The American Spectator

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 3:00PM

I remember the brouhaha over Gannon. What BS.

Jayson Blair| 3.26.09 @ 3:15PM

Can you imagine if Brent Bozel of the Media Research Center did the same thing during the previous 8 years?

Podesta's hand puppet, David Brock would have had a cow.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 3:15PM

Gannon did not just have "indescretions" in his past.

He was a pornagrapher, pimp, and one-time male prostitute.

Furthermore, Vadum, Gannon was HIRED by the White House to ask pre-scripted questions.

He was a governmentally STAGED journalist, bought and paid for.

If you don't see a problem with this, pal, you're in the wrong business. For sure.

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 3:23PM

Jeremiah: There is NO EVIDENCE Gannon was hired by the White House. Cough up the evidence, kook.

Basil Plumley| 3.26.09 @ 3:35PM

Jeremiah, your eyes are turning brown.

Internet high-five to you Bill Bailey.

Julian Sanchez| 3.26.09 @ 3:42PM

I don't think there ought to be any sort of ideological litmus test for reporters, but I do think there's a legitimate concern with whether an elected official can hold a sort of Potemkin press conference where scarce time is occupied by friendlies who reliably ask "why are you so awesome?" style puffball questions. Ideological journalists can also be good reporters, and you can face tough questions from your own flank, of course. But I certainly wouldn't want to see a press conference composed in any substantial measure of Gannon-style questions. If Faiz starts flinging out queries like "Is it tough when Republicans are so evil?" then I certainly would say he ought to go. But I think the question ought not to be "is the journalist too ideologically sympathetic to the president" but "is he making a serious effort to extract newsworthy information."

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 3:44PM

Of course the White House didn't admit to hiring the male prostitute.

But when a Congressional appeal to the Secret Service revealed that Gannon visitted the White House several times without signing out and on several occasions when no media event occured, it became clear that he was working from within the White House.

Add to this that he had NO credentials and could not even acquire a Congressional press pass, and you have pretty clear evidence that his presence was part of the show.

Set aside Gannon's questions, which were almost incredibly stupid and facile.

What in your view, Plumley, qualified Gannon to be in the White House asking questions?

Scratch that. I'm probably asking that of someone who believes Joe the Plumber is the best war correspondent working in the Middle East.

Interested Conservative| 3.26.09 @ 3:55PM

OK Jeremiah - I could care less about the Gannon episode, and it was almost entirely PR - anyone even remember what the question was or why anyone bothered about it at all.

All of which is basically the point here - it's bad enough that the MSM has gone to sleep, if not entirely out of business, but if the White House/DNC is going to start planting friendly "reporters" in the press room - what's the use?

And people wonder why Rush's ratings are so high. If the White House ever figures out the divide and conquer strategy, and actually seeded a few combative conservatives in the press room, they could drive him back to his normal 20m audience.

Interested Conservative| 3.26.09 @ 3:59PM

PS - the crack about Joe the Plumber does beg the question - who are the best war correspondents working the ME? I cannot even remember the TV coverage, so I'd have to fall back on the Michaels, Yon and Totten, Jeffrey Goldberg, and I suppose he counts - Hitchens.

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 4:01PM

Jeremiah: Are you a Podesta shill? Reporters granted access to the White House ROUTINELY visit there. They have desks and mailboxes that receive press releases there! Why wouldn't someone with White House access go there often? Working journalists sometimes visit there every day regardless of whether there is a press conference. As for qualifications, who will decide these things? Is there a reporters' guild? Go back to DailyKos, troll.
Julian: You make excellent points. There should not be ideological litmus tests and I don't think anyone here, including Vadum, was arguing that there should be.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 4:30PM

OK -- Bailey, Interested, et al:

I want it noted, for the record -- for the record -- that we are now engaged in a debate over the relative merits of inviting a prostitute with no press credentials, publication history, or experience into the White House to ask questions of the president or his press secretary.

It's absolutely incredible.

The contempt you have of the press has led you into the arena of male-prostitutes posing as journalists.

If you can't tell the difference between Gannon and a real journalist, or Joe the Plumber and a real war correspondent (over 80 of whom have died in Iraq, by the way, trying to bring you the news from that country), then I can't help you.

Enjoy your Rush Limbaugh -- who has the same qualifications to deliver the news as Gannon or Joe the Plumber.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 4:38PM

Comrades, perpend:

Why does Rush Limbaugh criticize the "main stream media"?

The reason is simple, and it has NOTHING to do with ideology or bias.

News shows, newspapers, news talk -- whatever -- represents Rush Limbaugh's competition.

The more time you spend reading the newspaper, the less you're likely to spend listening to his show and increasing his ratings.

He criticizes the press because the press is the competition.

Don't fall for it. There are many journalists. Some are incompetent fools; some are unfair and dishonest; some are just giftless.

But many are people of admirable integrity. And guess what? They don't always deliver news that you would prefer to hear. That's what makes them journalists and not male prostitutes.

You should try READING more. Generally print news is superior to broadcast news. Get RID of your goddamned television sets -- especially if you have cable.

All this whining and braying about the so-called liberal media is lame, and, by the way, is not borne out by any published media studies.

Interested Conservative| 3.26.09 @ 4:45PM

Jeremiah - You're missing my point, though perhaps not that of others.

My point being please define a "real journalist"? The Gannon mockery was precisely that because it exposes the whole sham of "press credentials". Press credentials are what the MSM (sorry if you find the jargon politically unpalatable - but what other short hand is there for the major networks and east coast print media?) has spent the past 50 years dribbling away all while enhancing their alleged standards and professionalism.

Meanwhile, random individuals have built plenty of credentials, i.e. credibility, by simply reporting or opining or both, on matters local global and otherwise. Rush is simply the most successful and happens to be right wing, but there are left wing examples as well.

As for the war correspondents - I listed a few - can you? My point there being these are either free lancers or locals - i.e. the Israeli media, and to a very lesser extent some surrounding states press - India, Turkey, etc..

Finally, of course, "for the record" is a precise legal phrase which the press has turned into a meaningless euphemism which, like so many other causes of their present state, they freely and capriciously abuse, more often than not for political reasons having nothing to do with journalism.

As bad as the Hearst/Pulitzer press standards were, the pendulum has swung so far the other way it's proving untenable.

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 4:47PM

You should stop trying to stop the subject, Comrade Jeremiah.

Nobody is saying Gannon was the best reporter since sliced bread was invented. The issue is the left wingers' sickening , elitist attack on him.

Will they be outraged that a more sophisticated partisan hack is now being granted WH access? Don't hold your breath.

Be gone, troll!

Interested Conservative| 3.26.09 @ 4:49PM

Geez Jeremiah - I don't watch the networks, I take four papers at home, listen to Rush about once a month, and have my wake up alarm tuned to NPR.

Sure, the MSM is Rush's competition, but he seems to be doing pretty well. Doesn't that mean something?

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 5:15PM

Jeremiah is a paid David Axelrod Astro-Turf troll. I find his squawks and squeals of outrage about a male prostitute mightily amusing. What do you think you are, Jeremiah?

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 5:17PM

Right on, Ruth! We say Jeremiah is a paid White House troll. We have no actual evidence but given his behavior it MUST be true. Ha ha ha ha ha.

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 5:18PM

When I wrote "You should stop trying to stop the subject, Comrade Jeremiah," I should have written "You should stop trying to change the subject..." My bad.

Basil Plumley| 3.26.09 @ 5:19PM

@ Jeremiah

You said-Set aside Gannon's questions, which were almost incredibly stupid and facile.

Much like your posts and arguments?

You were asked to prove your allegations that Gannon was HIRED by the Bush White House. Instead of a mea culpa, we are treated to more hysterics. The best you could do is say that the Bush White House did not admit to hiring Gannon.

Are you being serious? You are very much like the Dan Rather statement AFTER he got caught lying to the American people. Outside the false allegation/documents, the story is basically true.

@ Interested Conservative
I would also have to include Bill Roggio and Pat Dollard to your list. I especially like Yon.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 5:23PM

Jeremiah, I adore Rush Limbaugh; in fact, I am the biggest friggin' DITTOHEAD in the world. What are you going to do about it? Exactly nothing. I could probably beat you at arm-wrestling, liberal weenie.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 5:39PM

Lots of interesting remarks to respond to here.

1. I think it's GREAT that you all listen to Rush Limbaugh. I do too. I'm just pointing out that his critique of the media is deeply interested -- economically -- rather than objective.

2. I refuse to debate the Gannon issue anymore. It was a dreadful disgrace on the part of the Bush White House, and there's an end on it.

3. Just this once I'll respond to the silly and weirdly peristent claim that I work for Obama or Axelrod (or Mao or whatever). Get a grip, folks. I'm just an interested American. I like reading conservative publications, and sometimes I like to enter the fray. No big deal.

cls| 3.26.09 @ 5:45PM

Speaking of hypocrites: Can you imagine the outcry if Obama admitted a prostitute to the press corps of the White House? Come on, you guys would have fits if a Left statist did the same thing as your beloved Right statist did.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 5:47PM

Interested Conservative --

I'm responding separately to your posts because you have a point to make.

The "credentials" business sounds almost creepy -- the sort of thing they do in Cuba or China. But exactly whom should the White House admit to press conferences?

There's only room for so many; the president can answer only so many questions.

At some point, a journalists publication history (NOT his "politics") and perhaps his affiliation with a known news organization would be sensible to take into consideration.

I don't know this character Vadum is complaining about. Honestly, Vadum's silly headline about "stunning hypocrisy" doesn't inspire confidence. Anyway, I strongly doubt Obama's administration will have any members of the pornagraphy faction of the press asking questions -- unless you count one of those lascivious news bimbos the cable channels hire.

In my opinion -- from the outside looking in -- the most consistently weak aspect of the conservative "argument" involves this low-brow resentment of the press.

Folks, the press IS the "marketplace of ideas" dreamed of by Jefferson. That's what it looks like. It's hell on wheels; it's offensive and often absurd; its highly competitive, frequently shallow, often inaccurate, and probably in all a waste of time, when you consider what you might be reading (Plato, the Bible, Shakespeare -- hell, Cormac McCarthy).

But the press and the "MSM" is a competitive contact zone for ideas. If you think you're losing, toughen up and make better arguments. Don't whine. It's contemptible and unmanly.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 5:50PM

Interested Conservative --

Just so I'm clear, my last post was only half directed at you. You clearly have a critical mind and like to get your news from multiple sources -- which is all I've ever advocated for.

I'm an NPR adict and don't think there's a better news broadcast program, even though I cheerfully admit its liberal bias.

Bill Bailey| 3.26.09 @ 5:53PM

Well, that's manly, Jeremiah, "to refuse to debate the Gannon issue anymore." We nail on your kooky conspiracy theory and you clam up. This doesn't inspire confidence.

Interested Conservative| 3.26.09 @ 6:04PM

Very much more thoughtful reply, and I think you hit the issue obliquely - there's a complete brow spectrum resentment of the press, and in large part its because they're losing in the marketplace of ideas. Regardless of how you feel about Rush, the man is a geyser of ideas, always focused on the bottom line.

The MSM, on the other hand, was a geyser of a bottom line, which has left the ideas behind and turned into infotainment, with occassional left wing commentary. Frankly, it appears overly left wing probably because there is so little news or analysis left behind to leaven it.

Rush anchors the right wing, and while Fox appears to also, it probably has more liberal news stories total, than the rest of the media combined. They get lost, though, because Fox tilts right, and the competition doesn't exist.

I trace the decline from Cronkite's take on Vietnam, perfectly legitimate and a wholly open split between reporting and commentary, to Katie Couric's colonscopy - compelling personal and human interest story, but really belongs on WebMD rather than network news. That killed it.

The frustration stems from the huge budgets, airtime, and dominant placement of the networks, and the paltry products - hours of nothing punctuated by brief and noticeable liberal tilting.

The "tea party" - "AIG-Acorn bus tour" comparison is simply the latest telling example. The tea party story is starting slow, and is a groundswell from unusual quarters, and worth some/passing/any coverage, while the Acorn tour was an organized flop and solely a pr stunt.

Cover both 0r neither, and handle each with a detached perspective, and the networks couldn't even do that.

Finally, I haven't looked, but do Olberman or Mathews hav to return their bonuses since their employer has taken bailout funds? There's a cute story waiting to be told. Add in Joe Scarborough to make it non-partisan.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 6:20PM

Interested --

I suppose we all have our guilty pleasures. Included among my absurd love of Battlestar Gallactica, I like watching Matthews and think he's decent enough. I loathe Keith Olberman. I don't consider any of it news.

Rush is a complicated issue. He's highly intelligent -- and you're right, he's a veritable mountain of ideas.

He's a brilliant satirist, which means he has a sure grasp of human nature. Satirists are -- since Roman times -- traditionally conservative and somewhat cynical, and I question whether they can make good leaders.

I sometimes think Rush is outwitting himself on Obama.

With Clinton, he could always fall back on the profound character flaws of the president (which he shared).

Obama -- no matter what anyone says -- is a boy scout. He married the first woman he fell in love with, and he probably never even finished a beer. Rush seems to think he'll be able to do Obama the way he did Clinton, and I don't think that'll work.

Cronkite's take on Vietnam seems to have been a massive shift in the press, but I think it reflected the government's growing distance from the people. Vietnam, Watergate, the Pentagon Papers -- these were journalistic events that centered on the incompatibility of governing a superpower with telling the truth. The press became adversarial, as now certainly it needs to be.

Interested Conservative| 3.26.09 @ 6:49PM

I'm afraid Rush isn't outwitting himself on Obama, and I'm serious, I am afraid he is the boy scout through and through, and Rush will labor mightily to stay on the satire side instead of sarcasm.

Clinton assured a steady supply of satire, not just for Rush, and the times were a pause from the continuing crisis the POTUS usually faces.

I fear Obama's problem will be similar to Carter's - the disconnect between what he wants to do, what he has to do, and what he can do. Clinton, at least, only concerned himself with the last of these. Obama doesn't have that luxury or inclination, and we're all going to benefit or suffer equally - the chronic problem with democratic socialism.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 6:51PM

Jeremiah, you're right: "Obama, Axelrod or Mao or whatever." They are all the same, and so are you.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 6:56PM

Jeremiah, you refuse to discuss Gannon any longer because you got caught in another lie--and we all know it. Your baseless accusations not only make me angry, but they make me disrespect you, too.

Basil Plumley| 3.26.09 @ 7:06PM

@ Jeremiah
You said-2. I refuse to debate the Gannon issue anymore. It was a dreadful disgrace on the part of the Bush White House, and there's an end on it.

Actually, the dreadful disgrace was you making the false accusation (lying) and not admitting so when called on it. The Bush White House did not make you do it.

Maybe they did; I hear Rove has mystical powers to make decent folks lie unintentionally. Perhaps, you should admit that Rove made you do it.

I also take issue with you calling Obama a boy scout; boy scouts take an oath never to lie. Obama lies with great ease. Perhaps, you or Bob could explain to us how Obama is going to halve the deficit when he is tripling spending.
That is a neat trick.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 7:09PM

It's tough for me to believe that any man who is a chain-smoking ex-cokehead who also supports infanticide is a boy scout. He's nothing like the fine scouts I've known, Jeremiah. Your camparison has besmirched their names.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 7:10PM

camparison = comparison

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 7:15PM

Oh, no, don't mention Bob. Basil, please, picking on Jeremiah has been so pleasant thus far. Bob will just turn this into an economic snore session or beat up on Sarah Palin again. I can't take it anymore.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 8:28PM

Ruth --

"Chain smoking ex-cokehead" ... Well, if you say so.

I think Interested Conservative has a more likely scenerio. Obama turning into Jimmy Carter is a very real possibility. Strengths can be weaknesses.

Basil Plumley| 3.26.09 @ 8:54PM

@ Jeremiah

You said-Obama turning into Jimmy Carter is a very real possibility. Strengths can be weaknesses.

Yeah! At the end of this 4 years, we will wish he were Jimmy Carter. I think Obama will lead this country where no country has gone before.

You also said-"Chain smoking ex-cokehead" ... Well, if you say so.

Umm, Obama admits the Cocaine use in his book and he also admits the smoking habit.
You mean you didn't read his "Mein Kampf"?
Jeremiah, you are in big trouble. Not really, I understand Obama forgives liars.

@ ruth

I couldn't help myself into trying to goad Bob into posting. I saw the statistics of the $Trillion deficits and thought he could compare Obama to Reagan. When it comes to tagging the Dems, Bob is AWOL. You would think as a "fiscal conservative" he would give his sterling insight.
However, as a "RINO" he picks his fights against the Conservatives; that is if he really is a RINO.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 9:18PM

So, Jeremiah--you sayin' Obama is a chain-smoking 'cokehead'? After what scummo Clinton pulled in the Oval Office, I guess I could see Obummer doing lines there. I'm sure he's got lots of libtard company.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 9:21PM

I knew what you were doing--that's why I begged you to stop, Mr. Basil Plumley.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 9:28PM

Jeremiah, you said we all have our guilty pleasures; I don't feel guilty for admiring Rush. You, however, must feel guilty about your appreciation for 'tingle' Matthews--I would, too.

DANNY| 3.26.09 @ 9:37PM

RUTH, JEREMIAH CHANGED THE SUBJECT WHEN HE WAS CAUGT LYING. THATS WHAT THEY ALWAYS DO. WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER ENGAGING THIS CREEP? IGNORE HIM AND HOPEFULLY HE WILL SLITHER AWAY.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 9:43PM

DANNY, he won't leave, and I'm not the only one torturing him. My earlier post called him out on his lie--if you had read it. You don't have to use all caps--I can read. Chill out, dude.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 9:48PM

Basil Plumley,

Listen here, sir. To compare Obama to Hitler is as foolish and ignorant a thing as I can imagine. Never mind how competely inaccurate such a comparison is, or how childish and stupid.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans -- better men than you -- died fighting Hitler. The comparison dishonors those men. It's morally insane.

Danny, you can call me names all you want. You'll still be boring.

I did NOT change any subject. While I do not have receipts or bank statements that prove definitively Gannon was a plant, I cited reasons to believe he was one. I am posting on a blog, not taking a college seminar. I am not going to provide a bibliography to everything I say. I think it's pretty clear that Gannon was a fake journalist, and I'm certain people in the White House knew it. This is without a doubt the most silly debate I've ever entered into, but if you all want to defend Gannon, be my guest.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 9:53PM

Re: Obama a Jimmy Carter

Obama's weaknesses -- a certain vagueness, a desire to reconcile every conflict, a tendency to seek approval -- may end up turning him into a leader much like Carter.

However, Obama may not turn out like Carter. Who knows? He just got there, for crying out loud.

The fact is, however, that Obama is not a man of aberrant appetites, as Clinton and his nemesis Rush Limbaugh are.

Clinton was a man whose appetites loosened his respect for the truth -- to say the least.

You all can repeat over and over again that Obama is a liar, etc. etc. Fine. I can listen to Sean Hannity too. But the difference between Clinton and Obama is huge, and any sensible person not blinded by ideological fury can see it. Any common farm duck could see it.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 9:59PM

Common farm duck? Are you for real? Do you admit that Obama was a cokehead--or are you rewriting history once again? Or perhaps you're saying that Obama doesn't smoke? How is Rush a pervert like Clinton? Another tedious Jeremiah lie.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 10:07PM

How do you know that our American WWII warriors were better men than Basil? Bet he's cut from the same cloth, Jeremiah. Just like your Obummer is cut from the same cloth as Hitler. Hitler/Brownshirts--Obummer/ACORN & AFL-CIO .

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 10:43PM

Ruth --

You don't know what you're talking about. Hitler and Obama are "cut from the same cloth"?

Do you understand that Hitler was not a fictional character in a movie you once saw?

He was an actual man who contrived to walk upon the earth, doing evil deeds. His actions led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. But you will say he's the same as Obama, whom the majority of voters elected president?

That's just nuts, Ruth.

Usually I wouldn't dwell on remarks so painfully senseless. But at some point sanity has to be injected into this increasingly crazy thread.

danny| 3.26.09 @ 11:05PM

jeremiah, ruths not nuts. wish i could say the same for the majority of voters you reference.
by the way , ruth, sorry about the caps. knew you could see.

danny| 3.26.09 @ 11:19PM

oh god there i go doing just what i advised ruth not to do. can't follow my own advise. i'm outta here.

ruth| 3.26.09 @ 11:47PM

Jeremiah--was Obama a cokehead? Does he smoke? C'mon, Jeremiah--spit it out.

Basil Plumley| 3.27.09 @ 12:27AM

Jeremiah, you never disappoint. I was never comparing Obama to Hitler. You just don't get the "Mein Kampf" reference.

The difference between JFK and Obama is that JFK wrote about brave people and foreign policy. Obama writes about himself and his struggle; hence the reference. Only a colossal jewel of ignorance could make the comparison of Obama to the evil that is Hitler. You also miss the rabid sentiments by Obama's followers who swoon on every word. I really thought you read Obama's books.

You can also stop the straw man arguments about the hundreds of thousands who died fighting the National Socialists. I had family members, as well as friends of my family, who perished in Europe and the Pacific. I also had family and friends who survived the hell that was WWII. You don't need to lecture me or anyone else about WWII and our enemy.

Shame on you. I guess Jeremiah the Liar has no where to turn except Patriotism. Your posts prove that it is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Ruth-It is way too early (as Jeremiah reminds us) to compare Obama to Hitler. I prefer to consider Obama either the Wizard of Obama (I do wonder who's behind the curtain/teleprompter) or Chauncey Gardiner.
Obama can make the most mundane statement and it will send a thrill up (or is it down) Jeremiah's leg. For now, it just being there.

BTW, Jeremiah, if you are going to post on this forum, a little logic and reading comprehension would serve you well. The author was pointing out the hypocrisy between the liberal outrage over Gannon and the liberals deafening silence over Shakir. It took someone very special and unique to defend this hypocrisy.
I recommend you take the hook out of your mouth; you've been AmSpecked.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 1:09AM

Early shmurley, after 8 years of BusHitler, I'll call that little marxist 'Hitler' any chance I get. Makes me happy. Chew on it, Jeremiah; I so don't care about your phony baloney outrage.

Basil Plumley| 3.27.09 @ 1:28AM

Ruth
You said-after 8 years of BusHitler,

I hadn't forgotten that nor all the other epithets hurled at Bush and this country.
Yeah, Jeremiah is just the hypocrite to instruct us how to act and react. Their dissent is patriotic; our dissent is treason.

I know we are better than them.

Good night Ruth. Keep throwing that heat. They can't handle you.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 11:33AM

Maybe you are better than they, Basil--maybe I'm not.

Basil Plumley| 3.27.09 @ 2:55PM

You're A-OK in my book. This country would have a lot fewer problems if there were more of you and less of Jeremiah, Jharp, Bob, Interloper, .............

Matthew Vadum| 3.27.09 @ 3:04PM

Jeremiah loves to change the subject whenever his fantastic conspiracy theories get shot down, just as when he lied in an earlier thread about Jeff Gannon, the conservative reporter with a very embarrassing past who was hounded out of the White House by the media.

Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 3:15PM
"Furthermore, Vadum, Gannon was HIRED by the White House to ask pre-scripted questions.
He was a governmentally STAGED journalist, bought and paid for."

There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER for this theory, but when you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome separating the
truth from fantasy becomes difficult.
When confronted over this lack of evidence,
Jeremiah backpedaled in his reply in the same thread at Jeremiah| 3.26.09 @ 3:44PM, admitting he had no actual proof but had
made inferences based on the fact that Gannon entered the White House when press briefings were not scheduled.

I used to cover the White House. I know for a fact that reporters may enter the White House at times other than during actual press briefings. Many reporters have desks in the West Wing and do much of their work there. My then-boss, who also covered the White House, would frequently visit the White House to pick up documents etc. For example, around every April 15th he would drop by to pick up copies of the tax returns of the president and vice president. Big deal.

Jeremiah's arguments are a combination of lies, conjecture, and red herrings. (modified from later thread in different post)

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 4:37PM

I think the person writing under the pen name 'Jeremiah' has changed. In the beginning, this guy/gal was very smart and a great writer--had superior cohesive arguments, too. Just seems different. Jeremiah, I don't mean to hurt your feelings, okay?

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 4:45PM

Basil, thanks for comparing me to my favorites-- Bob, Interloper and JHarp. That was a compliment you threw in my direction, right? I guess it could be worse--you could have compared me to that little monster, Obama Rules. Uh, thanks; I think.

Basil Plumley| 3.27.09 @ 5:10PM

@ Ruth

Short of getting on my knees ...... yes, it is a compliment. I was making a comparison by distinction. I apologize if it wasn't clear.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 5:25PM

Basil, I don't know if it's just me--but I never know when I'm being teased on this blog. It's hard to keep up with all you smarty-pants guys. It reminds me of the bantering when I was in school--guys always made me laugh the most. So damn funny.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 5:36PM

Matt, I was thinking about it; and I realized you not only wanted to give my State (the beautiful Cali) to the ChiComs--but you're a Canuck, too, right? What the hell is that about? I have to take constant grief from my fellow citizens AND Canadians, too? Don't think so, bub. I can just imagine Reagan's Presidential Library owned by the Communist Chinese: Poor President Reagan would spin in his grave. That's blasphemy.

Matthew Vadum| 3.27.09 @ 5:48PM

Ruth: I am a disgruntled expatriate. God bless America. The California comment was a joke reflecting conservative disenchantment with the Left Coast. We might, however, want to consider building a wall around Berkeley. (Ha ha.)

Matthew Vadum| 3.27.09 @ 5:55PM

A further thought about our trollish friend, Jeremiah.

I thought the left supported gay rights and was pro-gay. It amazes me (though I guess it shouldn't after decades of studying the left) how downright mean-spirited the left can be. The left doesn't care about gay prostitution. Look how concerned they were about it when Rep. Barney Frank's gay lover was running a prostitution ring out of the congressman's apartment.

Yet they waved Gannon's past, which I understand he has disavowed, in front of the press like a red cape in front of an angry bull.

They are amoral Machiavellians, or perhaps more accurately, amoral Alinskyites.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 6:16PM

And San Francisco--used to be such a beautiful city. I learned how to drive stick-shift there; that was insane. Have you ever driven up PCH from Malibu to Northern California? In a convertible? Hauntingly beautiful.

ruth| 3.27.09 @ 6:20PM

Bottom line, Matt--it's all about power , all of the time with liberals. Anyone and anything are expendable to them. Absolute whoremongers. That's why I disdain them so.

ugg classic cardy| 12.6.09 @ 8:49PM

Welcome to our website: http://www.infls.com
As the commodities we supply are of excellent quality and low price,
we have won a very good reputation from our clients all over the world.
If you are interested in any of our products, please don't hesitate to contact with me by email.
i trust that through our cooperation we shall be able to conclude some transactions with you in the near future.
Website: http://www.mbtshoe.co.uk
Best regards!