National Journal senior political columnist Ron Fournier is a former Washington bureau chief for the Associated Press. He tends to get slammed from all sides of the political spectrum, because he is a liberal journalist with integrity and an open mind, capable of objectivity and willing to criticize those who would like to regard him, like the rest of the mainstream media, as a reliable bulwark against accountability.

Fournier’s recent column examining the serial Jonathan Gruber admissions regarding the mindset behind the effort to ram the Affordable Care Act down America’s throat without even warning us to hold our noses is a spark of hope for those of us who despair of U.S. journalists ever showing the character to practice journalism. Titled, appropriately, “A Foundation of Lies,” his column bolsters several ethics assessments made on Ethics Alarms. I was especially heartened to read this sentiment regarding media spin, a topic most recently discussed on the blog here:

“…a Washington Post story headlined, “Who Is Jonathon Gruber?” …was an important and workmanlike report on the Obamacare adviser who bragged about the political advantages of deceiving voters, whom Gruber called stupid. ‘Those comments have struck a nerve on the right,” wrote Jose A. DelReal (emphasis added), “with some of the law’s critics pointing to Gruber’s comments as evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs.’

My first reaction was, ‘No! No! Not just on the right!’ I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor, and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come. While I think President Obama and congressional Democrats helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over what became the Affordable Care Act, I’ve openly rooted for Obamacare’s success. I’ve denounced the knee-jerk opposition from the GOP, a party that once embraced key elements of Obamacare. My ideology is amorphous; I am not “on the right.”All of that, and yet: Gruber’s remarks struck a nerve with me.”

As they should, as with any American who cares about process, and does not believe that a government for the people, of the people, by the people should really be a government by self-anointed autocrats who know best what is in the people’s interest, and trick them into supporting laws controlling their lives. “A lie is apolitical, or at least it should be,” writes Fournier. “If there is one thing that unites clear-headed Americans, it’s a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest.  And yet, there seem to be two types of lies in our political discourse: Those that hurt “my party” and “my policies”; and those that don’t. We condemn the former and forgive the latter—cheapening the bond of trust that enables a society to progress.”

I have seen many disheartening examples of this in the last two days, reading comments here and talking to friends and relatives. One respected colleague wrote that despite this and other deceptions, he would still prefer Obama to Romney—a classic “it’s not the worst thing” rationalization. But what about this government, now? It it acceptable to you, or not? Claiming that another theoretical government would be worse (incidentally, “Romneycare” in Massachusetts was passed properly and with transparency) ducks the issue. Do you trust this government? Don’t you think you should be able to?

Another close friend of mine, in the health care law field, discussing the Gruber videos with me last night, could only muster these two lame mitigations:

1. Bush’s “lie” about the WMD’s was worse (Rationalizations #1,The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it,” #2, The “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse, and #22, The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things”), and

2. The only way health care reform could pass—and it was crucial that the law pass!– was if the law was made confusing so that, for example, it couldn’t be attacked as a tax, which it “obviously” was. (“The ends justify the means,” and Rationalizations #3. Consequentialism, or  “It Worked Out for the Best,” #25,  The Coercion Myth: “I have no choice!,” #28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times,” # 29,The Altruistic Switcheroo: “It’s for his own good,” #31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now,” and #40. The Desperation Dodge or “I’ll do anything!”

Fournier makes another point—one I have been making in multiple posts for well over a year now—about the serial deceptions and arrogant botches in the Obama administration:

“Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration’s dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make Obamacare unpopular while undermining the public’s faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives.”

Should be the angriest, but in general, they are not. Or, if they are, they refuse to admit it. They are reacting with spin, denial, rationalizations and the symptoms of Desperate Obama Defense Derangement (DODD).

Fournier, at least, provides hope that integrity, weakened and in a critical state, still survives in the news media and among Obamacare’s supporters.

“And so even I have to admit, as a supporter, that Obamacare was built and sold on a foundation of lies. No way around it, unless you’re willing to accept a political system that colors its lies—the reds, the whites, and the blues.”

Thank you, Ron Fournier.