Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Hannity Plays The Victim Card In Jennings Witch Hunt

Reported by Ellen - October 7, 2009 -

After engaging in a relentless witch hunt against President Obama’s “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings, even after his accusations against Jennings have been debunked, Sean Hannity has not only refused to drop his attacks, he has declared himself the victim. While he was at it, Hannity added a new smear against Jennings, comparing him to disgraced Congressman Mark Foley. But there are at least two big differences between Jennings and Foley that negate the comparison. Nobody on the panel, not even supposed liberal Nina Easton, pointed out the dissimilarities. With video.

As I posted previously, Hannity’s original pretext for attacking Jennings was that he had supposedly encouraged the “statutory rape” of a gay high school sophomore, 20 years ago, when the student told Jennings about an affair with an older man. Instead of reporting the incident to authorities, Jennings said he hoped the student knew to use a condom. Since then, the then-student has come forward with a driver’s license showing that he was 16, the age of consent, at the time. Instead of dropping the attack, Hannity moved on to smear Jennings for saying he admired Harry Hay, a respected gay rights activist. Why? Because Hay had been supportive of NAMBLA. Hannity never pointed to any indication that Jennings supported NAMBLA nor did he ever offer any evidence of any improper conduct since Jennings joined the Obama administration.

But as Hannity continued to smear Jennings again last night (10/6/09), he painted himself as the victim.

During the “Great American Panel” segment, Hannity announced, “I’m being attacked… relentlessly by the left because I’m saying that I think Kevin Jennings… should be fired.” Hannity declared “I’m not convinced” that the student was really 16 at the time. “But that’s neither here or there. Jennings was the one who said the kid was 15.” Yeah, and Jennings has since said he made a mistake. This happened 20 years ago and has absolutely nothing to do with his job now. It’s not like he’s in the classroom counseling teens about sex.

Hannity then moved on to the NAMBLA smear. “Now we find out that he praised this guy Harry Hay that’s involved with the North American Man Boy Love Association… Why is there not outrage that this guy be fired?”

The panel included no Jennings supporters. Danny Clark, of the NY Giants, played right into Hannity’s game plan, by saying in a shocked voice, “NAMBLA? I can’t believe that… Where were the background checks?” Um, maybe they revealed that there is no connection between Jennings and NAMBLA? Certainly, Hannity found none, though Clark seems to have missed that.

By the way, are all the people who have said they admire John F. Kennedy supporters of adultery?

Fox News’ Nina Easton, the supposed liberal on the panel, was even worse. After Hannity brought up Mark Foley and his text messages to pages, he questioned why there is “utter silence as it relates to a guy that’s gonna be the country’s safe school czar.” Easton did not note that Foley, unlike Jennings, was acting as a predator. Also unlike Jennings, Foley had engaged in improper conduct on the job he currently held.

Instead, Easton joined the pile on. “There’s other issues,” she said. “He’s written a foreword for a book that advocates teaching more sexuality… in elementary school… Talking about homosexuality or heterosexuality to small children, that takes away the parents’ rights to have that discussion in their home, on their terms.” Well, I read the foreword to the book (which I’ll bet Easton did not read) and found that Jennings talks about teaching tolerance, not sexuality. He notes that anti-gay bigotry and discussions already exist in elementary schools and the question is whether or not it will be addressed by the school. Jennings writes about the need to “foster the values of justice,” not the need to discuss sexuality with young children.

Hannity complained again about being the victim. “Because I have pushed this, …I want this guy fired… I’m under fire by every left-wing blog that’s trying to protect him. They seem to be circling the wagons to protect this guy. Why?”

Well, Seannie-poo, maybe it’s because we’re tired of the McCarthyesque, hypocritical witch hunts over trumped-up allegations that have nothing to do with the target’s current job performance.

Ironically, the fairest guest was Dan Henninger, deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. “I don’t know whether (Jennings) should necessarily be driven from office… I don’t think that it’s been positively established yet (that Jennings is out of the mainstream).” But he added that Jennings’ suitability was a legitimate issue. Sure it is. But only if it’s discussed in a legitimate way, i.e. based on Jennings’ actual professional record, rather than two cherry-picked incidents that have little to no bearing on his current job.

Easton jumped in to deliver a final jab. “It’s gonna become a distraction for this president.” And rather than evaluate her own role in the process, she did her best to further the distraction. “I think it just goes to… the vetting question.” Then she brought up Van Jones.