I hate to see Ra worried for the state of his country, so maybe I can help reassure him that all is indeed well.
The reason that the Guckert story isn't getting the press you feel it should isn't because of corporate censorship or some hastily arrange conspiracy of silence. It's because it's a non-event.
I mean really. The big news is that what, a gay ex-porn peddler is getting a press pass? Dear Lord. They let a GAY MAN in to the Whitehouse? What's next? A Catholic? A Jew? I've yet to hear a Democrat talk about this so called scandal without making sure that the word 'gay' was included, so they obviously feel that it's some kind of pejorative. Which is strange, given their alleged broad mindedness, and yet sadly true to form. It reminds me of big John and little John during the presidential election, practically moist with excitement at the prospect of getting a chance to bring up Dick Cheney's daughter just one more time.
OK. Let's pretend that I'm really a reasonable sort of bloke, and I know, deep down inside that you're not all a bunch of homophobes, however much you might be starting to sound like it. So then the objection is his dodgy sexual exploits in the past? Is that what's got you all lathered up? Well heck, let's throw him out. God knows the only person we would want anywhere *near* the Whitehouse with a dodgy sexual history would be, what, the President? It seems a little odd that you hold some no-name blogger to a higher standard of personal behavior that you do, say Bill Clinton. Out of the two of them I don't believe Guckert actually had sex *in* the Whitehouse while working. Maybe I missed that part.
The "fake name" thing is, of course, a red herring. Unless it's being suggested that he sneaked in wearing a fake beard and pretending to be someone completely different, I don't think writing under an alias really counts. And if the secret service are too inept to know who he was, well, then you do have a scandal. (For the record, Lictor is *not* my real name. Just in case it should become the subject of a Democrat fantasy-scandal at some point in the future.)
Let's be honest here, the *real* reason the Dems, Ra included, are hot under the collar about this is because he's clearly a reporter who is sympathetic to the administration. There's nothing else here. Maureen Dowd's rather embarrassing fiction is not worth discussing, (she had difficulty getting a permanent press pass, not a day pass. But hey Maureen, why let the facts get in the way of a good anti-Bush story? If you started doing that you might get mistaken for a journalist.)
Yes, he's a Republican. What's this? They're allowing Republicans into the Whitehouse? Good lord, next it'll be gays and Catholics. Oh sorry, I did that already didn't I?
Come on guys. So he asks easy questions. What, is he the only reporter in there? Is your idea of freedom of the press so twisted now by your hatred of the democratically elected president that you only view antagonistic reporters (and possibly if we're being generous with the word reporter, Maureen Dowd,) as the only people who should be allowed to ask questions?
I tell you what. The day that Guckert makes up stories, like say, CNN, the New York Times and CBS, I'll be happy to call for his being banned. Deal?