The Dish

Last night’s CBS broadcast was a disgrace. Gloria Borger aired pure McCarthyite smears as news without any opposing view:

GLORIA BORGER: Just a few hours after Kirk Fordham resigned as chief of staff to Tom Reynolds, the House Republican campaign chairman, Fordham told the Associated Press that he had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level. That means Hastert’s staff. Fordham was once a top aide to Mark Foley and is known to be gay. CBS News has learned that several other top Republican staffers who handled the Foley matter are also gay. Their role in this controversy has caused a firestorm among Republican conservatives who charge that a group of high-level gay Republican staffers were protecting a gay Republican congressman.

TONY PERKINS: Was the leadership afraid to stand up to that network out of fear of being labeled homophobic or gay bashing?

BORGER: Hastert’s office didn’t immediately respond to Fordham’s charges, saying it’s a matter for the ethics committee to handle. But Republicans won’t wait that long and they could still decide that Hastert has to go. Katie?

KATIE COURIC: Alright, thanks so much, Gloria.

JPod is right. There is a creeping McCarthyism to some of this. And CBS last night went right over the line. Let’s hold all those accountable who can be shown to have knowingly acquiesced in the abuse of power that is at the heart of the Foley scandal. But generalizing madly on rumors, constructing connections where no proof of such exists, giving an unchallenged platform to bigots, and pandering to some of the worst aspects of human nature is inexcusable. It’s inexcusable when it’s done by right-wingers, and inexcusable when done by left-wingers like Couric and CBS.

My thoughts – so far – on the Foley affair, at the New Republic.

I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder. Glenn Reynolds first echoes Drudge in saying:

On the other hand, if ABC ran with a story that was wrong in its essential detail, turning consensual behavior among adults into underage sex, well, that’s kind of a major blunder, too, at the very least.

A couple of things (as Glenn subsequently notices): we have no evidence (yet) of any actual sex; if we did, and it had happened in D.C., it would not have been legally under-age, because the age of consent is 16. From what I can tell the only illegality rests on the online predation bill championed by Foley.

Now can we all calm down, wait for the investigation to proceed and actually deal in this campaign with things like, er, war, torture, habeas corpus, crippling fiscal recklessness, climate change, and terrorism?

There’s a very encouraging story in the NYT today about the U.S. military’s drastic recalibration of counter-insurgency tactics in Iraq. It makes a huge amount of sense to me. Less direct force can mean more actual security. Public works are essential to winning over the populace. Mistreatment of detainees is no way to glean good intelligence. What you need is much closer interaction and trust with the broader population. It appears the military on the ground really have learned hard lessons from the past three years and are adapting intelligently. But what they clearly need for such an operation is many more troops. This kind of war is much more labor intensive than the ones Rumsfeld wants to wage.

I agree with Kissinger that the only exit strategy from Iraq is victory. But I cannot see such a victory coming with Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary. We are stuck with the president and veep we have, alas, for two more crucial years. And so they have to pass a simple test. If they really adopt this strategy and find ways to add many, many more troops to the endeavor, then they deserve our support. If they continue with their current course, then we have to withdraw to Kurdistan or altogether. The current situation is untenable. The military have found a way forward. We owe it to them, to Iraqis and to the next generation to give it a chance.

The British Tory leader makes the truly conservative case about civil marriage in his party conference speech yesterday:

There’s something special about marriage. It’s not about religion. It’s not about morality. It’s about commitment.

When you stand up there, in front of your friends and your family, in front of the world, whether it’s in a church or anywhere else, what you’re doing really means something.

Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important. You are making a commitment. You are publicly saying: it’s not just about me, me me anymore. It is about we – together, the two of us, through thick and thin.

That really matters.

And by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That’s why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I’m proud of that.

Cameron is also a backer of environmentalism as a conservative calling:

If you want to understand climate change, go and see Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.

Today, I want to tell the British people some uncomfortable truths. There is a price for progress in tackling climate change. Yes of course low-energy lightbulbs, hybrid cars Рeven a windmill on your roof…can make a difference and also save money.

But these things are not enough. Government must show leadership by setting the right framework. Binding targets for carbon reduction, year on year. That would create a price for carbon in our economy.

What does that mean?

It means that things which produce more carbon will get more expensive. Going green is not some fashionable, pain-free option. It will place a responsibility on business. It will place a responsibility on all of us.

That is the point.

Tackling climate change is our social responsibility – to the next generation.

Isn’t it refreshing to hear a conservatism that isn’t riddled with prejudice, unreason, and religious zeal? Isn’t it a relief to hear a conservative actually asking people to sacrifice something for the next generation, instead of stealing from them? Isn’t it encouraging to see a conservative leader actually treat gay people as human beings rather than political pawns?

Glastonbury, Connecticut, 11 am.

"I was still pretty shell shocked myself," Fordham said of the day he learned about the messages. "This was someone I had worked for 10 years. I had no inkling that this kind of blatantly reckless – just obscene – behavior was going on behind our backs," – Kirk Fordham, former chief of staff to both Tom Reynolds and Mark Foley.

"The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges, I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate behavior. One of these staffers is still employed by a senior House Republican leader. Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005," – Kirk Fordham, former chief of staff to both Tom Reynolds and Mark Foley.

"We will make you successful, as long as you don’t mind me grabbing your [deleted] once in a while," – Congressman Mark Foley to a Congressional page.

We?

If you need a break from Foleygate, and missed an earlier link to the debate between David Brooks and me about the meaning and future of conservatism, then here’s a link to a video of the event yesterday at Cato, an audio version and an iTunes-friendly podcast. A mutual friend imagined the exchange as follows:

AS: Oakeshott!
DB: Tocqueville!
AS: Waterboarding!
DB: Waterskiing!
AS: Provincetown!
DB: Lattetown!
AS: Gay!
DB: You don’t say!

Or something like that. As the Congressional Republicans form a circular firing squad, the debate about how corrupt conservatism has become is not exactly off-topic. You can read my essay about faith beyond fundamentalism here.

Hastert allegedly knew about the Foley problem for years. Money quote:

Kirk Fordham, former chief of staff for Foley, told ABC News today that sometime in late 2003, he told the Speaker’s chief of staff that Foley was getting too close to young male pages. Fordham says the Speaker’s aide, Scott Palmer, then met with Foley. Fordham also said the Speaker knew about the meeting.

If that last sentence is true, Hastert is toast. According to Fordham, Hastert knew about the problem, did nothing, and then lied about it. That’s a lethal trifecta.