The Swamp Dog Snarls

A reporter, hearing about a possible political scandal, turns to a Well Informed Source whom, it transpires, is a convicted felon. He uses the information that source provides in his page one story on governmental corruption. Is such a "dirty trick"? "Sleazy"? "Gutter politics"?

The United States Attorney, probing political corruption, turns to a "jailhouse snitch"? A "dirty trick"?

Comes now the normally wise – or, at least, sober – Monica Yant Kinney, buying into the Dem allegations that pointing out the obvious – that Senator Menendez walks some very fine ethical lines, if not actually crossing thereover – is somehow beneath a man of Tom Kean’s reputation.

Pshaw.

One of the Kean campaign’s independent opposition researchers, looking for information about Menendez, turned to a man who might very well possess it: Robert Janiszewki, former (Democratic) Hudson County Executive and present guest at Club Fed. In Hudson County, people play hardball politics and bear grudges. It might be that said convicted felon had information about Menendez’s activities. Such was an entirely justifiable assumption. (Indeed, if the Kean guys didn’t call Rudy Garcia, they’d stand convicted of political malpractice).

For this completely defensible undertaking, Kinney echoes the Democratic establishment’s assertions that Kean has somehow slipped into the mire of "negative campaigning".

Menendez suffers, somewhat, from guilt by association, but only because his associates display an unfortunate tendency to end up behind bars. Obviously, if one’s (present or former) friends, confidants, advisors, and political colleagues now mark time in The Big House, one wishing to inquire of them need, of necessity, reach into some sleazy neighborhoods. But the fault does not lie with the investigator, but with the crooks.

If Bob Menendez were nominated to the federal bench, the FBI would CERTAINLY inquire of men like Janiszewski – and other unsavory sorts – precisely what they know. Should a United States Senator undergo less exacting scrutiny?

Elections are democracy’s cleansing devices. It’s simply not sleazy to point out someone else’s sleaze. Nor is it underhanded, nefarious, or objectionable to search into a candidate’s past, bringing to the fore RELEVANT issues.

(By way of example, everyone involved in politics knew that McGreevey was gay when he ran for office, even if he refused to admit it to himself or, even, to his wife. But, generally, what one does between the sheets should stay there, as it impacts little upon one’s ability to govern – provided, of course, that the object of one’s affections is more than 16. Private foibles differ from public actions.)

Hence, it’s entirely proper to note that an office holder seems to be profiting from his office; it’s not proper – for the most part – to comment on his relationship with his wife, his personal finances, etc. Those matters, mostly, do not reflect on an office holder’s public ability.

Simply put, it's not "negative campaigning" – in the bad sense – to point out the truth, as long as one does it honestly and fairly. If one accuses another candidate of questionable ethics and surrounding himself with folks of questionable ethics – and those accusations happen to be true – what's wrong with that?

And Frank Lautenberg – aptly described by one of his own aides as a Swamp Dog – should be careful at whom he swings. Here is a man, at 82, who initially won office, in part, by asserting that Millicent Fenwick – then 72 – was too old and doddering to serve. In short, he knows a thing or two about "gutter politics" – sleazy, unfair campaigns – having waged at least one himself.

The questions about Menendez’s ethics are real and substantial, just as were those affecting Bob Torricelli. While perhaps not quite as blatant in feathering his own nest, it seems patent that Menendez personally profited from his office, renting to a tenant dependent upon federal (read, taxpayer) funds. Too, the incestuous recycling of public dollars – from the taxpayers to Menendez confidants in the form of outrageous salaries, then to Menendez in the form of personal income for inflated rents and politically, in the form of massive campaign contributions – even if not illegal, is rotten to the core.

Does Kinney mean to assert that raising ethical questions is beyond the pale? Or merely that such should be the sole and exclusive province of the media? Any reporter worth her salt, seeking the full story on Hudson County and Bob Menendez, would CERTAINLY reach out to everyone with information, wherever they might be. And, yet, she castigates a politician for doing precisely the same thing.

Or is it simply over the top when a candidate seeks out a felon of the opposite party who, of old, chummed around with the opposition candidate?

If elections are to serve the cleansing purpose a democracy requires, the candidates must not be castigated for raising legitimate questions about each other. Or for using perfectly legitimate investigatory techniques – such as writing letters – to discover the truth. It’s only "dirty politics" when the charges are unfair and, it this juncture, Kean’s charges against Menendez seem right on the money.