Why no conservative outcry over Jeff Gannon?

Great Debates
61

It’s kinda obvious that the tactic Shodan is using here is to subtly shout “bigot” and “homophobe” at anyone who dares bring up the fact that Gannon was a male prostitute at the time of his White House involvement as a fake journalist, as if anybody who takes note of such a thing must be doing it out of bigotry. If he can frighten us into silence through such tactics, he wins, because his real goal is to forestall any real attempt to examine what’s probably an enlightening bit of hypocrisy from the folks who oppose gay marriage and would in some cases like to criminalize homosexuality itself. If he can convince others that we are in fact a homophobe he wins doubly.

It’s a very familiar tactic. It is used by just about all political persuasions – “If you say things about my group, or allies of my group, you are bigoted against my group!” It smells about the same no matter which quarter of the wind it’s coming from.

I’m sure Shodan is savoring the chance to call people on the left homophobes, but I don’t think the smear is working as well as he’d like.

62

If you’re only outraged when a liberal is gay but not when a conservative is, then you’re a hypocrite, at least, and probably only hiding your bigotry when it’s on your side.

63

Here we disagree once again. I think Nixon’s impeachment was ALL about the Watergate break-in. True, the formal grounds he was impeached on was the cover-up, but that wouldn’t have mattered at all if Nixon hadn’t been using criminal methods to gain political advantages over his opponents, which was what the Watergate break-in was all about. Without the break-in, there would have been no cover-up, or need for one, and Nixon would have been free to go on his not-so-merry way.

Well, your church sounds very level-headed for fundamentalists. But you must admit with guys like Falwell, Dobson and Wildmon around, there must be a great many members of the religious right who do not see things your way, or if they do, aren’t acting in accord with their beliefs.

64

I assume the same is true when you are only outraged when a conservative is gay.

Regards,
Shodan

65

Let me phrase phrase the question a different way and see if the OP, Evil Captor agrees with it.

If it were learned that a President avoided tough questions by knowingly calling on a person who would only ask easy questions, or questions phrased in such a way as to be critical of the opposition, one might be upset by that, right? “One” being your average ordinary patriotic flag-salutin’ citizen.

And if it were learned that the person asking those questions was not a regular member of the White House Press Corp but had been given daily passes, multiple daily passes, by a member of the administration to come lob softballs at the President, again, one might be upset by that as well, right?

And if it were learned that the particular person to whom those multiple daily passes were given had absolutely no journalistic experience whatsoever, one might question why this was so. One might wonder how a person of such a nature received such preferencial treatment again and again by both the person giving out passes, and the President himself in calling on this person.

So our average ordinary patriotic flag-salutin’ citizen would have a bit of concern over a President and his administration if something of this nature were to arise.
Then we learn that the person is gay. And a prostitute. And a cursory search into his background would show he’s really not trying to hide either of these facts.
Also, members of a certain faction that supports the President disagrees with a) homosexuality and b) prostitution.

So if One were to have concern over the situation before we got into specifics, and if a particular faction that normally opposes the two specifics listed, wouldn’t that make it more likely that the particular faction opposes the situation with the President?
Wouldn’t that just fuel the fire that One should already have based upon the general situation? And, if not, is it reasonable to ask why?

Or, in short: Why no conservative outcry over Jeff Gannon?

66

EC - Yes, we see the political scandals differently. When Nixon’s articles of impeachment hit the Senate, no one in the Senate was yelling and screaming about the evil republicans having violated the private property of the Democratic National Committee. Same for Clinton. The Starr Report put a lot of focus on salacious details, but the impeachment, uncalled for as it may have been, was not about the blowjob, but about other things, some of them related.

As regards my church, the media face of Christianity does not resemble the Christians I know.

67

Alas, no. Your simple but diabolically clever tactic of announcing in advance that you don’t intend to concern yourself with questions of logical or moral consistency has taken all the joy out of my victory.
You fiend! :wink:
Regards,
Shodan

68

No one on the left is outraged that Guckert/Gannon is gay. His sexual orientation isn’t the issue. Even his background as an escort isn’t the problem.

We’re annoyed by the hyprocrisy of the Religious Right using gay and “immoral” as a weapon against us but ignoring it from their own cohorts.

I suspect you know this but are engaged in a obfusication effort to distract attention from your side’s moral inconsistency.

69

Evil Captor says it is the issue.

If you disagree with him, why are you arguing with me?

Do you want me to call Gannon a “man-whore”? He’s already been called that. Do you want me to call him a “homo” or a “fag” - that’s been done too. Why would it be different coming from me?

We have a thread, started by a known partisan, in which he calls a person names intended to be derogatory and based on his sexuality. And he wonders why the rest of us don’t join in. And somehow all of this becomes evidence of bigotry - by social conservatives.
If you want to condemn someone, why don’t you condemn the person who started the thread and is calling the names?

Regards,
Shodan

70

That’s close enough. Basically, why are the President’s homophobic supporters not raising an outcry over Gannon? Sound fishy to me.

71

Righto. It is homophobic not to raise an outcry, but not homophobic to raise one.

Fishy indeed.

Regards,
Shodan

72

Alternatively, the explanation might be that the President has no homophobic groups who support him. Would you care to advance that explanation?

73

Why do you think so?

Regards,
Shodan

74

No one has mentioned in this thead that Gannon may have also had access to the CIA documents floating around the White House that revealed Valerie Plame as an NOC CIA agent and involved in that leak. Gannon was questioned by the grand jury investigation of the case as he mentioned his knowledge of Plame’s occupation about the time it became clear that Novak knew about it. How did a journalist with no credentials, who wasn’t even issued a hard-pass to the White House, become privy to top secret material or information? Why doesn’t that cause much concern among conservatives and the liberal press? It is a matter of national security after all, and a possible violation thereof. Karl Rove may be in trouble for knowing about Plame and not having the proper clearances.

In fact, the sexual aspect to the entire thing is a serious distraction from the real issue of who has had access to classified material under this administration when they shouldn’t.

75

I am doing this, not for Shodan, whom I know will reject all these cites as somehow ill-founded, but for the interest of other readers of this thread who might be under the impression that Shodan has a point. If you Google the terms “Republican” and “homophobia” you will pull up 299,000 hits of which about 298,999 are allegations of Republican homophobia. Happy hunting!

Cite Cite. Cite – a much better take on Santorum’s remarks than the previous cite. Cite. Here’s an excellent overview. A little more with comments about Bush’s particular anti-gay stances.

Give it up, Shodan. I got ALL the facts, you have diddly-squat … at best!

76

The luminous clarity of friend Shodan’s argument makes mere facts superfluous. Gelding the lilly, so to speak.

77

Your cites are meant to establish your point?

Your point was that no homophobic groups supported Bush. How do your cites establish this?

Regards,
Shodan

78

Shodan, I know where you got this argument:

Bugs: Duck season!
Daffy: Rabbit season!
Bugs DUCK season!
Daffy: RABBIT season!
Bugs: DUCK SEASON!!
Daffy: RABBIT SEASON!!!
Bugs: RABBIT SEASON!!!
Daffy: DUCK SEASON!!!
Bugs: All right, you win, duck season!
Daffy: A-HA!!!
BLAM!!!

79

Just out of curiousity, what exactly do *you *think you’re talking about? Because the words are put together as if they are supposed to make sense, but you seem to be posting cites to disprove arguments nobody is making.

Talking to yourself is one thing, but when you begin to answer, it’s not a good sign.

Regards,
Shodan

80

This is only an opinion derived from my own empirical experience, but I think many (social) conservatives are not bigoted (or homophobic, in this instance) per se. More specifically, they are not driven by hatred or intolerance, but by indifference.

This the same way I feel about the “Is George Bush racist?” debate. I don’t think George Bush hates black people, or gay people - but his insulated, pampered lifestyle afforded him the luxury of never having to think about it.

Many conservative people I know are like this. They throw out flippant phrases that could be seen as bigoted or racist when the occasion presents itself, but it’s really not a relevant aspect of their lives. In other words, they don’t tend to take any racist or bigoted actions unless they are prodded to do so via other, perceived personal (i.e., selfish) interests.

So to answer the OP: The conservative outrage is not there because the conservative propaganda has not prodded them into caring by providing a reason. And left-wing “reasons” don’t enter into it at all - they have already been indoctrinated to discount anything coming from “the left”.

Another possible factor is the general “anti-sexuality” bias coddled by conservative propaganda. Conservatives are indoctrinated with the idea that any sexuality not sanctioned by religion or marriage is to be avoided at all costs. So it really doesn’t matter who Gannon might want to have sex with (or the more relevant issue of his self-hating rhetoric against homosexuality) - all sex outside marriage is wrong, and we know how common that is (thanks to liberalism, no doubt) so what’s the difference here?

Remember that the legal initiatives are against gay marriage, which does nothing to abate the levels of gay sex outside marriage. And of course, we know that will continue, but the most important thing is to keep up appearances. This (getting caught) is Gannon’s biggest sin, but it’s not an unforgivable sin according to the conservative propaganda. People can always see the light, and be absolved of past transgressions, either religiously, or politically.

I believe this is the thinking. And it is political gold, because it encourages intolerance and hypocracy, and forgives them at the same time.

And finally, as you’ve admitted yourself, Gannon’s sexuality (apart from the self-hating rhetoric) has nothing to do with why it was an outrage that he was given access to the WH press corps.

IMO, by looking for conservative “outrage” on the basis of his sexuality, you are giving your conservative critics here the means for avoiding the real issue, and pointing the finger of intolerance back at you. Why do that?