Jeff Gannon Contradicts Himself and the White House in Obscure Internet Postings From 2004 and Before

By ADVOCATE STAFF


The Old Media still hasn't pursued this story--they only report what we dig up.

-- Jeff Gannon, discussing "Rathergate" on Free Republic, September 21, 2004


Jeff Gannon isn't exactly what you'd call "low-key."

Despite being the focal point of a firestorm in Washington, he's happily blogging his way into political oblivion.

Did The Advocate suspect Gannon was involved in the takedown of former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle?

Well, Gannon's gone and confirmed it.

In fact, he's confirmed the hell out of it.

[As it were].

On his blog, Gannon now says, " I helped get [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid (D-NV) his promotion," and refers to himself as "a reporter that [sic] helped bring the beloved Tom Daschle down."

A more detailed search of Gannon's publicly-accessible (or, at one time publicly-accessible) writings reveals a man who never, ever, under any circumstances should have been allowed to play at being a White House reporter for a (to hear Ari Fleischer tell it) "news" organization.

The writings also reveal a man who has been less than candid in recent weeks about how he got into the White House in the first place.

Consider this recent exchange with NBC's Campbell Brown:

BROWN: So, who was the White House clearing into those briefings every day? Was it James Guckert? Or was it--

GANNON: Yes.

BROWN: Jeff Gannon?

GANNON: I go to the gate. I show my driver's license, which I showed you. It has my given name. And that's how I gained entry....I asked to come. They allowed me to come. And apparently there isn't a very high threshold as far as somebody's personal life to gain access.

So that's it?

A driver's license at the gate of the White House is all it took?

And the White House does not, he says, have a "very high threshold" for knowing the personal background of entrants to the White House press room?

Folks who sit within ten feet of the President?

Doesn't sound right, does it?

That's probably because it isn't. [Read here, for instance, to find out about one small news outlet's attempt to get a daily White House press pass].

Then consider that this "small news outlet" is actually more popular, and has a larger readership, than "Talon News" did at the time of its recognition by the White House.

But don't take our word for it, or even the words of the Augusta Free Press.

Just listen to Gannon himself during his months as a regular at the radical conservative web forum, "The Free Republic" (FR); for example, consider this gem:

GANNON: ...I am one of the only conservatives in the regular White House press corps...

FR USER: God bless you, and may your tribe increase!

GANNON: Not likely! There are many obstacles for admittance.

[April 23rd, 2004].

So how did a gay hooker with no journalism experience, who'd been denied a press pass by both houses of Congress, get through what he himself terms "many obstacles" to become a White House reporter?

And does this description of White House procedure jive with that provided by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, describing to Editor & Publisher on February 18th, 2005 the method by which he "checked" into whether Gannon deserved a White House press pass?

[Bobby Eberle] faxed a letter in on his [GOPUSA] letterhead, they checked that it was a conservative news website he worked for. There was a check to make sure it was a news organization and a news website. There was a determination made at that point [that it was legitimate]....Our staff assistants do a good job. The staff assistant went to verify that the news organization existed.

Now, is it really an "obstacle" to be required to have one's online "news" organization exist before said organization is recognized by the White House?

And did the White House really even run that check?

What else would the White House have found had they done any sort of comprehensive web search for Jeff Gannon's name?

Well, for starters, this (since erased) web page, which states that Gannon "authors the website found at www.TheConservativeGuy.com."

Now we're getting somewhere.

And what would Ari and Scott have seen if they went to "The Conservative Guy" website?

Well, for example, this:

In many circles, I have become known as "the conservative guy." Some people don't even remember my name because I am an average type guy. I've been a preppie, a yuppie, blue-collar, green-collar and white-collar. I've served in the military, graduated from college, taught in the public school system, was a union truck driver, a management consultant, a fitness instructor and an entrepreneur. I'm a two-holiday Christian and I usually vote Republican because they most often support conservative positions.

I am not a conservative by birth as you might assume. My conservatism has evolved through my life experiences. I come from a very average white rural working-class family. My parents and brother are lifelong Democrats with a tradition of labor union membership. I put myself through college, earning a scholarship and holding a job while attending classes and playing a varsity sport. I enlisted in the military more as a challenge to myself than anything, but got so much more than I ever expected. I learned the importance of self-discipline and self-reliance.

My weapon of choice [is the] Beretta 9mm. This semi-automatic model, characterized by a solid locked breech system, with a rotating barrel, takes advantage of the maximum energy received during firing to produce a very low recoil. This pistol is particularly suitable for personal defense.

I believe there are many men and women in America who are conservative. Many more than one would imagine. Many more than would think of themselves as conservatives. When I meet people, and the conversation turns to politics, as it always seems to with me, some of them sheepishly confess that they are Republicans or that they agree with the opinions I have just spoken. It's almost as if they fear the reaction of their peers, that there is something wrong with having conservative views. I am here to tell them that they are not alone. Day after day, more conservatives are speaking up as they have had enough of liberalism run amok.

Pretty innocuous thus far, right? After all, there's nothing wrong with being a conservative.

Well, not that much wrong, at least for our present purposes.

But what did the Secret Service think about a White House news correspondent talking blithely on a personal website about his "weapon of choice"? Wouldn't raise any alarms in the nation's top security-based outfit, would it?

And what would the White House Press Office have thought of this mission statement, coming from a "reporter":

[M]y mission is simple:

1. Help people to realize that they have conservative core values and are therefore conservatives.

2. Help people to be proud that they are conservatives.

3. Help people to allow their conservative values to govern their actions.

4. To expose the liberal lies perpetuated by the media, Hollywood, the teachers' unions and the Democratic Party.

And how about Gannon's bald assertion, in the same space, "I'm not trying to be fair and balanced"?

Is there any other White House correspondent who would make that assertion? Or who would declare their mission to be combating one of the two political parties in America? Or would (on a single website) also provide a sneak-peek of a future book on how liberalism is not a valid political philosophy?

So, to recap: A man who says his opinions are neither fair nor balanced, who has a "mission" statement which includes "expos[ing] the liberal lies perpetuated by...the Democratic Party," who openly discusses guns on his personal website, tells a radical conservative website that there are "many obstacles" to getting into the White House, and that fact is then controverted by not one but two Bush Administration White House Press Secretaries--who, for their part, allege that their only interest was in determining whether the man's website "existed."

Is anyone buying this?

Does anyone believe the Secret Service let Gannon get within ten feet of a sitting President without doing a thorough--for starters--internet search of his on-line presence, which search would reveal him posing suggestively, half-naked, for the camera?

Imagine, for a moment, an uncredentialed liberal activist with a strong belief that conservatism is not a valid political philosophy and a strong interest in the Beretta 9mm. Imagine this activist doesn't merely believe conservatism is wrong, but, in fact, that it is so fundamentally illegitimate it is undeserving of intellectual, cultural, or even academic recognition.

Now imagine this activist suddenly claims he is a "reporter," though in fact he has no background in journalism. Imagine he signs up to be a "reporter" for a Republican activist website--and promptly gets denied for press credentials from both Houses of Congress.

Imagine this "reporter" using an alias while attempting to get access to the White House.

Imagine this man's publicly-accessible "mission statement" is "to expose the conservative lies perpetuated by...the Republican Party."

Suppose his website shows him posing half-naked and referring to how "sexy" he considers himself.

Imagine, too, he's an alleged criminal--in this case, a hooker. Imagine you could find this information out with just a few minutes of low-tech web research.

Can you imagine the White House allowing him to even take a tour of the building, let alone pass a daily security clearance to become a permanent fixture in the highly select White House press corps?

As The Advocate has said before, those who want to understand precisely how cowed the current White House press corps is--and why, therefore, this Jeff Gannon story is so important--need only watch a single White House press briefing on C-SPAN.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan speaks like a man under indictment for manslaughter, absolutely terrified he'll say anything of importance or of consequence to the matter at hand, that is, in short, anything accurate or true.

The press corps, unlike the chipper gang so frequently featured on The West Wing, asks questions of McClellan as though the lot of them were recently victims of a substantial, sudden, and incoherent sort of violence--one which has left them all in monotones, downward glances, and, at base, no expectation whatsoever of receiving (or reporting) any real news at all to the public.

So, that's The Advocate's challenge to our readership: if you haven't done so already, watch a single White House press briefing on C-SPAN.

You will be horrified.

And terrified for this country.

That's precisely why, according to Dick Polman of The Philadelphia Inquirer, this story is "far from over."