Democrat Jack Conway has been anointed by fair commentators of the Left, Right and center as the hands down winner of , as the New Republic called it, the “Most Despicable Political Ad of the Year.” The attack on opponent Rand Paul, which he continued in the debate between the candidates for the open Senate seat in Kentucky, consisted of questioning the propriety of Paul’s religious beliefs, making an issue out of a college prank, and characterizing the prank in question as a crime, though the anonymous “victim” has acknowledged that she knew it was intended in jest and did not feel threatened. As Jason Zengerle noted, “…no candidate over the age of, say, 30, should be held politically accountable for anything he or she did in college—short of gross academic misconduct or committing a felony…and more importantly, a politician’s religious faith should simply be off-limits. If it’s disgusting when conservatives question Barack Obama’s Christianity, then it’s disgusting when Jack Conway questions Rand Paul’s.” This, from the same journalist who originally reported the tale of Paul’s various rebellions against the Christian pressures at Baylor when he was a student there, including the faux worship of “Aqua Buddha.”
Unfortunately, many progressive and Democrat commentators are not capable of Zengerle’s objectivity. He doesn’t like Paul, but refuses to condone Conway’s tactics or try to justify them. Others, like Think Progress’s Matthew Yglesias, dashed to the rationalizations:
“This ad has the virtue—not that common in politics—of being accurate. It also has the virtue of raising actual policy issues about the consequences of Paul’s position on tax reform. It’s true that the implication that unorthodox religious belief should disqualify one from office is ugly, but it’s an implication that I think is extremely common in American politics. Joe Lieberman ran around the country 10 years ago slandering atheists and Mitt Romney did much the same in his effort to make Mormonism acceptable to the GOP’s Christian base voters.”
In other words, “everybody does it,” so it’s perfectly all right. Except that 1) everybody doesn’t run ads questioning religious beliefs–if they did, the uproar over Conway’s accusations wouldn’t have been so loud and from so many quarters, 2) even if everybody did do it, it would still be wrong, and 3) that wasn’t all that was unethical and unfair about the ad. Yglesias, however, either can’t see this because he’s blinded by ideological bias, or doesn’t care, because he believes that the ends justify the means, even if the means consist of dirty tactics.
Meanwhile, Prof. Theda Skocpol of Harvard opts for that old reliable, “He would have done the same to me if the positions were switched”—otherwise known as the Reverse Golden Rule:
“One reason that Dems do not seem to be able to play hardball — in a viciously hardball political world — is that Dems often lack conviction or the will to be eloquently honest (for example, on taxes). But an equal problem is that when someone does play hardball, the rest of the prissy liberal Mugwumps tut-tut them about it. I say, go for it, Jack Conway. Does anyone doubt that Paul and his supporters would have used similar publicly documented material against Conway (or even less material)?”
This is an unethical argument, of course. (Is anyone else disturbed that this is the level of ethical instruction emanating from tenured professors at Harvard?) Also unethical is today’s defense offered by Sen. Claire McCaskill on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” While McCaskill admitted that the ad comes “close to the line,” she asserted that Paul brought it upon himself because he was an “extreme candidate.” She even added to Conway’s slander by characterizing the silly “Aqua Buddha” worship stunt as the equivalent of worshipping at a “Satanic altar.” McCaskill’s rationalization of choice is “He deserves it,” also known as “He had it coming.” You know: “extreme” candidates (as defined by McCaskill and Conway, natch) don’t deserve fair treatment.
Jack Conway’s ad was unethical under any analysis. Those who defend it simply expose their own lack of integrity, decency, civility and fairness.
Ethics Alarms 
A mild silver lining; I feel vindicated in not voting for McCaskill.
I’m not sure where to leave this “reply” since it applies to so many of your pre-election posts, Jack. Yesterday, I made my weekly visit to a post office box I keep for non-personal mail and found it full to the brim with stiff-paper flyers touting local candidates — city, county, state. Except none of the 18 (I am leaving out the federal electioneering since my expectations were already low on that score) — not one of them — was touting the candidate. Several of them didn’t appear to have anything to say about the candidate at all, and two of them had to be examined closely to find out who the candidate was.
Each was, in shouting-large fonts, an attack on an opponent.
I did what I usually do with junk mail and left them all in the post office trash bin but I wish I had saved them just for quotes. I am not a what-is-this-country-coming-to sort of person, nor does much done in the name of politic-ing in this country usually catch my shock-absorbers unaware. But I am, for the first time in nearly 50 November elections, seriously considering not voting … not because I am appalled by this behavior (I am) — behavior which appeared in some cases to have crossed the line from unethical into criminal libel — but because I don’t seem to be able to find out who stands for what, if anything.
I wonder if it would do any good for everyone who looks at a tv ad or mailer that disses an opponent rather than informing about the candidate to write to each one and tell them they will not be voted for for that reason. If you have a better idea, please . . . !