Is anyone doing or saying the right thing for the right reasons in the current controversy in California over Meg Whitman’s housekeeper? I think not. Let’s look at the main participants, and avert your eyes. It ain’t pretty:

Gloria Allred: Emerging out of nowhere to manufacture a campaign controversy that may sink conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s chance of beating liberal Democrat golden oldie Jerry Brown, feminist advocate Allred is exploiting a long-time illegal immigrant for political purposes (Allred’s support for Brown goes back decades), torpedoing the campaign of a woman trying to be the state’s first female governor. What exactly is the complaint being offered by attorney Allred’s client—if that is indeed what she is—Nicky Diaz Santillan? As I understand it, Diaz was paid by Whitman for nine years to hold a job in the U.S. (Whitman’s housekeeper) that she had no right to have; Whitman refused to help her with her immigration status, which she had no obligation to do; and fired Diaz, whom never should have been hired in the first place. Allred has no case, and her argument that some injustice has been committed is incoherent at best. Verdict: She’s grandstanding to keep her name in the news, switching sides in the feminist wars to do it (an earlier Allred would have argued that such a late hit on a female candidate was proof of gender bias), being hypocritical to accuse another woman of hypocrisy, making a scofflaw illegal immigrant into a victim, and exploiting an unsophisticated ex-housekeeper’s desired for revenge. Yuck.

Meg Whitman: Whitman made her fortune as CEO of eBay, and has run a campaign that has reached out to Hispanic voters while advocating a get-tough approach to employers who hire illegal immigrants. Allred claims that Whitman violated her own principles by hiring Diaz, an illegal immigrant who used her sister’s Social Security number. Whitman has produced uncontradicted documents signed by Diaz stating that she was a legal immigrant with a valid Social Security number, and argues that since Diaz was employed by an agency, it was the agency that had the obligation to check its employee’s status. All true: still, Whitman almost certainly suspected that she was indirectly supporting an illegal, because she knew the odds of a Hispanic housekeeper, gardener or babysitter in California being an illegal alien were prohibitively high. It is also true that if, as Allred claims, she did know or went out of her way not to know, her official position on illegal immigration is at least disingenuous:

“I am 100 percent against amnesty for illegal immigrants. Period. As governor, I will crack down on so-called sanctuary cities like San Francisco who thumb their nose at our laws. Illegal immigrants should not expect benefits from the State of California. No driver’s license and no admission to state-funded institutions of higher education. And I’ll create an economic fence to crack down on employers who break the law by using illegal labor.”

Whitman’s response to Allred that she believed Diaz was as pure and legal as the driven snow for nine years until the knowledge of her illegal status coincidentally surfaced just as Whitman was preparing to launch a campaign for governor advocating a crackdown on illegals, whereupon the disillusioned and betrayed Whitman gave her longtime housekeeper the boot, doesn’t pass the giggle test.  Whitman should have responded with something like this:

“Yes, I was negligent regarding Nicky’s status. I liked her, and was willing to accept her representations when I should have been more diligent and responsible, as I am arguing that employers should be now. My actions may have helped Nicky support herself for nine years, but they undermined our nation’s rule of law and exacerbated what I have come to believe, since first hiring Ms. Diaz, a serious problem in this country with devastating economic, employment, budgetary, financial, social, health and national security consequences. Now I know better, and I want to make certain that other employers and businesses handle this problem more responsibly than I did.”

As for firing Diaz–“I felt she was throwing me away like a piece of garbage,” her ex-housekeeper said at a press conference. “She treated me as if I was not a human being…”—that was legal, prudent and politically expedient, but not very nice, loyal, generous or fair. Nine years is a long time. Assuming, and it is a big assumption, that Whitman never suspected that Diaz wasn’t legal, she had reason to be annoyed, but more reason to try to help out someone who had been part of her household for almost a decade. If, on the other hand, Whitman knew about Diaz’s status, took advantage of it and then kicked her to the curb as soon as she became a potential political liability, it would be fair to conclude that she is ruthless, selfish and unkind, and this would suggest that she is untrustworthy as well. Verdict: Unclear, but there is plenty not to like about how Whitman handled the matter even giving her the benefit of every doubt. This is a woman, after all, who as CEO of eBay expressed her disapproval of a subordinate’s performance by shoving her, resulting in a lawsuit and six-figure settlement. Her employer ethics are very much open to question.

Nicky Diaz Santillan: There is very little positive that can be said about her or her conduct. Whitman employed Diaz for nine years, based on the housekeeper’s misrepresentations about her legal status. She had no right to the job, or to be in the country in order to get the job. Whitman owed her nothing, and should have fired her the moment she learned about her illegal status and dishonesty, whether it was at the beginning of the nine years or at the end. Diaz’s  motives for allowing Allred to use her to perform a political hit on Whitman as she seeks political office are either money or vengeance; either way, her conduct is indefensible. Verdict: An illegal immigrant and vengeful liar who thinks she has a right to lie, break U.S. laws, and be rewarded for it. She makes the argument for strict enforcement of immigration laws stronger by her sense of entitlement  and Looking Glass ethics: “See? Meg Whitman was hypocritical to believe my lies, pay me for nine years and not report me!” Double yuck.

Jerry Brown: Brown and his camp swear that Gloria Allred came up with this stunt on her own. There is no proof to counter that argument, except that fact that this is politics, and his claim is unbelievable. He only has to keep his campaign’s alliance with Allred secret until after the election. Verdict: Officially, Jerry is ethically O.K.; his fingerprints aren’t on the Diaz story. Personally, I’ll be shocked if that’s really true.

Finally, we should think about the muddled logic on all sides of this mess. Allred and Whitman’s Hispanic and Democratic opponents are saying that she should have assumed Diaz was probably illegal and looked behind the agency’s representations because Diaz was obviously Hispanic. They are arguing, then, that Whitman was hypocritical by virtue of not being racist…at least by the definition of Democratic and Hispanic critics of Arizona’s anti-immigration law. Whitman, ob the other hand, is arguing that she was blameless for presuming Nicky was telling the truth, though her own proposed treatment of employers who hire illegals would require them to do more than just accept a potential illegal’s representations.

Triple yuck.