It took a great deal of restraint for me not to write a post after reading the Daily Beast’s Micahel Tomasky’s infuriating essay about the “media witch hunt” against Elizabeth Warren. If there ever was a piece destined to send me over the edge, that was it: not only did Tomasky express indignation that anyone would use Warren’s pose as a minority to impugn her integrity, but he ridiculed concern over her plagiarism as well. Here, however, was the capper: he compared criticism of Warren to the attacks on Bill Clinton during the Monica fiasco, writing,

“The situations are in fact almost precisely the same. You had then a press pack that had decided that whether Bill Clinton was telling the truth about Monica was a question on which the fate of the republic hinged. The press became self-righteously consumed with its search for The Truth. Meanwhile, outside the Beltway, and outside of Wingnuttia (it existed then, just at about half of its current GDP), nobody cared what the truth was. The media kept producing revelations; surely, now, swore Maureen Dowd and Michael Kelly, America will see this man for the reprobate he is! America looked, yawned, told the press to start acting like grownups, and continued to approve of the job Clinton was doing as president at rates near 70 percent and to oppose impeachment at similar levels.”

I started writing about ethics on the web precisely because of the public’s ignorant response to Bill Clinton’s unethical and un-Presidential conduct, and it was cynical, corrupting, willfully ignorant commentary by people like Tomasky that drove me to it. Tomasky’s tone makes his column especially obnoxious, for he writes as as if those who of us who understand that electing known cheats, liars and con-artists are the deluded ones. Oh, who cares if our leaders lie? Who cares if we can’t believe what they say, or that they are who they claim to be? No, what matters is their policy positions! After so much history, so much experience with human nature, so many betrayals by phony leaders who extolled values they discarded whenever it suited their purpose, and while a classic example, John Edwards, was being tried as Tomasky wrote his nonsense, he (and many others) still dare to pedal this poisonous and destructive falsehood, because gullible members of the public who refuse to hold their political parties and elected representatives to ethical standards continue to fall for it.

And what do voters they get when they follow Tomasky’s execrable logic?

They get U.S. Senator Mark Kirk, Republican from Illinois.

I wrote frequently about Kirk during the 2008 campaign, Like the Democrats’ Richard Blumenthal, running for Senator in Connecticut, Kirk was a proven liar by election day, and like Blumenthal, he was elected anyway by addled voters who didn’t think that character makes a difference, as long as the right letter, “R” or “D” is stood next to his name. Tomasky, of course, approved.  Kirk, perhaps you recall, claimed distinctions on his curriculum vitae that were not his to claim and also misrepresented his job history.  I wrote:

“Illinois voters now know more than enough about the character and trustworthiness of Mark Kirk to activate the citizen’s duties to pay attention and not to put scoundrels in office after they reveal themselves as such. If they elect him Senator in November, they will deserve what they get.”

Here’s what they got: it appears that Kirk paid both his ex-wife and his girlfriend to work on his 2010 campaign through other entities, in order to keep the payments secret. The girlfriend was paid, well, because she was Kirk’s campaign squeeze. It looks like his ex-wife was paid to try to keep her quiet, but she blew the whistle anyway. This was a likely violation of Federal election laws, but more to the point, it was sleazy and unethical. Using election campaign money to solve personal problems is what got John Edwards indicted. Come to think of it, Beautiful Hair John also began cheating on his wife with a woman he involved in his campaign, just like Kirk. But surely this doesn’t tell us anything about their character, right, Mr. Tomasky?

Today, the Chicago Tribune is reporting that Kirk sponsored three bills that will channel millions to the clients of his now former girl friend, and the clients will presumably then fork over some of the millions to her. This is the kind of pay-off scheme that forced Senator John Ensign of Nevada, another on-the-job Lothario with campaign workers, to resign in disgrace.

I’ll try to spell it out for you, Michael. Corrupt people make corrupt leaders. People who lie once for their own benefit will lie again. People who concoct awards, jobs and ethnic backgrounds to get an edge are cheaters, and will continue to cheat. We  can’t trust them, and people who can’t be trusted shouldn’t be leaders. Your derision about concern over Warren’s lies and misrepresentation––

“This is a ‘character’ issue? Please. Warren’s the daughter of an Oklahoma janitor who became a prof at Harvard Law. She has children and grandchildren and has taught Sunday school.”

—shows a commentator who is unqualified to write about character, leadership, or politics. The fact that her father was janitor means that Warren is honest?  John Dillinger’s father was a grocer; so what? The fact that she b ecame a Harvard Law professor—aided by a phony stance as a “woman of color”—means that she is trustworthy?  Timothy Leary was a Harvard professor. John White Webster was a college professor, and also a murderer. Arthur Schlesinger was a history professor who used his stature to whitewash the record of Jack Kennedy. Being a professor at Harvard or anywhere else isn’t proof of trustworthiness. That Warren has children and grandchildren means she has good character? Ma Barker had children. All sorts of horrible people have children.  She taught Sunday school?   Ah, well, there Tomansky has me; after all, what is lying to the press and public for two months compared to reading Bible stories to 8-year-olds?

I was right: voters who elect proven liars get what they deserve. Mark Kirk was one example, and Elizabeth Warren is another. Michael Tomansky is wrong, and those who read irresponsible pundits like him also get what they deserve.

Confused.

___________________________________

Spark: The Daily Beast

Facts: 

• Chicago Tribune 1 
• Chicago Tribune 2

Graphic: Wikipedia

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.