August 2, 2007
The Weekly Standard’s Reliable Sources: Male Prostitute Matt Sanchez and Web Weirdo “Throbert McGee”
The war in Iraq has sparked a parallel war between two of Washington’s most prominent partisan political publications, the Weekly Standard and the New Republic. The war has been akin to the ongoing seige of Baghdad’s Green Zone, with the Standard playing the role of Iraqi insurgents, lobbing mortars over the Green Zone gates while TNR scurries to shore up its defenses.
The war began on July 13, when The New Republic published a “Baghdad Diary” by “Scott Thomas,” an Army private writing under a pseudonym about US atrocities in Iraq. Thomas described his participation in the mockery of a female soldier disfigured by an IED, claimed he witnessed troops intentionally running over dogs in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and alleged that another soldier played with the skulls of dead Iraqi children.
In attempt to challenge the wild notion that atrocities could occur amidst a violent occupation, the neoconservative Weekly Standard’s Matthew Goldfarb published an article declaring that TNR’s Baghdad Diary was “looking more like fiction.” Goldfarb’s piece relied on a series of letters supposedly sent to him by active-duty soldiers that raised questions about the veracity of TNR’s story.
As a result of intensifying attacks from the Standard and right-wing blogs — attacks amplified by the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz — Thomas was forced to reveal his identity: Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp. According to Foer, the Army punished Beauchamp by revoking his cellphone and email privileges. Right-wing bloggers subsequently seized on TRN editor-in-chief Franklin Foer’s disclosure that Beauchamp is engaged to TNR reporter and researcher Elspeth Reeve.
Beauchamp has placed his career in extreme jeopardy and subjected his private life to the scrutiny of right-wing trolls, all to confirm his published account of US atrocities in Iraq. TNR for its part has just completed a review of Beauchamp’s diary and found only one minor error. Now it is up to Goldfarb and his allies to back up their incendiary charges. Who are the Standard’s sources? Are they reliable? And if they are, why did the Standard omit key details about their backgrounds?
Among all the active duty soldiers used by Goldfarb to undermine Beauchamp, only one is cited by name: Matt Sanchez, a corporal in the Marine reserves. “Frankly, I don’t believe ANY of this story,” Sanchez proclaimed in the Standard about Beauchamp’s diary. Who is Sanchez? According to Goldfarb, he is simply a soldier “who stands behind his work.”
But Sanchez is more than a mere man in uniform. As I reported for Media Matters today, Sanchez is also a conservative pro-war activist whose bio includes a stint as the gay porn actor Rod Majors, (star of such filmic classics as “Beat Off Frenzy”) and an illustrious part-time job as a male prostitute — facts he has acknowledged “leaving … off my curriculum vitae.”
More importantly, Sanchez has been under investigation by the Marine Corps for fraud. According to an April 1 Marine Corps Times article, Sanchez was informed in a March 22 email from Reserve Col. Charles Jones, a staff judge advocate, that he was under investigation for lying “‘to various people, including but not limited to, representatives of the New York City United War Veterans Council [UWVC] and U-Haul Corporation’ about deploying to Iraq at the commandant’s request.” The email added: “‘Specifically, you wrongfully solicited funds to support your purported deployment to Iraq’ by coordinating a $300 payment from the UWVC and $12,000 from U-Haul.”
There is no excuse for Goldfarb’s omission of these facts about Sanchez. They were easily accessible through a simple Google search of Sanchez’s name, and have been the talk of the blogosphere for some time. I wrote extensively about Sanchez for the Huffington Post in March and appeared on a segment of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” to discuss his strange double life. Sanchez has also been profiled by Radar and by numerous bloggers. He even penned a long auto-apologia for Salon.com about his path from porn to the conservative movement. Couldn’t Goldfarb find a better on-the-record source? Apparently not.
The efforts of Sanchez and right-wing bloggers to take Beauchamp down were allegedly supported by a TNR staffer with a bizarre background. I just received a letter from a source close to TNR. The source wrote:
One reason Beauchamp had to go public was that conservative bloggers were tracking him down. And the reason they were was that a temp who was working as assistant for our publisher was leaking like crazy to right-wing websites. Not that he knew much, but he was hanging around, he went to a going away party for Ryan [Lizza] at frank’s [Frank Foer] house, eavesdropping and then posting on right-wing websites.
That’s how they found out about Scott being married to Ellie [Elspeth Reeve].
Anyway, the guy’s name is Robert McGee. His online pseudonym: Throbert McGee. Not real hard to track down (especially when he’s posting that he works at TNR.)
After a little Googling, I found that “Throbert McGee” (seen here embracing his “longtime sidekick Juan”) once kept a “blinkin’ blog” where he posted about “Faggot fixer-upper wallpaper” and linked to the overtly racist right-wing blog, “Little Green Footballs.” On the forum of another conservative blog, Throbert commented favorably about Matt Sanchez’s “11″ Monster Cock.” Throbert also used this forum as his platform to attack Beauchamp and leak information to conservative bloggers about Beauchamp’s private life.
I hear there are darker postings by Throbert lurking in the blogosphere, but I will leave it to his right-wing mouthpieces to explain those. And I will wait (hopefully not in vain) for the Weekly Standard’s Goldfarb to come clean about Sanchez and the rest of the unnamed “active duty soldiers and various experts” he used as sources.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
What is it with them and porn stars? I’ll never understand
while one minute claiming to be the “moral vaules” party
and the next having porn stars do their dirty work.
Please note I have nothing against porn stars but to me
it’s the hypocriasy of course. Anyways, hasn’t this guy
been around before? Wasn’t he caught first by being
around Ann Coulter and her praising him and “his work”?
I also agree that Sanchez should tell the truth. They
did the same crap to John Kerry when he told the truth about
what happened in Vietnam. I guess the old saying is true:
the more things change the more they stay the same.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Max, I think it’s safe to say that you’re going to get another flirtatious email from Sanchez asking if you have a crush on him. He enjoys the fact that people pay attention to him, and like other pet-minorities in the conservative movement, he’ll allow them to use him for whatever purpose to defend their stance—you know, like a pet. They have him on their leach, and whatever command they summon, he will perform. No doubt, Sanchez is an attention-seeking whore, but what makes him a disgraceful whore is that he’s not an honest one. I just hope this bit of news doesn’t open doors to where he’s allowed to write more melodramatic apologias. Lord knows I can’t witness reading another incoherent, grammatically-challenged essay at Salon, where he bared his soul to the world that his reason for converting into a Reaganite conservative was that liberalism lead him down the road of porn, eventually prostituting his ass (pun intended) for money. The self hate Sanchez is suffering from would make even that other self-loathing opportunist (i.e. Michael Savage) feel embarrassed.
It’s funny that you bring up Sanchez because while I was shopping at Amazon.com a few days ago, buying a few books, and I came across a post of his in the customer comment section DEFENDING Ann Coulter and her work! How a gay man—hell, even a gay for pay porn actor—can continue to align themselves with a homophobic hate-mongering is beyond me. Then again, trying to understand pet-minorities like Sanchez, Malkin, Thomas, Peterson, Sowell, etc., in the conservative movement has never been an easy task; I gave up long time ago.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Uh. My bad. I meant to say “homophobic hate-monger.”
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 am
Doncha hate how Republicans are the only ones in the whole world who hate gay people? (Unless it’s time to put down a Republican by pointing out that he’s gay. In that case, it’s okay!)
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Assuming the Army report of investigation says what Sanchez says it says, what the hell difference does it make who reported it? Beauchamp lied, get over it.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Beauchamp has placed his career in extreme jeopardy and subjected his private life to the scrutiny of right-wing trolls, all to confirm his published account of US atrocities in Iraq. TNR for its part has just completed a review of Beauchamp’s diary and found only one minor error
One minor error is the fact that he lied about the very essence of his story. So if he lied about that, what else is he lying about? Just how is it that he forgot where he was, someplace he contends he visited often. His stories are fiction, and he should have labeled it as such.
Another good example of the left wing loons putting up a person who you can’t attack because of their purity (i.e. Michael J. Fox, Cindy “moonbat” Sheahan)
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
You’ve done an Excellent Job!!
And you’re a fast learner..
If we can’t refute the facts…DISCREDIT the people involved
At least that will distract for them for a while.
HEIL!!
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:41 am
LittleGreenFootballs overtly racist? Prove it.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Little Green Footballs is, if nothing else, NOT an “overtly racist … blog.” It’s not even a subtly racist blog. I challenge you to provide any example of Charles Johnson publishing racist thoughts or feelings on his blog.
Please note that Islam is not a race, and providing factual evidence that is unflattering to a particular race is not racist.
Also, check your website on a Mac with Safari. The right edge of this text window cannot be seen, causing some text to be hidden from view. I suppose this reflects the same level of care you apply to your reasoning.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Im voting for Dick Cheney in 2008.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 am
Of course we have to believe the hubby of a writer at a lefty rag who enjoys taunting difigured women.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:20 am
For the complete story on Matt Sanchez, check this site:
http://www.cplsanchez.info
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
It seems to me that the crux of the issue is whether
Beauchamps’ writings were factually accurate. All of
the character assassinations on both sides
merely obfuscates that issue. Unfortunately for Beauchamp,
it increasingly looks like he was not factually accurate
in his writings and that TNR did not exercise appropriate
editorial oversight.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:35 am
Why is Matt Sanchez sexuality an issue?
Are you saying that only heterosexual people
are to be believed?
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 am
And now that the US Army has investigated the allegations
made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp and has determined
them to be false, how about YOU apologize for supporting
a false story.
Do you have the moral courage, the intestinal fortitude?
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 am
Scott Thomas Beauchamp:
Meet Daniel Irvin Rather.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12615
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
The denigrating racist comments posted throughout this site appall me. You “journalists” speak so loftily of “truth,” but you wouldn’t reconize it if it bit your nose. Both Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Goldfarb have sited their sources, and identified their credentials as well.
Mr. Beauchamp’s delerious canabis induced ramblings do not even warrant flushing, let alone printing or defending.
I hope you enjoy the company of the mentally deranged, for they are all the company you can expect in you alternate reality. Tell John Kerry the real world says “Hi!”
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Gotta dumb down the definitions if that’s what it takes to demonize our troops. According to Maxie making a rude comment about a disfigurement is now an “atrocity.” Just like putting panties on a prisoner’s head is “torture.” I suppose if these stories are true the maxies are gonna scream for war crimes charges.
Methinks you’re getting a bit panicky about a coming U.S. victory. Oh the horror!
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
“Methinks you’re getting a bit panicky about a coming U.S. victory. Oh the horror!”
Right!
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Wow, the wingnuts came out of nowhere, haven’t they? Some of the excuses and explanations I’m reading are beyond hysterical. You really know how to attract the crazies to your site, don’t you, Max? lol
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
To KL: Nobody has bashed this guy for being gay.
We’re saying he’s a hypocrite for gay bashing etc. and
he is actually campaigning and doing active work against
LGBT people and being a hypocrite. Nobody here has
bashed gay people. Go back and seriously read everything
again instead of jumping up and down and accusing
people here of doing what Sanchez is doing himself.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Max can’t respond to the substance of what Matt Sanchez has written; therefore, he resorts to the smear tactic of calling attention to his past involvement in
pornography.
That’s what is called “argumentum ad hominem,” and it’s entirely fallacious. And no, when I say Max’s argument is “fallacious,” I’m not saying that his argument sucks dick.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
What exacly does Michael J Fox and Cindy Sheehan have
to do with this post? Nothing. Fox campaigned for
republicans who were for stemcell research as well. In
fact if I’m remembering correctly he even did a campaign
ad for Arlen Specter. Sheehan is an independent and
I don’t recall her being a democrat. She has gone after
democrats as well more than republicans actually. So
that’s the last I’m going to say on that.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
If you don’t know the story of Sanchez he has lied about
who he is himself. Why should we believe him if he
can’t even be honest about who he is?
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
A coming US victory? And what exacly is victory? Who
are you going to be victorious against? The Shiites?
The Sunnis? I would love to hear what victory actually
means.
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!! ™
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
You people are completely insane.
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why do liberals always bring it up in an insulting manner..
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“If you don’t know the story of Sanchez he has lied about
who he is himself. Why should we believe him if he
can’t even be honest about who he is? ”
You know, like someone publishing stories (that were found to be false) under a false name like Scott Thomas”
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Emily - We will be victorious against any and all terrorists and “insurgents”.
Victory means winning the fight. www.websters.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The coming victory is 2008, when the GOP wins, yet again.
All thanks to the efforts of looney lefties (like Max) to drag
down the Donks, yet again.
Good fun!
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
LittleGreenFootballs? or Late German Fascists? (Quiz)
http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 pm
This guy Max is published? He claims that Littel Green Footballs is “overtly racist”? What a typical emotional Lefty! First, Islam is not a race…no matter how hard your bleeding multiculti heart wishes it were so. Second, Charles Johnson hasn’t blogged one racist post. Will you find a few obnoxious comments out of the tens of thousands? Probably. But how does that make it an overtly racist blog? Finally, I am convinced that the next generation of fascists will no doubt come from the Left. Simply look at our university administrations if you don’t know what I mean.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Mr. Blumenthal, your homophobic smarmy rant is disgusting.
Shame on you.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
You’re right, Max. I hate faggots, too.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Little Green Footballs is not LATE, nor GERMAN, or FASCIST! If you want to say that it is, then prove it. We deal in FACTS!
August 4th, 2007 at 8:37 am
The Army has concluded its investigation of Beauchamp with the finding that he is a liar who fabricated or embellished everything he wrote for TNR. Shame on TNR for uncritically accepting stories because they agreed with a political agenda, and shame on you for indulging in nastiness in defense of a liar.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Mr. Blumenthal, your ad hominem attack of Robert McGee is
pitiful and sad. You should be ashamed of yourself.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:20 am
This may sound hard to believe, but I don’t believe that Ann Coulter is homophobic. I’m 99.9% sure that fascist Barbie only puts on the typical conservative “gay isn’t good” attitude every once in a great while to impress her fan-base and cause more attention thus increasing her book sales. That’s why when I saw the various photos of Sanchez with right-wing icons; I was surprised by all of them except for the one with Coulter. If you read the article on Coulter by Time magazines John Cloud (in which it was more personal than political) Coulter reveals herself as someone not bothered by gay people at all. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050304,00.html
He also did another article on her after the “faggot” incident at CPAC in which he pretty much defends her by saying she didn’t mean it the way people think she did.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1596427,00.html
Cloud (who is gay himself) writes:
“Coulter has at least one close gay friend, and when I was reporting my profile of her, she always remembered to ask about my partner at the time. She is always trying to get me to go with her to the Halloween parade in Manhattan’s West Village, which is the second-gayest event in New York City after the Pride parade. So I’m not sure why she thought it would be funny to target a gay joke at Edwards. But then again she doesn’t need her semiannual cadenzas of outrage to be funny: she just needs us to condemn them, louder and louder every time.”
If you ever noticed, Coulter speaks very little on the gay issues except for gay marriage. Rarely is she ever caught calling them “deviants” or “perverts” as so many of her fellow conservatives do. Even in her column “Jerry Falwell – Say Hello to Ronald Regan!” she writes:
“I note that in Falwell’s list of Americans he blamed for ejecting God from public life, only the gays got a qualifier. Falwell referred to gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle.
No Christian minister is going to preach that homosexuality is godly behavior, but Falwell didn’t add any limiting qualifications to his condemnation of feminists, the ACLU or People for the American Way.
There have always been gay people — even in the prelapsarian ’50s that Jerry Falwell and I would like to return to, when God protected America from everything but ourselves.
What Falwell was referring to are the gay activists — the ones who spit the Eucharist on the floor at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, blamed Reagan for AIDS, and keep trying to teach small schoolchildren about ‘fisting’.”
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=183
If Michelle Malkin were writing that Column, she would have came straight out and basically said “gay people are nasty deviants and they deserve no rights”. Or, she wouldn’t have added the part that explains Falwell meant it was the “gay activists” who god doesn’t like.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Well, I’m gay and I’m calling Max, Emily and all other stalinist/leftists out a la their beloved “chickenhawk” standard: Shut the F Up about ANYTHING or ANYONE gay here, now and forevermore until you, too, are a self-identified gay man or woman. Sanchez’s alleged gayness either “for pay” or as his life is none of anyone’s business at all, IF THEY ARE NOT GAY. Ever. In fact, emily, your nauseating opinion of Sanchez “not being honest about who he is,” while bordering on parody, is in point of fact the most appalling piece of homophobia I have seen in years…
August 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Is there no treason so despicable, no lie so outrageous, no act so dishonorable that the Left will not embrace?
August 5th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Has everyone noticed that Maxie has chosen not to respond to the reutation of Beauchamp’s fantasy? Facts simply do not matter to little Maxie and his ilk.
They choose rather to smear. it’s a typical lib tactic. No shame. Ho honor. No integity. No dignity. No truth.
Little Maxie calls all those that support the Iraq war but have not served “chickenhawks”.
Interesting..Little Maxie supports the Afgan invasion, but he never served. Yep..that’s right…according to his own definition…MAXIE’S A CHICKENHAWK
August 5th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
You still haven’t answered my question. What does
“winning” mean? Who wins? What do you win and how
do you know you’re “victorious”? When every Shiites is
dead? When every Sunni is dead? Or when you get all
of [i]their[/i] oil? And what’s the definition of a
terrorist? Someone who is activley fighting against you
and your policy beliefs? Someone you label a terrorist
without a fair trial before one’s peers as the
Constitution states everyone must have in the United States
borders? You give a nice fuzzy response but nothing
in depth and offering no answers.
August 5th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
LOL!!…I still can’t believe right-wingers think its scoring them points by using Sanchez as their voice from within the military.
His lack of honesty and credibility will never affect his relationship with conservatives so long as he continues to spew bull shit on the people who question our military and the war. The article he wrote for Salon is the typical path all two-faced conservatives take in their lives. It’s the “born-again” bull shit where they get tired of being mixed in with mainstream culture so they REBEL and claim god saved them. I haven’t read the article…I might later…but did he mention anything about god helping him on this path from porno to being a little bitch?
Curiously, Ann Coulter claims to be born-again…
The next project for liberal bloggers should be digging up every little speck of information on Coulters background. You nailed her pretty well with the marriage issues Max, but I know there’s some skeletons in that woman’s closet.
I would start by looking for anybody who was friends with her at Cornell. Apparently she’s quite the Grateful Dead fan and we all know that there was no way you went to Grateful Dead concerts back then unless you were under the influence of at least 4 drugs.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
I think Max is too hard on Goldfarb. Everyone knows that no one who works for Rupert Murdoch ever gets to make final decisions about what is said or written.
Just go to the bottom of the WS website - it’s an outlet of Murdoch’s NewsCorp.
I found this out when I discovered that a “journalist” who as hired by the Philadelphia Inquirer to provide a “fair and balanced” (read: right-wing) voice on the op-ed page was actually a full-time Rupert lackey, Jonathan Last.
Did the Inquirer tell its readers who was actually writing those “conservative voice” pieces?
Of course not - it was recently taken over by a former Ad executive - you know, one of those fellows who writes lies for a living - who probably thought it might cost him subscribers.
Why should the readers know the truth, anyway? Suckers…
Rupert no doubt told Goldfarb which sources to use.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
“[LGF] deal[s] in FACTS!”
The site combined with Charles Johnson’s juvenile behavior speaks for itself.
August 12th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
It appears Coulter has dug herself into this:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
August 17th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
EVETT: Well, I’m gay…
ENTERIK: So you say, show me your badge.
EVETT: …and I’m calling Max, Emily and all other stalinist/leftists out a la their beloved “chickenhawk” standard: Shut the F Up about ANYTHING or ANYONE gay here, now and forevermore until you, too, are a self-identified gay man or woman.
ENTERIK: Either you don’t get it or you are trying to confuse people, maybe both. Max did the exact opposite of what you say at the College Republican National Convention. Max asked simple questions politely. He let these future Republican leaders speak as long as they desired in order to explain why they support the indefinite occupation of Iraq. He also allowed them to explain why the were not participating in the Occupation of Iraq. They even get to talk about same sex issues. These are the College republican’s own words, said freely, without shame. Dirt is clean when there is volume.
EVETT: Sanchez’s alleged gayness either “for pay” or as his life is none of anyone’s business at all, IF THEY ARE NOT GAY. Ever.
ENTERIK: Republican banjee boy Corporal Matt Sanchez has been less than honest and that’s a problem for the Republicans. Mr. Sanchez probably seemed like a Republican slam dunk, an articulate photogenic blue collar latino marine working hard through a liberal university where he is fighting military status discrimination. Is it any wonder he was quickly embraced by the Conservative sqwalking heads? But Sanchez has a stack of videos in his closet that provides a nearly perfect wedge issue to insert between the pragmatic gay-dependent Republican leadership, their idealistic homophobic values voter base, and the angry talking heads that whip them into a frenzy. For years, Conservatives have relied on anti-gay talk to help them get enough votes to win, now it is coming back to bite them in the behind. If Matt Sanchez had been honest from the beginning the Republican’s wouldn’t have touched him with a ten foot pole and they wouldn’t have to explain their apparent hypocracy to their family values supporters.
EVETT: In fact, emily, your nauseating opinion of Sanchez “not being honest about who he is,” while bordering on parody, is in point of fact the most appalling piece of homophobia I have seen in years…
ENTERIK: It seems like you think you only need to pretend to have an angry offended tone and that you don’t really have to make any sense. It’s almost like you want people to get angry and stop thinking things through. That last sentence of yours is a good example. What Emily dishonest about? what is nauseating? Who is Emily a parody of? What is homophobic about anything Emily has posted? Your post is all attitude and nothing else but after all, A rose is a rose is a rose.
Your whole post is a red herring. You are trying to avoid the real issues surrounding Matt Sanchez. we have already seen that his honesty is somewhat “incomplete”. I don’t blame him for wanting to hide his arkward past, he is trying to be a model republican these days. Unfortunately, Cpl. Sanchez’s past was revealed only after he became famous, he is now being investigated by the Marine Corps for his “propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts” (section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10). Now, I believe in equal rights, period. Homosexuals have a right to serve and the military with all it’s benefits and duties and no discrimination. Currently, the Marines don’t share my belief and Cpl. Sanchez knew that even before he joined, so he only has his incomplete honesty to blame. And it isn’t just sexual immorality that the Marine Mobilization Command investigating Cpl. Matt Sanchez. It appears that Matt Sanchez was pimping out a fake deployment to Iraq, NASCAR-style. He is accused of asking for monetary sponsorships from the United War Veterans Council and U-haul.
Because we know Matt Sanchez is willing to omit inconvenient truths to get ahead in life, maybe we should look back at the the Columbia recruiting incident he rode to fame. Sanchez cried leftist harassment but Columbia found no grounds to discipline the students, even though there were several bystander witnesses. There is no there there. The only good thing to come out of this flap was Columbia reaffirming anti-discrimination protections for military people.
So what did Matt Sanchez do with his new found fame? He cozied up to squawking-head Ann Coulter at the very CPAC conference that applauded as she was spewing anti-gay hate speech that have no place in American politics. Was he open about his past as he received the Jeane Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom Award? No, he duped those conservatives too and they are not happy with him. Matt Sanchez’s award was presented by right-wing busybody David Horowitz, one of the few conservatives there that could be described as gay tolerant. The Republican Party should listen to his call to welcome gays into their midst as citizens with equal rights, but they won’t, they can no longer afford to lose voters.
Lately, he has been parading around as some sort of military expert commenting on events he has no personal knowledge about, described as “standing behind his work”…except the porn. He was billed as active duty armed forces, but in fact he was a college student put into individual ready reserve status for medical reasons. Yet another inconvenient truth left unsaid. I see a pattern of incomplete truthfulness that does not reflect well upon Matt Sanchez.
August 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Maxie says that LGF is overtly racist though, as others have pointed out, Islam is not a race. Since the folks at LGF point out the violence of Islam and the radical followersso they must be hate mongers. However, Maxie writes at the HuffPo and he was allowed to bash a few gay folks. That must mean, using Maxie logic, that the HuffPo is an anti gay website with gay bashing writers. Way to go Maxie.
Beauchamp lied and that is the only important part of the story. Maxie’s attempts to ignore this or show our troops in a bad light is pathetic. And discussing a fewfew gay people as if that matters or makes them less credible lacks journalistic credibility.
Maxie is not credible…
August 20th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Max,
You need to adjust the size of this comment box. Half the comments disappear under the greay color…
August 27th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Big Dog: Maxie says that LGF is overtly racist though, as others have pointed out, Islam is not a race. Since the folks at LGF point out the violence of Islam and the radical followersso they must be hate mongers.
ENTERIK: This is a RED HERRING arguement. It is totally irrelevant to the topic of newly minted pundit Matt Sanchez.
Big Dog: However, Maxie writes at the HuffPo and he was allowed to bash a few gay folks. That must mean, using Maxie logic, that the HuffPo is an anti gay website with gay bashing writers. Way to go Maxie.
ENTERIK: If Max gives Matt Sanchez a hard time for is personal hypocrisy and Sanchez’s less than honesty, he is not bashing gays for being gay, he is not anti-gay.
Big Dog: Beauchamp lied and that is the only important part of the story. Maxie’s attempts to ignore this or show our troops in a bad light is pathetic. And discussing a few gay people as if that matters or makes them less credible lacks journalistic credibility.
ENTERIK: Max’s got an idea called Conflicted Conservative in Crisis, Matt Sanchez fits this idea to a tee. Max is clearly keeping tabs on Sanchez as conservatives try to develop him into a media tool. The Beauchamp story is mainly background for us to understand how partisan conservatives fluff up their talking heads. Sanchez is no run of the mill Marine Corporal. He is being groomed for political stardom and as is typical for pudits on the right, he’s more than they let on. The conservative voter base will feel betrayed when they find out.
Big Dog: Maxie is not credible…
ENTERIK: Matt Sanchez is less than credible.
—
Big Dog: Max, You need to adjust the size of this comment box. Half the comments disappear under the greay color…
ENTERIK: Write you stuff in Notepad and then paste it into the comment box.