First, I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to read and comment on my diary from Saturday night. Today's follow-up is largely a response to Gannon's defenders. It's a bit cheeky but I hope that follow Kossacks will indulge me. (and maybe have a laugh or two)
For Howie Kurtz : Gay facts and fantasies in Propagannon, pt2
Howie, as many others have already and wisely pointed out - if a guy, even a conservativeguy.com, kind of guy builds websites advertising himself as a $200 per hour hooker and fills that site with pornographic pictures of himself, including choice ones of himself pissing, it is he, Gannon, who has abrogated the claim to privacy, not the bloggers. He's a hooker. For him, it's professional, not personal.
Given that premise, the real question is not that Bloggers like us have exposed him for this but that commentators like you are seeking to defend him. You must know that you are trying to defend the indefensible, so, why do you do it?
(Or as Oscar Wilde himself might have quipped had he known the modern WH Press Corps - "The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible?" and why do I think of that every time I see footage of the White House Press Room with Gannon in his predictable fourth row seat?)
Now, Howie, come on, talk to me, you see, I know that if I wrote a diary reiterating gossip I'd heard about Rush Limbaugh, his alleged arrest 30 years ago - for - oh, remind us Howie, I'm sure you've heard the gossip - for public indecency? - in Pittsburg, his gay mentor in California (who subsequently died of AIDS), the hearsay that he was frequently seen in Gay Bars during that time, well, that would be speculation, wouldn't it?
If I restated gossip I'd heard from British friends who asserted that Marta (wife no. 3, finally legally divorced from Rush this week) had married him 10 years ago (in a ceremony presided over by Justice Clarence Thomas, btw) as a business deal - with the understanding that it would, in fact, only last for ten years. They say the divorce was a part of the package from day one. Can you believe people are saying that? Well, that would just be gossip, however damaging it might prove to the sacred institution of marriage, and, I course, would never repeat it as fact.
If I pointed out that Marta (it is whispered) has lived separately from Rush for the last 5 years even though Rush has no less than four houses on his Palm Springs compound - well, then I might be accused of conducting a wicked and reckless campaign. It might be said that I truly hated gay people and was just another homophobic leftie going after an American icon.
Well, Howie, if I repeated reckless things like that you know, you'd be right. No matter how wide spread these unsavory allegations were, I would never go out on a limb and suggest that the drug-addled Rush might have a complex, even bizarre, sexuality - at least not on the record.
On the other hand, If I were to write a memo about, say, Joe McCarthy, that cited Drew Pearson's personal diary entries in which he claimed McCarthy was gay, or if I referred to Hank Greenspun's items for the Las Vegas Sun in 1953 that reported testimony from a gay bar in Milwaukee (the White Horse Inn) whose patrons said McCarthy was often there and that he frequently indulged in "homosexual practices" and if I reminded people how the bilious old boozer was so infuriated by Greenspun's article that he threatened to sue but decided, at the age of 43, to marry his secretary instead, and, IF I pointed out, in that same memo, that McCarthy's downfall was triggered by his foolhardy attempt to take on the Army and pressure them into discharging David Shine so Shine could join his little buddy, the pixie-ish Roy Cohn on the McCarthy team -
Well, if I put all that in a memo, that would just be an "historical" memo, wouldn't it?
An historical memo about a gay scandal that few Americans (especially Ann Coulter) fully understand, since that old "gay angle" is so often left out.
And should we ignore that "gay angle" in looking at the life J. Edgar Hoover? I know, Howie, that people like you and me always knew. Hey, back me on this, isn't it true that the Henry Luce crowd (among most savy insiders) used to laughingly refer to John Edgar and his longtime companion, Clyde Tolson as "Johnnie and Clyde"? Isn't that on the public record by now, Howie? Hilarious, right?
Hoover ardently went after those lavender types on the day job because he knew that all that closety gay shit led to strange sub-culture, blackmail shit , and he did that for our protection. And he remains an icon because he was untouched by all that closety gay shit that so often led to strange sub-culture blackmail shit, right? Or isn't it now widely accepted that Hoover had been compromised by New York crime boss Frank Costello - a leverage that kept the legendary gangbuster denying the existence of organized crime until the Appalachia Conference of 1957. That was a longtime after Hoover's boys gunned down Dillinger, don't you think?
Long time rumours say Costello had naughty photos of Hoover and Tolson
BUT
unlike Bulldog Guckert, Hoover hadn't posted them on the internets!!!
So, enough said, you're right - all this repressed, closety gay shit - we have to clean up our act and aim to a higher standard and stop talking about this kind of nasty stuff
Can we agree to that, Howie?
Come on, say yes - or I'll start talking about Angelton and Philby? Or that old tricky"dick" and Bebe Rebozo?
Hahahahah - Just kidding Howie. Okay no more "queer" stuff.
[SHORT PAUSE]
So, Howie, just to change the subject, do you think Hillary is still a lesbian?