Gee, you think, Bobby? With geniuses like this calling the shots, it's easy to see why the Republican Party and its high-handed bullshit tactics are respected universally by the finest minds humanity has to offer.
Anyway, take a look at the GOPUSA site and judge for yourself. It studiously avoids specific mention of the Republican Party on its title page (except for, um, the name of the site itself, but that's just nitpicking), but is chock-full of low-forehead boilerplate.
Even the ads are moronic, specifically designed to provoke. "FREE Special Report Exposes AARP's LIBERAL AGENDA", offers one. Oh, you mean the liberal AARP that Bush scammed into pimping his Medicare bill for him, the bill that's going to cost anywhere from $200 billion to $700 billion more than promised; the bill for which a supervisor threatened a bean-counting subordinate with his job if he leaked the actual cost of this turkey?
It's beside the point. The AARP is more than happy to remind both liberal and conservative politicians that they are there to insure that their constituency is seen to, and that they can be relied on to get out and vote their pleasure or displeasure. But no matter; they're pissed at being lied to, they're saying so, but it must be because they're liberal. It's base propaganda, pure and simple.
The "columnists", such as they are, are also a hoot. Case in point: a floater called Peter Principles, written by a "political analyst" for the Moonie-owned UPI press agency. The linked column attempts to show some sort of even-handedness, I suppose, in that it attacks Republicans for being insufficiently awed at Bush's non-fix-it for Social Security. Et tu, Lindsey Graham?, Peter somberly intones, as if he were trodding the boards with Kato Kaelin in a back-alley Shakespeare For Dummies production.
Never mind; Peter Principles at least live up to their namesake by finding their own special level of incompetence, and then burrowing in. It is precisely the level of 'turf hack commentary one would expect from an employee of the Moonies, much less a certain now-infamous gay hustler who originally tripped everyone's radar for just being a garden-variety plagiarist/shameless partisan tool.
So that's your quickie rundown of the "media" site which putatively employed Jim Guckert until its boutique agitprop offspring got birthed. Who knows how much cruder and more obvious that site was two years ago when Guckert first came on board, but whatever. The bottom line is that if it's so damned legit and obvious to all, why did Talon feel the need to flush their Guckert archive the second he came under scrutiny? Huh? Hmm? Riddle me that one, Pete, if your creepy lunatic cult-overseer boss will let you. You might have to put a crown on him and call him "Daddy" first.
Oh, well I guess that settles that, doesn't it? Please. "[B]eing assured that the sites supposedly had no connection to the party" is just a euphemism for plausible deniability. Eberle is a GOP delegate. Are we seriously expected to just believe that a party delegate sets up a de facto propaganda site independent of any and all party influence -- platform papers, talking points, etc.? Once again, we turn to our trusty IOKIYAR issue-consequence model, pay slight scrutiny to the picayune things we spent eight years and $50 million digging for last time 'round, and see a rather stark contrast in function and fact.
Here is the transcript of Guckert's interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper. It's typically dodgy and self-serving. Payback is indeed a bitch -- a big, fat, sweaty 500-pound bitch with ham-hock arms and dimpled knees and six or eight chins, wearing an old car cover for a muu-muu. Payback has to rent people to scratch her back and tie her shoes.
Come give Payback a big ol' wet sloppy kiss, Jimbo.
Even as we've been making schadenfreude-laden cracks about Guckert's online sex hustling, we are acutely aware of the fine line we tread when we crack wise about this sort of thing. But we always walk the talk when we go to the voting booth; we have always and consistently been pro-leaving-people-the-hell-alone. Conversely, Guckert's dark lords despise him for who he is, and use him as political currency to curry favor with evangelical fascists.
So I don't wanna hear any more bullshit about how hypocritical liberals are in taking down a gay prostitute for his ideology. Several of the people who have been integral in breaking this story are gay. John Aravosis of AmericaBlog is gay. David Brock of Media Matters is gay (and a recovering ex-right-winger). For that matter, Anderson Cooper is gay. So what? It's the prostitution aspect of Guckert's sexual proclivity that is unseemly, not the particular orientation. The thing is, the bullshitters know that already. But that's all so yesterday, so reality-based.
Bonus: RawStory is saying that many mainstream outlets are gearing up to finally investigate the whole Guckert mess. Even the New Yorker is jumping onboard, which should help give some serious credence to what has so far been portrayed as a mere token obsession of the pajamahadeen. Stay tuned....