Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Jeff Gannon, We Hardly Knew Ye

A good one from John Hawkins.

Just when you've seen the bottom of the feverswamp that the left loves to wallow in, along comes a story that truly shows the fathomless depths to which they're happily willing to sink.

I've already briefly touched on how the story has driven the left side of the blogosphere around the bend, the tale of Jeff Gannon (AKA James Guckert), a reporter almost nobody had ever heard of, who the left branded a heretic for the crime of being a gay, conservative reporter who had some very spurious connections to the Valerie Plame controversy. That was enough to inflame the left. But, then evidence was presented that seemed to indicate that Gannon may have been a "gay prostitute," and if you thought they were hyped up before, after that revelation became public knowledge, they were like 4 year-olds who've been fed nothing but Pixie Stix and Sweet Tarts for a week.

One problem: Gannon is still a nobody. Doing an expose on him is like revealing all the secrets of the Assistant Manager at your local grocery store: why should anyone care?

So now the key is to tie everything to the Bush administration, because as we know, they are the source of all evil in the universe, and as we've learned over the last few weeks of watching how the left side of the blogosphere has covered this story, gays who don't vote for Democrats are apparently one of the universe's evils.


[N]othing but rumors, smears & base speculation of the worst sort...I wonder how long it will be before it makes the New York Times? Moreover, is it just me or are these wackos in effect saying that it was scandalous that detailed investigations into the sexual histories of reporters weren't done before they were allowed to ask questions to government officials? So if partisan hack, Helen Thomas, were to turn out to be involved in some sex scandal, would George Bush be responsible for that, too? Does the FBI need to have a file somewhere with a list of every person she ever had sex with along with details about whether her partners were women or men? If there were any sort of intellectual consistency on the left in regard to this story -- and quite frankly there hasn't been much -- that would seem to be where they were going with this.

The left has come a long way from when Clinton was in office, back when they were claiming that sex, and even perjury related to it, was irrelevant to the job of being President. Now? The President is responsible for knowing about the sex lives of the reporters who're asking him questions. Boy, the left has come a long way in a short time...

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds for bring this story to my attention. Apparently, they sent him a PRESS RELEASE about the post referenced above which is a bit like videotaping yourself robbing a store and then asking the police to critique your technique.

No comments: