tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3006450.post110892131254316931..comments2009-07-16T11:50:50.539-04:00Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11636260045189046146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3006450.post-1109022298861269652005-02-21T16:44:00.000-05:002005-02-21T16:44:00.000-05:00It's hard to take the conservatives outrage seriously. Although Guckert didn't use "gay escort" on his press application, he certainly wasn't hiding himself or his services. This isn't really private information that's being reported here. <br /><br />And the claim by some wingnite that he could still work as a white house reporter is absurd. Of course, this might be a great opportunity for someone to try.Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11636260045189046146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3006450.post-1109018482201080972005-02-21T15:41:00.000-05:002005-02-21T15:41:00.000-05:00Is Guckert really in the closet though? It seems to me that the Gannon identity was needed because Guckert was so <I>out</I> of the closet. <br /><br />And as <A HREF="http://www.thismodernworld.com/" REL="nofollow">Tom Tomorrow</A> wrote:<br /><br /><I>If you're advertising a dodgy business on the web and someone finds out about it, it doesn't constitute "digging into your personal life"--key words here being "advertising" and "business." Not sure what part of that the right wingers fail to comprehend. Also, discussions of whether or not prostitution should be legal are completely irrelevant, just a further attempt to sidetrack the issue. Rightly or wrongly, prostitution is illegal, and if G/G was running an escort service, that means he was publicly advertising his criminal activity, apparently while also being granted access to the White House... </I>Goodmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18095528596591530855noreply@blogger.com