Foley, Gay Republicans, And The List

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Media Issues

(Getty Images/Richard Patterson)

On Tuesday night's "Evening News," Gloria Borger said this:

"One senior House Republican tells CBS that there's a lot of anger at what he describes as 'a network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the speaker a disservice.'"

The New Republic's Michael Crowley picks up on Borger's comment. He argues that "it's becoming clear that some people on Capitol Hill are promoting a storyline that involves gay Republican staffers--apparently led by [Tom Reynolds's chief of staff Kirk] Fordham--covering up for Mark Foley." Crowley suggests "maybe this is how Dennis Hastert and his compatriots are explaining themselves to the base."

He also notes David Corn's report on "The List" – a document being passed around political circles of high-level Republican congressional aides who are gay.

Corn, a liberal, says he will not publish The List, even though he has a copy. Here's his conclusion:

Let's be clear about one thing: the Mark Foley scandal is not about homosexuality. Some family value conservatives are suggesting it is. But anytime a gay Republican is outed by events, a dicey issue is raised: what about those GOPers who are gay and who serve a party that is anti-gay? Are they hypocrites, opportunists, or just confused individuals? Is it possible to support a party because you adhere to most of its tenets--even if that party refuses to recognize you as a full citizen? The men on The List might want to think hard about these questions--as they probably already have--for if I have a copy of The List, there's a good chance it will be appearing soon on a website near everyone.

In the coming days, we may see the Foley story morph into a referendum on gay Republicans – particularly if the G.O.P. continues to push the storyline that Foley was protected by "a network of gay staffers and gay members." News organizations, one can safely assume, would not be happy about such a development. The questions surrounding putting gay Republicans in the spotlight – and how the press handles such questions – would be incredibly divisive: Conservative site Newsbusters is already lauding Borger for breaking the "PC Barrier" by taking about the alleged network; others, no doubt, will criticize news outlets for talking about staffers' personal lives. And what of The List? If it hits the Web, as Corn suggests, should news outlets publish it? Should they do follow up reporting based on its contents?

It could be a no-win situation for many of the parties involved – the media, conservative politicians with gay staffers, and, of course, those themselves on The List. But the election is not far away, and some lawmakers may see the "network of gay staffers and gay members" narrative as their best chance to limit fallout from the Foley story. Stay tuned – this one could get even uglier.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

11 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 11 Comments


by baye13 October 8, 2006 1:24 PM EDT: It amazes me that a story like this is getting so much attention.
Isn't there more important issues to be covered?
I am not say it's only CBS. Sadly, most Americans think this is "big news".; Reply to this comment


by cdebened October 7, 2006 5:16 PM EDT: How could Brian Montopoli possibly get this story so wrong? It must be intentional. Everyone that knows about "the list" of gay GOPers knows that this list was made by liberal gay activists and is being pushed by those same liberal gay activists. Their names are Mike Rogers and John Aravosis. That is how someone like David Corn has the list. It isn't Republicans running around threatening to release a list that would hurt their own party. Get your facts straight before wasting everyone's time with your intentional lies and twisting of the truth. Kirk Fordham is gay, was Foley's top aide for 10 years, and is known to have covered up for Foley from the e-mail last year to trying to keep ABC from releasing the IMs last Friday. So far the only evidence of anyone "covering up" is Fordham's behavior. He said, after the IMs were released, that he had never seen Foley do anything wrong in the 10 years he worked for him. Then, once the FBI got involved, he suddenly recalled reporting him once, 2 years ago and then he changed it to 3 years ago. There is ample reason to be suspicious of Fordham.; Reply to this comment


by daniellucas-2009 October 7, 2006 4:34 PM EDT: This comment is not directed at anyone at CBS News, as they seem to be reporting responsibly.
However, the Foley matter aside, I have to take issue with people who want to "out" ordinary staff members at the hill. I think the emotional impact of ripping someone out of the closet can be close to gay-bashing. I do not know if some activists know that they are fellow travellers with right-wing zealots who want certain people fired. The Nazis put pink triangles on gay people and yellow stars on Jewish people in order to "out" them and keep them out of certain positions and keep them from running certain businesses.

I have about as much interest in the sexual orientation of every staff member as I do in getting binoculars to find out who of my neighbors tried to commit adultery or who smoked pot once. I respect people's private lives and do not try to interfere with their employment contracts.

One of my best professors was a black Republican and was not a hypocrite. If some African-American opposes quotas, while supporting affirmative action, is she or he self-loathing? I think not. Martin Luther King Jr. helped make it safe for minorities to choose how to vote. I guess some conservatives with homosexual orientations will have to wait for that day.

In the meantime, I will just sit back and watch what technology does to the right to privacy. Nazis no longer need to cut out little stars. They can just formulate a computer graphic.; Reply to this comment


by julianmiller-2009 October 6, 2006 3:17 AM EDT: Homosexua, the word is homosexual; Reply to this comment


by julianmiller-2009 October 6, 2006 3:16 AM EDT: I hope Ken Mehlman is on that list - he is after all a *** man who is a chief architect (think Albert Speer mixed with Joseph Goebbels) of the Bush Administration's political strategy. Or maybe you could ask Karl Rove who is *** in the GOP.; Reply to this comment


by eastboy1 October 6, 2006 2:25 AM EDT: CBS,
If I don't use hyphens, the word "g-a-y" is censored with this: ***. Come on, folks. That's an insenstive and insulting approach. If you're worried about negative or libelous posts, come up with another way to filter out hate speech. In the context of the Foley discussion, it frankly looks ridiculous to go through these written gymnastics.

I think your readers and writers are adult enough, I hope, to have a dignified discussion.

Thank you.; Reply to this comment


by curious43 October 5, 2006 10:26 PM EDT: First and foremost, it seems the right has nothing to say about itself but sure gets together to blame everyone else for their problems. I would hope that all *** repubs understand that you are being identified by a group that now can suspend 'habeas corpus'. Also you will notice how well the media feeding frenzy is on this subject. A black eye for some repubs, but when you hear or DO NOT hear about the increase in American deaths in Iraq and how bad things are in Darfur ? Well what will be on the minds of people at the polls. Check out Google and Fox news where the media is now showing both Foley and Hastert as (D) dems. Will there be a real investigation of congress? Maybe not as they may find others who are predators and/or pedophiles.; Reply to this comment


by eastboy1 October 5, 2006 9:34 PM EDT: Regarding the reporting about the Foley affair, I do hope Ms. Borger and other reporters stop falling for the drivel being fed to them by the radical religious right and their allies -those "senior House republicans": let's blame it all on a g-a-y cabal in the Congress protecting one of their own.

I'm a g-a-y American, and a former Hill intern; let me be clear: if any g-a-y staffers or members helped cover up the Foley affair, they should lose their jobs and face the full force of the law. I would bet the OVERWHELMING majority of g-a-y staffers and members on the Hill find Foley's behavior repugnant; his behavior is no more representative of g-a-y America than Charles Roberts, the man who executed five little girls in an Amish schoolhouse, represents straight America.

I'm also a journalist, and an incendiary story of this nature demands balance: if you're going to give the conservative right a platform, please include those who strongly disagree.

This republican administration has shown time and again it will not stop at demonizing and marginalizing *** people in order to win elections; in this sense, this scandal is manna from heaven: a tailor-made excuse to now go on a g-a-y witchhunt in Congress.

I can already hear the chest thumping of the religious right, and the closet doors closing on Capitol Hill.

JG; Reply to this comment


by sanfelz October 5, 2006 9:10 PM EDT: The real story is Hastert's refusal to do anything that might cast aspersions on a Republican. His whole purpose is to hold on to power and to increase the Party's influence. With Hastert as a leader, the House has approved a number of bills that he knew could not becone law because they could not be reconciled with Senate version of the same bill. A total charade to impress voters without doing anything. An extension of the incompetence exuding from the Executive Branch.; Reply to this comment


by memekiller October 5, 2006 5:36 PM EDT: I'm not sure what this list is supposed to accomplish, except maybe to fire people who don't actually hold office. But are conservative Christians really going to rally around a McCarthyite purging of a *** cabal in their party's ranks? I don't see how this restores faith.

It's your job to keep everything in context. Did Hastert know? Did Reynold's know? If they did, then it doesn't matter if their staff is ***. They covered for a member who had cybersex with teens. That doesn't get them off the hook. If it's about being ***, did they know these staffers were ***, just as they knew Foley was e-mailing pages?

The GOP leaders didn't have a problem using the talents of homosexuals any more than they did a pervert and possible pedophile. Their newfound outrage now that their in the spotlight doesn't change much.; Reply to this comment