Democrat child porn producer

Remember the Foley scandal that prompted Democrats to demand that Dennis Hastert resign? Now there’s a Democrat child porn producer getting a mere 10 months in prison for exploiting children. Surprising? Not really. Not when you consider the connections this guy apparently has in the Democratic party.

...instead of the 967 months in jail – nearly 81 years – for which he was liable, Judge Robert Lewis, another Democrat, gave him, in a plea bargain with the office of District Attorney Ron Moore, who was elected as a Democrat, a 10-12 month sentence.

And even that seemed regrettable, according to a number of letters of recommendation offered by other Democrat leaders of the community to the court on his behalf.  ~worldnetdaily.com

These scandals are apparently a one-way street for Democrats and liberals. Republicans will throw a Mark Foley under the bus in a New York minute, Democrats, however, apparently see value in the alternate lifestyles of their fellow travellers. Here are some excerpts of these letters of recommendation to the court written by Democrats:

"It has been my pleasure to share Andy's commitment to ensuring that compassion and democracy are at work across our community," wrote Beth Lazer, a Democrat who shared Unitarian Universalist church theologies with Reed and serves as the head of the local public access television, URTV.

She said in her letter of reference she first worked with Reed "when we both served on the board of the local chapter of the League of Women Voters."

"What an invaluable board member he was," she said.

"I also worked with Andy on several projects at our church, most significantly our becoming a welcoming congregation," she said.

Steve Hagerman, the executive director of the Asheville Symphony, wrote on symphony letterhead that, "Reed has been a long-time supporter of the arts in Western North Carolina and has been involved in many worthwhile causes in our community."

And Oralene Graves-Simmons, a Democrat who leads the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Association of Asheville, wrote a page and a half extolling Reed's virtues.

"When the decision was made in 2001 to incorporate the Association as an independent non-profit organization, Andy was instrumental in making it happen. He wrote the new organization's by-laws, revised and edited its incorporation papers, and, with me, determined the makeup of its founding board of directors," Graves-Simmons wrote.

"It was for his ten years of dedicated service that last January the MLK Association honored Andy with the 2005 Community Humanitarian Award," she wrote.

She noted he's also served on governing or advisory boards to the Montford Park Players, a theater company that operates each summer.

"Andy has spent all the years that I've known him bringing people together regardless of race, creed, color, or other differences, gladly working with anyone and everyone, and doing whatever needs to be done, to accomplish our mutual goals," she wrote.

But you know, everybody makes mistakes right?

His offenses involved a long list of counts that he used the Internet to collect and share graphic child pornography – mostly involving children as young as six who were filmed "engaged in sex acts with adults or other children," according to a local news report.  ~worldnetdaily.com

Of course, not all Democrats want to coddle child porn producers. But it seems to be a problem for some on the left to condemn these kinds of people if they agree with them politically.

'Congressional Pioneers'?

There is a clear hypocrisy involved in the way Democrats treated the Mark Foley scandal in comparison to their own members caught doing worse than writing explicit IM messages.

RE: Rep. Gerry Studds is actually hailed as, "a congressional pioneer," for having sex with a congressional page. What a difference, eh?

Posted by Eric Simonson at November 26, 2006 9:05 PM
Comments
Comment #196526

Eric,

“is actually hailed as, “a congressional pioneer,” for having sex with a congressional page. What a difference, eh?”

What a crock!

Had he actually been hailed for having sex with a minor, you might have a point.

You might want to actually read the link you supplied.

“Hara, who married Studds shortly after gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, said Studds was a pioneer who gave courage to gay people everywhere by winning re-election after publicly acknowledging his homosexuality.”

Somehow I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Nice try though, Eric.

Posted by: Rocky at November 26, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #196530

Rocky,

Having sex with a congressional page and being censured for it is exactly how he “publicly acknowledged” his homosexuality, Rocky.

Contrast this with what happens when a Republican is caught in a sex scandal. They’re toast. And they should be.

Posted by: esimonson at November 26, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #196533

Catch him early … homophobe. Catch him later … how could this happen on their watch?!

I don’t have a problem with the punishment. Equality would seem a better system.

Posted by: Corner at November 26, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #196535

Eric,

No offence meant, but I took the quote directly from the link, and that isn’t how you framed the quote.

Studds may have come out as a result of his indiscretion, however he wasn’t praised for the indiscression, he was praised for coming out.

Look, I believe any behaviour with a minor is abhorrent, by the same token, you apparently have to go back 20 years to find something to compare with Foley.

Posted by: Rocky at November 26, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #196541

Sorry, Eric. Never heard of the guy. He’s certainly not in the same league as Foley (who isn’t looking at ANY jailtime).

And how about that Republican who’s been mailing anthrax-like powder to Democrats and media personalities inspired by right-wing pundits like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin and, quite frankly, the kind of hate you spew.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 27, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #196544

Well the punishment might be incorrect, but how do you know what happened between the court and DA. Maybe they offered him a deal because they knew if it went to trial he would get off.
The information you are getting is from worldnetdaily, that is as good as getting it from FOXNEWS. Pure Republican bs. I didn’t see a thing on any of the other news agencies about it.
Ah I know all the others are democratic, but what about BBC, and other out of country new agencies.


Posted by: KT at November 27, 2006 1:13 AM
Comment #196548

I don’t recall anyone saying that Democrats are immune from impropiety or illegal acts, but here you apparently think a constituent or even a Democratic supporter is the same as a Congressman. As KT noted the prosecuter had to go along with the sentence, was he a Democrat? You conveniently neglected that bit of info, or the particulars or the case.

Eric, are you so devoid of ideas now that this kind of rant is all you can come up with to post? Where’s your pronouncements about a strategy for Iraq? I recall you going on about the new military and such. Was that all just BS?

Posted by: gergle at November 27, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #196549

Interestingly on a search the only sources I found to this story where right wing blogs. And they all referred back to the link Eric provided .
I think I smell fish.

Posted by: TheSavage at November 27, 2006 6:01 AM
Comment #196552

So, if it turns out another local Republican figure is a child molestor, that reflects on the morality of you all?

Bullshit. The poisonous part about the Mark Foley case is what the Republican leaders knew about it as they continued to keep him in the leadership and encourage him to run.

If any Democrats did likewise with this guy, they deserve to suffer politically for it. But letters to the court on a sentencing? Not quite the same thing. They aren’t exactly saying they want him back when he gets out. Republican or Democrat, his career is likely over.

I imagine you could dig up practically anything on both parties, and make a bunch of logically fallactious claims. The Difference with the Republicans is that they like to claim a degree of superiority on morals that Democrats don’t. There’s a real moral arrogance on the part of the Republicans, so incidents like this on the national level have much more impact.

The real question here is whether you can sell conservatism on its own merits, rather than smearing liberals in general for the actions of individuals in the party. I’d like to see you try, rather than settled down in filth like this trying to convince the rest of us that we’re fellow travellers with child molesters.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 27, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #196553

Nice try.

About the 1/3 of the US population is made up of Democrats. Just by random chance, about 1/3 of murderers, child molesters, and other creeps would be Democrats.

Unless someone is an elected official, their party registration is not really relevant. Imagine how much you guys would be screaming if CNN called some random slob a “Republican child molester”.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 27, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #196556

AP-

I’m glad they caught the guy, but the story you linked didn’t say he is a Republican or a party guy? You’ve got some better info?

Geo

Posted by: George in SC at November 27, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #196557

Could the GOP please stop their penis fetish.
It’s a bit old, and most people know the GOP has a very unheathy view of the human body and it’s functions.
We know you are afraid of your penises, and we understand that sex crimes are not good.
But with the GOP record-breaking pace at which they are being convicted of said crimes, it might be a good idea not to keep calling attention to that fact.

Posted by: Joe at November 27, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #196559

J Farrah and the WND are putrid liars and spinmasters. Any reference to them as a source should be given the same respect as to an Ebola virus.

Joe,
No, they can’t stop. Theirs is a fear based philosophy.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at November 27, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #196562

Rocky

I believe any behaviour with a minor is abhorrent, by the same token, you apparently have to go back 20 years to find something to compare with Foley.

It doesn’t matter when it happened. It happened and the guy wasn’t put in jail where he belongs.
ANYONE, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Communist, Unitarian, Baptist, Methodist, or nothing that engages in behavior that hurts children needs a very long prison sentence at the very least.

gergle

but here you apparently think a constituent or even a Democratic supporter is the same as a Congressman

They are. And both are subject to the same laws. It don’t matter what position they have or don’t have. Child molesters are the lowest from of scum there is and need at the very least to spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison. At best they’ll just be executed and we won’t every have to worry with them again.

As KT noted the prosecuter had to go along with the sentence, was he a Democrat?

Did you read Eric’s post?
“…instead of the 967 months in jail – nearly 81 years – for which he was liable, Judge Robert Lewis, another Democrat, gave him, in a plea bargain with the office of District Attorney Ron Moore, who was elected as a Democrat, a 10-12 month sentence”
Both the judge and prosecutor are Democrats.


Neither Reed, Foley, or Studds should be on the streets of this country ever again. Like the rest of the low life scum bags that prey on children they’re the lowest form of life there is and none of them deserve to even live. But I’d settle for life without even the remotest possibility of parole. As long as they send them to Reidsville where the life expectancy of a child molester to about 1 month.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 27, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #196563

Any judge or prosecutor that would agree to such a slap on the wrist sentence as this should be put in prison themselves. For a very long time.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 27, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #196567

Ron,

“Neither Reed, Foley, or Studds should be on the streets of this country ever again.”

Studds is dead.
The line Eric misquotes was taken from his eulogy.

At the time that Studds and Crane were accused of their indiscretions the pages were of legal age (17) in DC.
This, by no means, excuses what they did. By preying on these pages they abused the trust we the people placed in them by electing them to positions of power.

While abhorrent, theoretically it wasn’t illegal.

That still doesn’t make it right.

Posted by: Rocky at November 27, 2006 1:11 PM
Comment #196569

Believe it or not, the 10-month sentence this pervert received is not as uncommon as one might suppose. A member of our church—a high ranking professor and a church elder—was caught “red-handed” in a child porn sting. He pled guilty and threw himself at the mercy of the court and received a sentence of one year and one day. The charges against him were nearly identical to the ones levied against the “democrat activist” Andrew Reed. Both men appear of have been convicted of copying and sharing child porn over the internet. Neither man was accused child molestation. In other words, neither man was accused of making home videos of kids in their basement or abusing the neighborhood kids—certainly more serious charges that should automatically send someone to prison for the rest of his life. Nevertheless, many in our community, myself included, felt the sentence leveled against our church’s elder was much, much too light. I personally felt that the prosecutor’s recommendation of three and a half years was both just and fair without being too draconian. However, there were some in our church who felt that even a sentence of one year was too heavy—and these folks were not young liberal democrats, but some of our most conservative elderly members who disbelieved the charges despite the guilty plea. Many of them came out and begged for mercy and leniency and told the court in glowing terms about what a great man and good elder the good professor had been. Politics never entered into the whole sad and pathetic saga.

Also—as an aside—what Gary Studds did was technically not illegal (though it should’ve been)because the page was over the age of consent in D.C. In fact, the age of consent in D.C. is still 16. Amazingly, a guy like Foley can have sex with a 16 year old without committing a crime in D.C.! It is, however, a crime to share pornographic materical with a 16 year old minor. Tell me how that makes sense!?! Believe it or not, it is mostly our blue states, like California, that have raised the age of consent, while most red states throughout the Bible belt keep the A.O.C. at 16. Ultimately, this really shouldn’t be a political issue that divides conservatives and liberals. All of us should call our legislators and tell them to make good laws that protect children from sexual predators. It’d also be a great idea for all states to raise the A.O.C to at least 17, if not 18.

Posted by: Mat at November 27, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #196570

Rocky,

Wouldn’t the sexual harassment laws apply to Studds? Just asking, don’t actually know the answer.

Stephen you said,

“The Difference with the Republicans is that they like to claim a degree of superiority on morals that Democrats don’t. There’s a real moral arrogance on the part of the Republicans, so incidents like this on the national level have much more impact.”

This is probably true to some point, but I got to ask is the logically inconsistent as well. The Democrats seem to take glee in being able to knock Republicans with hypocricy claims to show that neither party is more “moral” than the other.

Foley is now come and gone, and equivilance has been reached or if to read the exit polls, the Democrats now are considered the more moral of the two parties. Based now on their moral equivilance in your mind and/ or the minds of the voters, should not both parties receive equal treatment in the media for the misteps of their members?

Your argument seems to be that there are immoral members of both parties (of which I agree). However, since the Democrats don’t stand for morality, they don’t deserve media attention for their transgressions. However, the Democrats made quite a bit of hay on the Foley issue in the midterms. They tried to show that they were quite superior to the immoral Republicans. I got to ask why shouldn’t they put to the same test for hypocrisy?

Posted by: Rob at November 27, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #196571

Rocky
Preying on 17 years old aint illegal? Where do you live? Outer Bum F—-?
In every state I know of it is.

Mat

Believe it or not, it is mostly our blue states, like California, that have raised the age of consent, while most red states throughout the Bible belt keep the A.O.C. at 16.

Quit drinking the cool aid. It aint healthy. While the age of consent was in some Southern states was as low as 12 one time all have raised it to 18. And that was a long time ago. Some would even like to make is 21.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 27, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #196572

Rob,

“Wouldn’t the sexual harassment laws apply to Studds? Just asking, don’t actually know the answer.”

According to all the information I could find on the Studds incedent, which happened in 1973, was consentual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Studds#Career_in_the_United_States_Congress

“Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors, in Studds’ case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent. The relationship was consensual (which made it legal, in accordance with state law) but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates.
During the course of the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, Studds publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, a disclosure that, according to a Washington Post article, “apparently was not news to many of his constituents.” Studds stated in an address to the House, “It is not a simple task for any of us to meet adequately the obligations of either public or private life, let alone both, but these challenges are made substantially more complex when one is, as I am, both an elected public official and gay.” He acknowledged that it had been inappropriate to engage in a relationship with a subordinate, and said his actions represented “a very serious error in judgment.”
The House voted to censure Studds, on July 20, 1983, by a vote of 420-3. While Studds has often been reported as having “turned his back on the House” as the House read its censure motion aloud, contemporary reports made it clear that in contrast to Crane, who faced the House as the motion for his censure was read, Studds faced the Speaker who was actually reading the motion, with his back to the other members. Also in contrast to Crane, who left the chamber after his censure, Studds rejoined the other members of the House after his censure was read. In addition to the censure, the Democratic leadership stripped Studds of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine Subcommittee. Studds was later appointed chair of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Studds received two standing ovations from supporters in his home district at his first town meeting following his congressional censure.”

Posted by: Rocky at November 27, 2006 2:07 PM
Comment #196575

Leaving the Republican/Democratic parts of this aside, these people (Studds, (dec), Foley, Crane, et.al) should be treated the same way that other pedophiles, molesters, etc. throughout the country are treated in general. Lock em’ up and throw the key away. These people are never “cured” of their perversions. They damage people for life. They serve no useful perpose to society, except to hire more lawyers (judges and prosecutors included) and therefore help the economy. The penalties for these perpetrators are not severe enough. When they do get released, many states still do not have a sex offender register. Maybe this should be a federal register. Too many people look at some of the offenders as righteous people because they have a stature in the country or community. That is a sick approach to a sick part of our society. I have seen our court system handle these cases with a pontificating attude, that they will be different after their jail, prison or probation period. That is straight hogwash. One will pressed most severly to find a cured child predator.

“Book em’ Dano and throw the key away”

Posted by: tomh at November 27, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #196577

Rob-
Newsworthiness is often based on surprise value. Republicans claim to be the party leading the charge to save America from the immorality of the Liberals, from the gay agenda, from the forces tearing at America’s families. They’ve built much of their crediblity up on that, where Democrats haven’t, at least not on those grounds.

Democrats, in terms of morals, are focusing more on civic morals, on ethics, corruption, and policy issues of right and wrong. If we get hit on morality, that’s where we’ll suffer worse.

The Mark Foley case had a strong irony factor, as did Ted Haggard’s. It resembles some of the cases in the 80’s regarding televangelists, and is impactful for roughly the same reasons.

Child Molestation and pornography are hurtful, regardless of what the party affiliation is. I think the real irony of Eric’s article is that Eric’s faith in the psychological impact of the article depends on the strong disgust that the average Democrat would feel concerning such an incident. So, if Democrats really were the party of child molestation, all he’d get is a big yawn, not the outrage he usually gets. Unfortunately, he takes that outrage to indicate that the nerve he struck was our guilty conscience.

But what do we have to be guilty about? Did we sentence him? Did we approve of the sentence? Is this incident representative of anything typical on a national level, or this just the same old vitriolic speculation we’ve learned to expect from the far Right about the average Liberal?

If I was Eric, and I wanted to know the truth about the nature of this sentencing, I would find out how typical this kind of sentencing is, what the law is, and whether this is restricted to one political party or not. Instead, Eric jumps the gun, and generalizes without the evidence to reliably make his claim.

Democrats should be held accountable, and should hold themselves accountable. With political parties, I think the good advice is, it’s better to go into the next election maimed (having thrown whatever hypocrite is out there under the bus) than to go down to defeat whole. The Republicans chose again and again to close ranks with people who committed misdeeds, with the result that their reputation sank with them. Mark Foley was the straw that broke the Camel’s back, but other loads had been heeped up on the poor animal before that critical revelation came about. I can only hope we’re not foolish enough to go down that route.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 27, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #196578
While the age of consent was in some Southern states was as low as 12 one time all have raised it to 18. And that was a long time ago. Some would even like to make is 21… Posted by: Ron Brown at November 27, 2006 02:06 PM
A minor is under the age of 18. The age of consent varies by state This link is a little out of date Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at November 27, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #196579

I’d like to see a creditable source. I’d like to know the circumstances for the plea bargain. Actually, I don’t, any more than I want to learn the details of any particular murder. It says a lot about the article writer that he makes such wild charges without learning, from a creditable source, the facts, whatever they may be.

I suspect the article writer understands the fallacies he regularly employs. In other words, what we have here is not a problem of ignorance so much as of ethics.

Posted by: Trent at November 27, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #196580

Ron Brown,

No, a congressman and a politico are not the same thing. Yes, they are both subject to the same laws. This is a local political issue and will be dealt with by the constituents, if they think it is unfair.

Foley, hasn’t been convicted of anything. He shouldn’t be in Congress, however. Stubbs was never convicted of any crime, and was having an adult relationship, as I understand it, even if he met the guy as a page. Yes, it’s creepy and I believe he was reelected.

Child molesters are creeps, undoubtedly, but your overreaction belies the reality of our society. We don’t execute rich 50 year olds who date 20 year olds, but that is just as creepy to me. We celebrate it in movies, in fact. We use teenage models to promote sexiness. My grandmother was married at 15. Not uncommon for her generation and the time.

There is a lot of fuzziness about teenage relationships. There is a legal line and it should be enforced. But saying every case is a death penalty case is absurd and makes me wonder what your issues are.

The Salem Witch trials were possibly about repressed sexual issues. We don’t need that kind of atmostphere in this country again.

Posted by: gergle at November 27, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #196581

Eric,
You did not think it odd that the source you used for this post did not lead to any other news source?
This will make me take anything else you post with a grain of salt.
Ron try just a little research before you post and accuse others of drinking cool-aid please.

Posted by: TheSavage at November 27, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #196591

Ron,

Here is a breakdown of age of consent laws in the 50 states. Many states have passed new laws making it illegal to solicit teenagers under 18 for sex over the internet. However, many of these same states have old laws on the books that set the age of consent at 16, some as low as 14. It is thus illegal in such states to share pornographic material online with anyone under the age of 18, but actually legal to have sexual contact someone under 18. This contradiction in the law is absurd, but surprisingly common. I’m happy to report that I live in TN were the AOC is 18. PS—I know of no state or legislature that plans to set the age as high as 21. First, it would seem a total violation of the consitution which gives us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—even in our college years—and second we’d have to shut down just about every college and university in the country in the country.


Alabama16
Alaska 16
Arizona 18
Arkansas 16
California 18
Colorado 17
Connecticut 15 (w/parental consent) 16 (w/out pc)
D.C. 16
Delaware 16 w/parental consent 18 (w/out pc)
Florida 18
Georgia 16 (under challenge)
Hawaii 14
Idaho 16 (pc) 18 (npc)
Illinois 17
Indiana 16
Iowa 14(pc) 18(npc)
Kansas 16
Kentucky 16
Louisiana 17
Maine 16
Maryland 16
Massachusetts 16 (pc) 18 (npc)
Michigan 16
Minnesota 16
Mississippi 16
Missouri 17
Montana 16 (pc) 18 (npc)
Nebraska 17
Nevada 16
New Hampshire 16
New Jersey 16
New Mexico 17
New York 17
North Carolina 16
North Dakota 18
Ohio 16
Oklahoma 16
Oregon 18
Pennsylvania 16
Rhode Island 16
South Carolina 14 (pc) 16 (npc)
South Dakota 16
Tennessee 18
Texas 17
Utah 16 (pc) 18 (npc)
Vermont 16
Virginia 18
Washington 16
West Virginia 16
Wisconsin 18
Wyoming 16 (pc) 18 (npc)
Members - US Military 16

sources: wikipedia and about.com
Thanks to Dave1 for the about.com link

Posted by: Mat at November 27, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #196592

Stephen, you said,

“But what do we have to be guilty about? Did we sentence him? Did we approve of the sentence? Is this incident representative of anything typical on a national level, or this just the same old vitriolic speculation we’ve learned to expect from the far Right about the average Liberal?”

Based on the information provided in the post, yes, Democrats were prosecuter, judge, and jury (because there was no trial) on the case.

My big question is who is “we” that you refer to in your post?

You also said, “Democrats, in terms of morals, are focusing more on civic morals, on ethics, corruption, and policy issues of right and wrong. If we get hit on morality, that’s where we’ll suffer worse.”

Democrats across the country ran ads saying that Republicans were harboring perverts in their ranks. While not explicitly making the statement, they did make a strong implicit statement saying that they were the candidates with stronger values. In Ohio, Price had ads run against her because she had mentioned in interviews that she counted Foley as one of her friends. Nothing saying that she knew of his conduct and did nothing. Nothing saying that she condoned his conduct. Just mentioned him as a friend. That was clearly a play to position her challanger as the stronger moral candidate.


You also said,
“The Mark Foley case had a strong irony factor, as did Ted Haggard’s. It resembles some of the cases in the 80’s regarding televangelists, and is impactful for roughly the same reasons.”

I agree. I disagree with the Republican Party’s stance on many social issues, and I get a smile out of the exposure of this hypocrisy as well. The Glory Hole cam on the Daily show for Haggart was genius.

However, you have constructed in your argument what amounts to a double standard. Because Rebulican’s have aggressively pushed a social agenda, Republican’s as a whole are subject to ridicule and public humilation when individual members cross against the party’s platform or worse. However, Democrats because they have fought against the social agenda when individual members clearly cross the lines of social propriety, then they should be judged only as individuals. I find this double standard especially ironic since Democrats en masse, used the Foley debacle to show that they were more moral than the Republicans. It was a major deciding factor in the outcomes of the midterm elections.

It is the double standard of your argument with which I have a problem. Democrats used the we are more moral argument in the elections. Because of that they should be subjected to the same treatment that Republicans received when individual members cross the line.

Alternatively, we could agree that there are large groups of people that make up the membership of both parties and as such there are immoral members in both parties, and we should judge their actions as individuals not as representatives of the whole. But I don’t think that either party would ever agree to that, it is just to easy to extrapolate the actions of individuals to represent the whole.

Posted by: Rob at November 27, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #196595

>>>Alternatively, what I saw was the left pointing out that the right was really no more moral than they where.
How many politicians would you really call ” moral” ?

What does this low level activist really have to do with the fact that the house covered up a predator to kept a seat?

Posted by: TheSavage at November 27, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #196596

Eric et al
Again and again. This is a time when the country is faceing serious problems. It is a time when we need serious debate by serious people.If this is beyond you perhaps you should just sit quietly somewhere.

Posted by: BillS at November 27, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #196599

No, this is good, BillS. Average Joe Americans see the disaster in Iraq, the nukes in North Korea, the incompetence after Hurricane Katrina — and then they see Republicans chasing after this kind of BS rather than dealing with the real problems. Keep it up, you guys and you’ll gut us a Democratic President as well as a Democratic Congress.

Posted by: American Pundit at November 27, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #196636

Eric

I don’t know why I am even bothering to respond. I have not been frequenting these forums for a long time. But I have quickly learned that when I see your name at the authors location I can expect some sort of biased sensationalistic bullcrap. I think the blog manager should institute a new forum column and entitle it “Tabloid Politics’, with yourself as the managing editor.

Posted by: ILdem at November 27, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #196644

2 or 3 of the above could only rebut the post with rants and raging; calling the post bs. You are using up my time and space when you have to put in your nickles worth and ask for ten cents change. Now that I have lowered my self to your level, let me say something responsible.

Those in public life are supposed to be working for you and me, the taxpayer. They should be held to a standard that does not even approach corruption. When they do they should receive a severe punishment. When it is about violating children, let me wear the robe behind the desk and I will show you how to administer justice.

Posted by: tomh at November 27, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #196646


Dave1,Mat
The chart aint little out of date. It’s way the hell out of date. Georgia’s age of consent has been 18 for as long as I’ve been alive. But then again it is a liberal chart so go figure.


I just heard that some judge in MO. gave a guy that raped his 9 year old step daughter probation. What the hell is wrong with this picture? Are judges going senile or something?
BTW I understand the judge is Republican. So Democrats aint got the corner on this crap.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 27, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #196647

Ron,

I suspect there is stuff we don’t know. Basically we are all just speculating about a crime and a punishment that appears too lenient. I tried to Google more facts, but had no luck.

Posted by: Trent at November 27, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #196659

” The chart aint little out of date. It’s way the hell out of date. Georgia’s age of consent has been 18 for as long as I’ve been alive. But then again it is a liberal chart so go figure.”
I guess this is a liberal link to.
Not bad typing skills for a two year old there Ron.


To amend Chapter 6 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to sexual offenses, so as to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 years of age; to change the provisions relating to the crimes of statutory rape, child molestation, and enticing a child for indecent purposes; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date and applicability; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.
SECTION 4.
This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2005, and shall apply to all offenses committed on and after such date.

http://tinyurl.com/yxalsc

Posted by: TheSavage at November 28, 2006 5:42 AM
Comment #196675
But then again it is a liberal chart so go figure.

Oh Ron. That’s so cute. When you can’t win on the facts, you accuse the facts of being liberal, as though “liberalness” washes facts of all relevance.

No, Ron, you don’t get to make non-sensical ad hominem attacks and hope to get away with it.

As TheSavage pointed out, the age of consent in Georgia was 16 as recently as last year. And it might still be 16; was the bill passed and signed? I haven’t found anything that says that it was.

Ron, just because you want your understanding of the world to be true doesn’t make it so, whether we’re talking about law (in this case) or science (in our previous debates). And calling a list of facts liberal or conservative doesn’t get you any closer to it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 28, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #196703

LawnBoy
Do you live in Georgia? If you don’t then you a lawyer that pratices in Georgia? If not where’s your fisrt hand information come from.
I happen to live in Georgia. And have a lawyer in the family.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 28, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #196711

Ron,

You seem to have a block with understanding the difference between the “age of consent” and when a teen is considered an adult, when their parents are no longer responsible for them.

As was said before, the age of consent in Washington, DC is still 16.

I provided a link for Studds.
Here is one for “world wide” age of consent.
Pay particular attention to the green portions of the map.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Consent.png

If this isn’t good enough for you, I suggest you look it up for yourself.

Try google, there are over 8 million results for the search “age of consent”

Posted by: Rocky at November 28, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #196712

No, Ron, I don’t live in Georgia, and I’m not a lawyer. I do, however have the ability to support my statements with facts. I don’t care if you have a “lawyer in the family” if you can’t support your claims with facts, if you can’t rebut factual information with contrary evidence, and if you resort to ad hominem attacks on information that disagrees with you when you don’t have facts.

You see, you’ve made a claim that you have supported with nothing but bluster. In contrast, we’ve provided links from the Georgia legislature and many links from other sites that compile lists of ages of consent nationwide. Facts and evidence beat bluster in a real debate, even in one started by a post by Eric Simonson.

Get your 8th cousin (or whatever the relation is) to get his head out of contract law (or whatever his specialty is) in Tennessee (or wherever he practices) to find for you a citation that supports your claim.

Failing that, the fact that there was a bill before the Georgia house in 1995 that explicitly said that the age of consent at that point was 16 is enough for me to see that, once again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

If not where’s your fisrt hand information come from.

You’ve seen the links. The facts are there. I don’t need to live in Georgia or be related to a lawyer to be able to read.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 28, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #196713

That’s 2005, not 1995. Sorry about that.

Posted by: LawnBoy at November 28, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #196746

This discussion has gotten really funny when you think about the fact that the soul sources that have been found from the original link are conservative blogs,
and now we have Ron arguing that every link online [even one to the state government web site] that mentions Georgia`s age of consent is a liberal plot

Posted by: TheSavage at November 28, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #196792

Stephen,

So, if it turns out another local Republican figure is a child molestor, that reflects on the morality of you all?

Bullshit. The poisonous part about the Mark Foley case is what the Republican leaders knew about it as they continued to keep him in the leadership and encourage him to run.

Q: Then by your standard, I must ask, why did democrats encourage and allow Studds to run for reelection?

I am continually amazed. Does it make any sense to castigate Republicans for “knowing about” instant messages which would be hard to come by even with ‘illegal’ wiretapping?

Or is it logically consistant to say that since some Republicans might have known that Foley was gay and had ‘hit on’ 17 and 18 year olds that this is evil, but reelecting a guy who got a page drunk and had sex with him is aok? How is that?

If any Democrats did likewise with this guy, they deserve to suffer politically for it. But letters to the court on a sentencing? Not quite the same thing. They aren’t exactly saying they want him back when he gets out. Republican or Democrat, his career is likely over.

So tacit support, though not exactly praise of a man who didn’t do anything illegal is evil, but praising a child molester and child porn producer is ok in your book. I’m not understanding that.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, Stephen. You can’t say praising a child molester is perfectly ok, but failing to condemn a homosexual is the lowest of the low…

Posted by: esimonson at November 28, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #196797

Eric’s trying to imply that this represents a systemic immorality on our part. If somebody handed you the Haggard case, and said that Republicans actually approve of that kind of behavior, it’d be roughly the same situation.

But we recognize that many Republican do in fact consider Haggard’s drug use and liasons with a male prostitute to be immoral with no hint of hypocrisy. What we might point out, though, is that Haggard cannot claim the same lack of duplicity.

The Republican leaders, though, only have such vulnerabilities, though, because they take a particular set of negative positions on homosexuality. Democrats do not take such positions, so when a leader comes out of the closet, it’s not got that built in conflict there.

I don’t think it was so much the question of strict morality, but rather the hollowness of Republican claims of morality. Also, the group responsiblitity is reflected in the way that the party as a whole moved to protect Foley from not only the disclosure of his actions, but also worked to keep him running races after they knew he was guilty of inappropriate relationships with the pages. What made the Foley issue such a disaster was a combination of corruption, cynicism, and hypocrisy, potently brewed into one steaming cup of disgust.

The Republicans make sexuality matter in cases like the Foley’s and Haggard’s, and provide within their ranks the driving force for the conflict. If Republicans shared Democrats standards on Homosexuality, these cases would hardly be news. The intense antipathy, though, translates into a kind of homophobia that ensures that members coming out of the closet are going to be bigger deals. If Child Molestation wasn’t seen generally to be abominable, Eric would have no hope of provoking us with an argument like this. If sleeping with your mother wasn’t a terrible thing to do in one’s society, Oedipus Rex wouldn’t be much of a tragedy.

I don’t think we employed a double standard, just a different one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 28, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #196801

Stephen Daugherty
“I don’t think we employed a double standard, just a dirrerent one.”

What kind of double speak is that? Is there a name for that?

Posted by: tomh at November 28, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #196804

Rocky
OK I was wrong on this.
I’ve checked with my lawyer. She tells me she is going to research and find out when the age of consent was changed. She told me that it was 18 at one time but she thinks it got changed to 16 back in the early 70’s. She thinks it was attached to bills having to do with interracial marriage and wasn’t really made publicly known. But she’s not 100% sure on this.
Anyway when I’m wrong I’m wrong. And usually in a big way.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 28, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #196807

Ron,

Don’t worry about it, I wasn’t trying to make you wrong, I was just trying to make a point.

Posted by: Rocky at November 28, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #196815

Ron Brown
That will teach you to listen to a lawyer (grin).
Hang in there you ramblin’ wreck or bulldog whichever team you lean toward.

Posted by: tomh at November 29, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #196849

tomh
Ramblin Wreck? Go wash you mouth out with soap.
GO DAWGS!

My lawyer says I don’t listen to her enough. But then she didn’t listen to me enough when we were kids. So I reckon it’s even.

Posted by: Ron Brown at November 29, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #196911

[sigh]

So I fail to see how this story has sweeping political implications. I do see some possibly criminal offenses, and no one saying that the guy shouldn’t be tried and convicted if guilty, effectively ruining his life. I do see a prosecutor giving out what appears to be a cushy plea deal. That happens every day in our system for all kinds of non-political reasons. There is a perfectly good system in place to fix this if it is found to be a bad decision: a new DA, or a new judge. This is far from a national issue, and to compare this to a congressional scandel where the most powerful people in America actively covered it up is a stretch on the best day.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 29, 2006 5:22 PM
Post a comment