Will Pelosi, Jennings backers in media apologize to ousted GOP Congressman?
(Page 2 of 5)
• Media Matters president Eric Burns, who has accused Fox of “anti-gay bigotry.”
• Media Matters writers Eric Boehlert and Karl Frisch have labeled the push for Jennings’ resignation a “witch hunt.” Pointedly they have made the point that, in Boehlert’ s words, the boy in the Jennings case “was not 15 years old. Period. He was 16, which was the legal age of consent in Massachusetts.”
• The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen, who says Jennings’ critics are a “lynch mob” and the student “was of the age of consent in Massachusetts, and there was nothing inappropriate about Jennings’ conduct.”
• Politics Daily has liberal commentator David Corn saying Jennings’ critics are “blood thirsty hound dogs” in search of “red meat.”
• Obama Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has defended Jennings, saying: “Kevin Jennings has dedicated his professional career to promoting school safety. He is uniquely qualified for his job and I’m honored to have him on our team.”
• White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says: “I think it’s a shame to watch what they do — I think it’s a shame — I hope that as people watch, they’ll match up some of the actual truth to what is being said on some of these occasions and start to provide a little reality check to some of what’s going on.”
And so on and so and so, through Obamaworld and liberal-land.
So the point is made, don’t you think?
The American left and the Obama administration believe criticizing a gay man for supporting a gay boy seeking sex with a gay man, is gay bashing. Demanding his removal from his job is anti-gay bigotry. Repeated calls to leave his job are a witch hunt. And Jennings’ record here, in which he advised a boy who was in reality 16, not, as Jennings has said, 15, is nothing to be ashamed of. Jennings did nothing wrong, the boy was not being victimized, the man who approached the boy for sex was not a child predator but simply a gay man doing what comes naturally to gay men. And Jennings, for seeing nothing wrong with this, is the target of a witch hunt.
OK. Message delivered.
So this would mean that the American left owes one pretty big apology to former Congressman Mark Foley, right? After all, they effectively drummed him out of Congress and used his resignation as a cornerstone of their campaign to take back control of the House and make Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House. In fact, they wanted then-GOP House Speaker Denny Hastert politically drawn and quartered because he had, allegedly, known about Foley’s deeds and done nothing.
Now, how does one deal with something like this? Mr. Foley, while back in the news as a radio talk show host in Florida, had his reputation and career ruined — destroyed — by the same people who are now insisting sex between older males and 16-year old boys is just peachy.
In another words, to use their standards, these people — who parade around as great promoters of gay rights — gay-bashed their way to control of Congress in an explosive display of anti-gay bigotry.
Perhaps a way to begin would be for Speaker Pelosi and her liberal friends to pass a House Resolution apologizing to Mr. Foley. To help them along, here’s a draft resolution, written in the style suggested by the House itself, that the Speaker and her liberal friends in the media can use to get down to their mea culpa:
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?