Comments on: Heads Should Roll at CNN

By: Gene in Pennsylvania

Gene in Pennsylvania — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:17:27 +0000

So far the debate managed by Brit Hume, Wendell Golller, and Chris Wallace will be remembered as the most serious and probing of all. CNN’s Wolf Blitzed and MSNBC Matthews’” typical question was “raise your hand if you are pro life…..raise your hand if you are for guns”…what a joke. And the interesting part is they still don’t get it. They don’t get, that they don’t get it.

By: Gene in Pennsylvania

Gene in Pennsylvania — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 20:14:09 +0000

Look, it seems to me that the real trouble with CNN and Democrat campaigns planting questioners…
… there was probing of Republican candidates opinions on subjects that we as Republican primary voters had little interest in. Reading the whole Bible, who has an undocumented gardener, what is the name of the gun you have in your house, etc. I wanted a discription of their tax policy, what the plan is for saving S Security, how will they eliminate the AMT, how will they limit government so it can do few things well, how will they specifically reign in govenment spending, how do we continue to win in Iraq, Ron Pauls opinion of the tri laterals, etc etc. Instead half the debate was wasted on fluffy liberal questions and answers. And Democrat voters were able to decide on our candidates views on their hot button issues. So we are left with wondering which network will have a real debate on OUR issues. Fred Thompson idea of challenging 2 or three other Republicans to a round table discussion of the ISSUES is intreguing. Shouldn’t FOX news, a real news network take him up in it?
The next time CNN MSNBC wonder why they have only 150,000 viewers a nite, maybe they will revisit opportunities when they have a captive audience and how they totally blew it. CNN ends the nite with a black eye not an “attaboy”.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:12:15 +0000

Heads should roll? Funny, that statement sounds a lot like what we’re hearing against an innocent school teacher in Sudan right now……

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 02:16:20 +0000

You know that some reporters adopt pseudonyms, right?

Exactly. Similarly, as an example, do you really think that USSS is completely unaware as to who Paul David Hewson is?

By: Vince P

Vince P — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:43:54 +0000

As for “prostitute in the White House” (which I’ve seen you say in the past)… Who cares?

Leftists are obsessed with the sex and private lives of everyone.. and can’t wait to moralize when it suits them.

By: KYKid

KYKid — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:35:44 +0000

…what Ian said in 72…

By: ILoveCapitalism

ILoveCapitalism — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:12:09 +0000

What’s wrong with having a pro-Bush “reporter” when most of the White House press corps is hostile…?

Exactly. Houndentenor, I do not ‘get’ your fixation on Gannon.

Unless the real story here were your having a viewpoint like “how DARE a Republican have even ONE friend in the press?” But I’m not accusing you of that.

As for “prostitute in the White House” (which I’ve seen you say in the past)… Who cares? Do you really think it’s the first time a prostitute – or in Gannon’s case, an ex-prostitute; someone who reformed themselves and cleaned up their act – has been in the Whiite House?

if he applied using an alias, isn’t that basically lying?

You know that some reporters adopt pseudonyms, right?

[GPW] if he applied using an alias–and that was not the practice, then yes, it reflects poorly on him and on the White House’s vetting process.

May I underline your “If”? Was it unusual or outrageous that a White House reporter would apply under his professional alias? I’d like to know, one way or the other.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:55:33 +0000

Hounentenor, if he applied using an alias–and that was not the practice, then yes, it reflects poorly on him and on the White House’s vetting process. So, I would agree that (in that case) the screening people were incompetent.

But, so what if he was aided in getting access? What’s wrong with having a pro-Bush “reporter” when most of the White House press corps is hostile to this Administration?

Leftist blogs have made much of what he did with the access he was granted, but they have been able to prove little more than a conservative guy (who happened to have done some escort work) got press credentials to the White House.

I don’t know why so many left-wing blogs got so upset over something so trivial.

And anyway, he was one of the few conservative reporters credentialed to cover a supposedly conservative Administrations. With CNN, it seems that those questioners they selected who had any ideological leanings, tilted far to the left. Not too different from most of those who cover the White House.

By: Michigan-Matt

Michigan-Matt — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:08:33 +0000

MM2007 at 45 “gil, if you can rise to that test, have at it” in defending your allegation the GOP candidates are flipfloppers.

gil at #49 responds: “Um. I don’t “contend” anything. The facts speak for themselves and in the case of the Repubs, they the fish on the floor.”

So that’s a solid failure on your part, gil. Flipflopping remains the province of Democrats like Lt FlippityFlop Kerry.

No wonder the latest Zogby poll has nearly all the GOP contenders beating the Democrats’ choice for cornation -Hillary. Rudy beats her in a matchup of likely voters. Mitt does it. McCain does it. Huckabee does it. Even FreddieThompson does it.

The Democrats need to get some stronger candidates.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:48:59 +0000

Dear Dan, if he applied using an alias, isn’t that basically lying? Did the White House know he was not using his real name or not? It seems to me that either Gannon/Guckert was aided in getting access to the White House (and not all his visits were for press conferences) or whoever is screening people for clearance is incompetent.

By: Ian S

Ian S — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:34:20 +0000

[Comment deleted for violating community terms of conduct.]

By: John W

John W — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:33:14 +0000

#90 Ian. You say Keith served on “active duty” when he joined the military in early 1950′s. He was a reservist in California. I was in the reserves in the 50′s, after I got discharged in 1946 from ACTIVE DUTY . Being in the reserves in the 50′s was not the same as being on “active duty”.

By: Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)

Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:17:50 +0000

I never saw the problem of having Gannon as a White House reporter. He may have been a biased reporter, but he was one reporter among many. I’m sure there were other agenda-driven reporters in the White House.

The only issue for me was whether or not he lied in applying for his White House press credentials.

By: North Dallas Thirty

North Dallas Thirty — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:52:11 +0000

No, he served on active duty when he joined the military in the early 1950’s.

Uh huh….for how long?

Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr entered the U. S. Army as a Private at Fort Ord, California, on 21 September 1953. After completing basic and advanced training, he served with the 513th Military Intelligence Group in Germany during the Cold War. Upon release from active duty, he continued to serve in the U. S. Army Reserve and was commissioned a First Lieutenant in June 1960.

In other words, this guy was on active duty for a fraction of the years of service he claims.

And, since you and your fellow leftists, Ian, have argued that the Reserves and the National Guard don’t count as serving (when it comes to the Bush administration), your own argument invalidates your “soldier”.

By: Houndentenor

Houndentenor — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:29:28 +0000

Gannon got security clearance to enter the White House on numerous occasions. I rather doubt CNN’s vetting process for youtube submissions was anywhere near as strenuous.

I am pretty sure this is the last time anyone will try this format. It was silly (remember the stupid snowman asking about global warming? *rolls eyes*) and distracted from a real discussion.

By: ThatGayConservative

ThatGayConservative — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 20:09:44 +0000

But Rudy appears to have used the police department as a taxi service for his mistress and tried to hide it all…. Isn’t it a bit ironic that a guy like Rudy who rails against socialized medicine for the people doesn’t seem to mind some socialized adultery for himself?

How about Trooper Gate?
Ooops! Already been done by the Rapist In Chief.

By: V the K

V the K — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:50:15 +0000

What’s funny to me is the people who previously whined that Jeff Gannon asking favorable questions of George Bush was a huge conspiracy and a major scandal are the same people who whine that CNN planting activists for the Hillary, Obama, and Edwards campaigns in a Republican debate is a fake scandal.

By: John

John — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:15:23 +0000

It typically doesn’t, John. But Rudy appears to have used the police department as a taxi service for his mistress and tried to hide it all. Isn’t it a bit ironic that a guy like Rudy who rails against socialized medicine for the people doesn’t seem to mind some socialized adultery for himself?

Hey if perjury under oath and sexual harassment in the White House are okay I don’t see what you’re complaining about, Ian.

By: Ian S

Ian S — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:12:18 +0000

#62:

I thought that sex had nothing to do with the performance of one’s job.

It typically doesn’t, John. But Rudy appears to have used the police department as a taxi service for his mistress and tried to hide it all. Isn’t it a bit ironic that a guy like Rudy who rails against socialized medicine for the people doesn’t seem to mind some socialized adultery for himself?

By: John

John — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:40:42 +0000

It would have taken even less than ten seconds to offer the rebuttal you suggested and been far more effective.

Indeed. Heck, even if he had disclosed his affliations and then given such a response to their answers it would have been powerful. By doing what he did though he blew the moment even though the question itself was good.