many have urged me to write for many months now," he says in an e-mail to us. But he wouldn't divulge any other details. The title "has yet to be determined."

"I'm working on the content right now," he says. "I'm sure there are people who had hoped I'd never write about this."

Whatever.

Anyway, maybe you guys can give JimmyJeff some help coming up with that title? Read the rest of this post...

Salon: PlameGate and JeffyJim GannonGuckert

Oh my. This really is getting fun.

Another intriguing possibility in the leaks case brings back the baroque personality of right-wing pressroom denizen Jeff Gannon, born James Guckert.

The New York Times reported Friday that in addition to possible charges directly involving the revelation of Valerie Wilson's identity and related perjury or conspiracy charges, Fitzgerald is exploring other possible crimes. Specifically, according to the Times, the special counsel is seeking to determine whether anyone transmitted classified material or information to persons who were not cleared to receive it -- which could be a felony under the 1917 Espionage Act.

One such classified item might be the still-classified State Department document, written by an official of State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, concerning the CIA's decision to send former ambassador Joseph Wilson to look into allegations that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Someone leaked that INR document -- which inaccurately indicated that Wilson's assignment was the result of lobbying within CIA by his wife, Valerie -- to right-wing media outlets, notably including Gannon's former employers at Talon News. On Oct. 28, 2003, Gannon posted an interview with Joseph Wilson on the Talon Web site, in which he posed the following question: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

Gannon later hinted, rather coyly, that he had learned about the INR memo from an article in the Wall Street Journal. He also told reporters last February that FBI agents working for Fitzgerald had questioned him about where he got the memo. At the very least, that can be interpreted as confirming today's Times report about the direction of the case.

Read the rest of this post...

Gay Washington, DC newspaper publishing Jeff Gannon as columnist

The Washington Blade, the increasingly irrelevant print gay paper in Washington, DC, has apparently now made White House man whore Jeff Gannon/James Guckert a columnist at the paper.

A few weeks ago Guckert wrote a column for the paper that was, as usual, from another planet (he scolded me for not being representative of the gay community), and factually incorrect (he said something weird about my "ties" to North Korea and Cuba). Well, today there's another "column" for JeffyJim in the paper, so apparently this is now a regular gig.

Which begs a lot of question. First, why the Blade now has what appears to be a regular column on gays issues from a guy who won't even say if he's gay. I mean, do we really need to be lectured to about who really represents the gay community when the lecturer pretends to be a heterosexual, and when most of that lecturer's writings about gay issues have been favorable to the religious right point of view? I mean, tolerance is one thing, but since when do we need more radical right panderers in the gay press?

It also begs the question of what the once-august Blade has now become - just a few months ago the Blade was publishing articles about Gannon supposedly attending gay sex parties in Virginia, and now they have him as a columnist? And finally, apparently anyone can now write for the Blade - even if they have no real background in journalism, and have been repeatedly accused of plagiarism.

I used to like the Blade, but they've become a shell of what they formerly were, partly from obsolescence due to the Internet, partly because the straight press has increasingly covered gay issues anyway, and partly, I think, due to lousy management.

One thing is for sure, if the Blade is going to practice Jerry Springer journalism by using people like James Guckert as an expert on gay issues, then I can take my hyperlinks and future ads elsewhere.

NOTE FROM MICHAEL IN NEW YORK: The Blade's email address is forum@washblade.com. I strongly second John's comments -- and not strictly because of Guckert's politics. I hope the Blade will reconsider because Guckert has lied repeatedly to the mainstream media about his connection to pornographic websites, his access to the White House press room, and even something as simple as whether he was giving interviews to other outlets, among other details. Also, Guckert has been believably accused of plagiarism (his articles online disappeared shortly afterwards), he is not openly gay and Guckert provided a front for a far right activist group and actively promoted anti-gay articles and ideas. I'm all for a diversity of gay opinion, but why include closeted people who hate queers and actively work to demonize us? Read the rest of this post...

JeffyJames strikes back - uh - hard

You remember that yesterday we reported about an interesting connection betwen Robert Novak and JeffJames GannonGuckert?

Well, apparently Jeffy is very angry that his ace reporting skills have been called into question by Salon.com. Salon's coverage of Jeff's response is priceless - they basically prove that Jeff, once again, got the story wrong - oh my!

Just read it.

a report Gannon filed for the now-MIA Talon News back in July 2004. In that piece, our intrepid reporter noticed that the Kerry campaign's Web site no longer featured references to [Amb. Joe] Wilson and concluded for himself -- with, it appears, no reporting at all -- that it was "likely" that the campaign had decided to "quietly break official contact with someone who proved to be a loose cannon."

Responding to our post earlier today, Gannon says his story about Kerry and Wilson was "rock solid" and that "Wilson was dumped -- hard." Not so, says Peter Daou, who ran Kerry's Web site and says the Wilson references were deleted as part of a larger redesign. And not so, says David Wade, who was Kerry's campaign spokesman. Wade told us earlier today that Wilson drew standing-room-only crowds as a surrogate for Kerry, and that the claim that he was somehow "discarded" by the campaign is "a classic Novakian regurgitation of only-on-Newsmax misinformation."

And indeed, a little Google searching of our own suggests that Wade is right: In October 2004, just weeks before the election, it appears that Wilson was still on the road for the Democratic nominee, headlining a fundraiser for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Arizona.

That doesn't sound like the work of someone who was "dumped -- hard," Jeff. But as for the "rock solid" part -- well, we suppose you're the expert on that.

And yeah, it's subscription only, but all you have to do is click the free link and watch a 15 second ad - I think you can handle it :-) Read the rest of this post...

Jeff Gannon, $200 an hour man-whore, says AMERICAblog and you crazy radicals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

Yeah, well, I suppose Jeff knows a thing about giving aid and comfort.



I know I swore I wouldn't mention Jeff again since his 15 minutes have long since passed, but you do have to read this oped in the Atlanta gay paper (but don't call him gay!). I picked a few choice paragraphs you have to read.

After mentioning AMERICAblog and me by name, Jeff, who you'll recall is a fake Marine - yes, the man lied about being in the military service - says we're giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we seek to compromise America's security and cripple its economy (huh? oh, that's right, we ruined his prostitution business), we're filled with blind rage and conspiracy theories (yeah, that $1200 a weekend prostie thing never panned out, did it Jeff), and apparently we have ties to Cuba and Norh Korea, which is news to me. I mean, I think Cuban guys are hot, though I'm not really into North Koreans - does that count?

The aim is to focus on incidents that may sap the will of the American people to remain on the front lines in the war on terror. But it doesn’t have as much impact on the Pentagon as it does the men and women in harm’s way.

Either way, undermining support for the war in Iraq gives aid and comfort to those who have no regard for life, liberty or diversity. Losing this battle in the war on terror won’t bode well for anyone in the U.S.

THE WEB SITES of these activists are populated with extreme elements who seek to compromise America’s security and cripple its economy. Intelligent debate over issues and strategies is crushed by expressions of blind rage and conspiracy theories.

With rhetoric so shrill, all but the most partisan readers are repelled. The operators of these sites and the opinions expressed therein are often represented to the rest of America as the core constituency of the gay community.

Only a few degrees of separation exist between these activists and some dangerously radical groups. Clinking just a few links will transport one to the Web sites of International ANSWER, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice or Queers for Peace.

All of these “antiwar” groups are part of a global anti-American movement that supports totalitarian regimes like Cuba and North Korea. History has shown how well despots treat gay members of society.

And may I just say that some closet case man-whore who wrote article after article sucking up to the religious right on gay issues, and who still denies he's gay, has a lot to make up for before he lectures any of us on who represents the gay community. Jeff's concern for our well being is touching.

PS You'll notice the difference between a closet case man-whore and a real journalist. Jeff bitches about the fact that I didn't cover the Irani hanging of two gay youths. Well, had Jeff done his research rather than simply regurgitated what he read on the Internet he'd know that that story has a few holes in it. And as an aside, since when did Jeff become the big international human rights advocate? I welcome him to the cause, but give me a break. Read the rest of this post...

Jeff/Jim is on TV again

Gannon/Guckert, media pig, is on some show called "Lie Detector" on PAX tonight at 8 pm. Okay, never heard of the show...so here's the format:

Each hour-long episode will present three compelling cases with one common thread - they are stories whose conclusions are unresolved for those who tell them. After viewers get a firsthand look at each subject through news footage and taped interviews, Watts goes one-on-one with each participant for an in-depth and candid conversation, giving them an opportunity to tell their side of the story.

Finally, the moment of truth is revealed when the guest submits to a lie detector test administered by Dr. Ed Gelb, a leading polygraph expert in the field who has polygraphed such notables as John and Patsy Ramsey and former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman, with the very real results all captured on camera! At the end of each segment, Watts reveals to our subjects whether they have been vindicated or branded a liar and gets their sometimes extreme reactions to the test results.

Where to begin...Where to begin....So, I know the possibilities are endless, but what questions would you ask Jeff/Jim Gannon/Guckert? Read the rest of this post...

Jeff/Jim at DeLay's Delusional-fest

Earlier today, I wrote a post about the DeLay Delusional-fest based on the NY Times report --- a gathering of the creepiest of the creeps. Little did I know that the ultimate creepy creep was there. Yes, one of the attendees to honor DeLay was Jeff/Jim Gannon/Guckert. I bet that made Ken Mehlman's heart beat a little faster.

I wonder if Jeff joined in the singing of "If I had a Hammer"? Read the rest of this post...