The American Spectator

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 12:19PM

You're absolutely right on this one, Mr. Lord. It's rank hypocrisy. If gay sex between an older man and a 16 year old is "a sex crime", then Jennings was confronted with one.

Jeffrey Lord| 10.9.09 @ 12:44PM

S.L. Toddard..

My man! (So to speak!)

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 12:54PM

It's pretty air-tight, isn't it? I've heard it said that "consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds", but in my opinion it is more often indicative of whether a person is honest and principled or cynical and opportunistic. If one's standards for a "sex crime" vary according to the political party of the person accused, then one is clearly the latter.

Bill| 10.9.09 @ 12:58PM

16 is the age of legal consent in Massachusetts. The student, as was proven via his driver license, was 16 years old at the time he spoke with Jennings.

As such, this student's sexual escapades were none of Jennings's business to begin with. Nor was Jennings under obligation to 'report' anything - THE STUDENT WAS OF LEGAL AGE. (oops - forgot that facts aren't really important any longer!)

If y'all have a problem with that, how about a referendum to up the age of consent in Massachusetts. No, really. Just do what you always do. Just pass the law against GAY people, so that you old Hetero men can still screw 16 year old girls. Pretty crafty, huh? You can screw the gays and the young girls with just one fell swoop!

Idiots.

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 1:25PM

While I agree with you to an extent, Mr. Lord's argument *here* is that the DNCC has classified an older man having sex with a 16 year old boy a "sex crime", back when it was a Republican doing the sexing. Unless they were being cynical, they should also classify the situation Jennings was exposed to as a "sex crime" as well.

That being said, there are rather profound differences between the two: Foley had solicited underage boys for sex, Jennings did not. Foley postured as a moral crusader, Jennings did not. I don't think the two situations are analogous, really, and are connected in my mind mostly due to what appears to be the varying standards of the DNCC as to what constitutes a "sex crime".

Bill| 10.9.09 @ 1:37PM

I guess it really depends on the age of consent in the state where the 'sex crime' took place.
I am neither DEM nor REPUB - this has NO partisan undertones for me at all. Both parties are bat-sh*t crazy these days, and any sane person would run from either of them. But if a group is determined to destroy Jennings's career and life, with no regard for the facts and the laws of the state, they will only succeed in making the REPUBS look crazier than they already do.

Jennings has committed no 'crime' here. Foley, depending on the age of consent in the state where he lives, may or may not have, I do not know.
But to drag Jennings through the mud, and for Republicans to frame this as though they have AN OUNCE of concern about the gay kid's well being is not only disingenuous, but it flies in the face of everything the right wing espouses these days.
If they are 'so concerned' with the well being of Gay children, why do they vote against ANY and EVERY anti-bullying law to protect them?

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 1:52PM

That's a good point. Was the age of consent in DC such that Foley's behavior constituted an actual "sex crime"?

If that's so, Mr. Lord, your argument here is not as air tight as I thought.

Patriot| 10.9.09 @ 4:52PM

It's unnecessary to drag the sleazebag Jennings through the mud because he already dwells there.

He is an absolute threat to our children.

Get Jennings out now!

Patriot| 10.9.09 @ 4:56PM

Jennings was under a MORAL obligation to offer more than "condom" counseling to this youngster.

Only an IDIOT would disagree.

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 1:31PM

Mr. Lord, I understand that you're a busy man, but if you find yourself with any free time, I'd be interested to read what you think about these two AmSpec pieces:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....have-attac

And the rebuttal:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....onservatis

I know you were there in person, which I find fascinating. Where you there for the Mel Bradford dust-up?

Obviously I completely understand if you don't have the time. Either way have a good day.

S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 1:31PM

Also, here's Halper and Clarke's follow-up to Wallison's rebuttal:

http://spectator.org/archives/.....-and-reaga

Jeffrey Lord| 10.9.09 @ 3:10PM

SL

I will look. I remember these. Peter Wallison was a colleague. It's an interesting historical debate so let me look. I'll probably have to catch up with you on some other thread when you're wacking me! LOL! But I'll do it!

electgogo| 10.29.09 @ 10:29AM

The contents of article are wonderful!!!Great!
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries
brand new discounting Laptop cpu fans