Adultery Will Matter

Okay, just because Matt bitched that I'm getting too quiet, I will repost a discussion that should happen over here.  John Morrison's Senate campaign just got a lot more interesting.  Matt asks questions:

Who is behind it? This question seems to be on a lot of minds. At this point, I’m not sure anyone is behind it. I’ve been hearing this story from a lot of quarters for a while now. Rumors spread. People talk. I think it’s safe to say that a number of Democrats and a number of Republicans were very aware of this story, as were David Tacke and his wife. A number of those people would have their own motivations for tipping media off. And sometimes, the motivation for tipping media off isn’t ulterior. Someone may have thought there was a real, major scandal here. Someone may have simply wanted to be a source. Who knows. I have heard that various outlets have been working on this story literally for months. This isn’t a breaking development. This has been a long time in the works. Finally, let me say that while I can’t guarantee that neither Jon Tester nor his campaign were responsible for this, I’ve been pretty close with that campaign and I have every reason to believe they weren’t. An attempt to burn Tester over this is an attempt to divide the Democratic Party into warring factions over this story.

1) Who really cares? It is inconsequential. I am rather disturbed by those who promote “rumors” that this is a Tester camp move. Of all possibilities, it is the very least likely, and it’s only use is to damage Tester in the face of facts. That’s a Republican move that Democrats should not engage in at all.

Is it just adultery? Is adultery the full story here? Is it true that Morrison did nothing wrong in his office? I don’t know. Dave Hunter, a man I respect, says so. If it is just adultery, is Jen Hensley right that we shouldn’t judge? I don’t know. I’ve never cheated on anyone I’ve dated. I’m proud of that fact. Do I think adultery is a disqualification for office? No. But is it inconsequential? I don’t think that’s quite right, either.

2) Yes, it is, and to anybody with a sense of moral rightiousness, that is enough. Two things here: Regardless of whether or not someone is damaged/guilty personally or not, most won’t miss the opportunity to see themselves as better than a public adulterer. Think Clinton. And the second, what allows someone to feel morally outraged will trump reason almost every time. I’m predicting right here and right now, Morrison is toast, if not in the primary, then definately in the general. Doing the right thing as a public official may make headlines, but if the last 12 years have taught us nothing else, we should have learned that votes come from passionate subjective concern. The real question should be “Is it just about possible public malfeasance?” Nope, that will hardly be considered beyond polite conversation of the topic, just like we’re having here. What will get blood flowing is that this guy cheated on his wife and will be judged by the court of public opinion.

Is this the whole story? I again don’t know. I do know that I find it surprising that Morrison won’t say that his conflict-of-interest was enough reason for him to pass the case to outside counsel and that he repeatedly disputes his former fling’s version of the facts, even as her version is only minorly more damning (and slightly more believable). It feels a bit like he’s still fighting to cover his ass (sorry, but I think that if he called her to say he’s running for Auditor, he probably also made sure she wasn’t going to make the affair public, that’s just what any sane politician — which Morrison is — would do). I’d feel better if I got the impression he was being completely honest. Some commenters have hinted that Morrison leaked this himself. That’s possible. I have good reasont to believe that isn’t what happened, not least of which is that he still doesn’t strike me as being fully honest about what happened.

3) Does it really matter? It will take proof of public malfeasance for anything to trump the adultery in most people’s minds. Proof that the story goes no where, and that John Morrison acted responsably for the people won’t matter at all. It really will be all about the adultery.

Should this affect how people vote? That’s a tough question. I’m not a fan of adultery, but I’d be hard-pressed to say that anything in this story in any way comes close to the corrupt operation that Burns has been steering. Does it affect Morrison’s electability? I don’t really know that either.

4) Of course not, if every action taken by Morrison as state auditor proves to be legal and up front (as I’m positive it will). But “should” is one of those tricky words, implying a comparative advantage to possible alternatives. It directly appeals to the subjective sense of morals felt by every voter. Objectively, I’d rather have a past adulterer representing me than a crook who supports child labor in the Marianas all for his own profit. Sadly, I don’t think this will be an objective choice. I’m likely to piss off any Morrison partisan who reads this, but if you don’t think that the GOP will spin a Morrison-Burns match as the wizened provider against the man-whore, then you aren’t thinking about this at all.

Let's be clear here, Conrad Burns is more pathetically corrupt than any person serving in the Congress right now.  If you think I'm wrong, say so, but say so over here.  Morrison would be a good choice to replace him, and Jon Tester would be a great choice to replace him.  We're Democrats, struggling for the same honest representation.  I'm glad that Matt is concerned about my vocal nature, webwise, but we all need to meet at the source, and the source is left in the west.  State your peace, people.