Originally Posted By Beaumandy Who cares if he was a gay escort? If he was a liberal press person you would be giving him awards for being true to himself and be his guest in the local gay parade. Instead, since he didn't follow the Bush lied! hyteria from the clueless, he is demonized and smeared for being gay. How tolerant.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Instead, since he didn't follow the Bush lied! hyteria from the clueless, he is demonized and smeared for being gay.<< Oh, hardly. I don't give a rat's behind if he was an escort or whether he's gay/straight/in-between. And you know something? Whatever smearing there was of him came from BOTH sides. The reasons were different, but it happened nonetheless.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Why would any liberal make fun of the guy for being gay?? I remeber going to democraticunderground.com when this thing was hot and the anti gay remarks were off the charts, something you would never see at a level on a right wing site.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "How tolerant." How dishonest of you. The guy was a plant, pure and simple. The fact he was all these other things (and having Hannity fawn all over him LOL) is just so much fodder for the mill.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Lets say he WAS a plant. How is this any worse than a press corp full of people who are basically shills for the democrats? These people pretend to be fair and neutral yet we all know they are big time lefties. Just ask them who they voted for and watch them freak out. Is the rule supposed to be that only anti Bush questions are allowed?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Lets say he WAS a plant. How is this any worse than a press corp full of people who are basically shills for the democrats?<< They're only shills because they're not in your political party. It's their job to ask the questions they do. How about this: a plant is bad all around, no matter what the political affiliation is. But there's also a big difference between Gannon and these Democrat press people. He had a high level of access to the White House that was almost unheard of for a "journalist" who had little, if any, credentials to back him up.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Maybe someone at a high level of White House access needed a back rub from Gannon.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA McClellan should go. He was as obtuse as Bush when answering questions. Sort of the 'I already answered that once this week -- don't you guys listen?' Bye Scott! Have fun 'spending time with your family.'
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure any of us can understand the complexities of the position of Press Secretary. But, it sure is fun to belittle people, isn't it?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I don't think we need to understand the complexities of the Press Secretary's job. It's a tough job. It suited for some and not others. It takes someone who's tough, and can handle the pressure, and can speak without getting testy and irritated. I think McClellan was the wrong person for the job, and was not representing the White House very well. Is that belittling him?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Bye Scott! Have fun 'spending time with your family.' That is closing in on it. And, yes, I do think we need to understand the complexities. He/she has to convey the administration's message often times wihtout knowing all the facts or not being permitted to divulge all of the facts. He/she is with this same group of people almost 24/7. And, the changing media has made this a much uglier and generally less productive relationship and I would say that even going back to the Clinton administration. The media, and I would say the general public, doesn't want the facts anymore. They want the story. And, the "facts" and the "story" are often not the same thing. The funniest thing I saw was a survey a while back that asked what profession we have the least amount of trust in. I think the media and politicians were neck and neck.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Have you ever known a government official to step down and give a truthful reason? The only one I can think of is Jim Brady and we all saw him get shot. (Those of us old enough to remember anyway.)
Originally Posted By woody >>I think McClellan was the wrong person for the job, and was not representing the White House very well.<< Do you really think this is a bad thing? Irrelevant. The press corp is there to make the White House look bad. They have succeeded to some extent. I thought McClellan did a fine job. He didn't deviate from the White House line, which is his primary job. He isn't supposed to make the news unlike David Gregory, the press hack.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "The press corp is there to make the White House look bad. They have succeeded to some extent." Paranoid much?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Does the white house itself take no responsibility for their own actions? It's all just "the press"? The press didn't start the war, or misrepresent the facts surrounding iraq's non-involvement in 9/11, WMD, nuclear programs. They didn't fail to respond to the aftermath of katrina. They didn't nominate harriett meyers, and they didn't try to privatize social security. They didn't publicly say that warrants are necessary for wiretaps, while quietly tapping away like shirley temple without any judicial oversight. They didn't pay 'journalists' to plant false stories in the press about education programs that are total and complete falsehoods. They didn't plant gay hustlers within the white house press corps to toss partisan questions to the press secretary. The list goes on. But go ahead and shoot the messenger - it's all the 'liberal media's' fault. Right.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper No, it isn't just the press. This White House has screwed up...as have many. The difference today is that the press has, in effect, chosen sides. Mostly liberal but certainly some conservative as well. You don't have to know anything about the press or politics to determine who is liberal and who is conservative in their reporting style. And, it is that style and version of each story that persuades a large number of American's to feel one way or the other. If all I watched was CNN I'd despise the current administration. If all I watched was Fox News I'd go to bed with the current administration. So, no, it isn't all "the press". But, they are certainly complicit in all of this.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Speaking of fox news ... <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,192468,00.html 04/20/06 FOX Poll: Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low Thursday , April 20, 2006 By Dana Blanton NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans. Opinions are sharply divided on whether Rumsfeld should resign as secretary of defense. In addition, views on the economy are glum; most Americans rate the current economy negatively, and twice as many say it feels like the economy is getting worse rather than better. These are just some of the findings of the latest FOX News national poll. President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new low of 33 percent approve, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. A year ago this time, 47 percent approved and two years ago 50 percent approved (April 2004). Approval among Republicans is below 70 percent for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66 percent) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year when 84 percent of Republicans approved. Among Democrats, 11 percent approve today, while 14 percent approved last April. "It seems clear that many Republicans, while they may still like and support George Bush, are growing uneasy with what may happen to their candidates — and the policies they support — in the November elections," comments Opinion Dynamics Chairman John Gorman. Overall, 57 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing, and the most frequently mentioned reason is Iraq (48 percent). The other top reasons include generally "doing a bad job" (24 percent), disagreement on issues (22 percent) and the economy/jobs (17 percent). Eleven percent of Americans say they disapprove because they "don’t like him" and 10 percent because he "doesn’t care about average people." Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News on April 18 and April 19. The other end of Pennsylvania Avenue fares even worse: 25 percent of the public approves of the job Congress is doing and 52 percent disapprove. About a year ago, 40 percent approved and 36 percent disapproved (29-30 March 2005). Furthermore, a 54 percent majority agrees that this is a "do nothing" Congress, including 56 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s job approval rating also hit a record low this week with 35 percent of Americans saying they approve, down from 40 percent in December and 44 percent last April. On a more upbeat note for the GOP, a 60 percent majority approves of the job Secretary of State Rice is doing — far more than the one in five who disapprove (22 percent). These ratings are consistent with previous results.
