All Blog Posts from Public Eye

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?

Read full post…

Reader Robert S. of Hayward, California, has concerns about the way CBS Correspondent Gloria Borger has characterized the scandal revolving around Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Specifically, Robert asks:

“Why does Gloria Borger insist on saying that Abramoff ‘gave money to both Republicans and Democrats,’ when it is NOT true? While Jack Abramoff gave numerous personal checks to Republicans, including the President's reelection campaign, he never gave a thin dime to Democrats. Ms. Borger said this on the 6 O'clock News on Saturday, and even though I'm a Republican, I'm tired of hearing this lie repeated.
Now I understand that Abramoff's allies and clients gave money to Congressmen, including Democrats, but by that standard, the amount given to Republicans becomes astronomical.



What those few of us who love the truth want from you is a CONSISTENT standard of what constitutes a ‘contribution,’ or ‘giving money,’ to be applied equally to all parties in this emerging scandel.



Please answer or at least address my concerns. I think it's very important to our Democracy.”

We spoke to Steve Chaggaris, a CBS News producer who works with Borger, about this question. Here’s his response:

Read full post…