Senator Huppenthal, please stop digging and have some egg nog.

This is not the kind of post I would have cared to make on Christmas Eve. Not to mention there are other pressing matters that are claiming my attention right now. But when an "accountability moment" demands attention, one usually shouldn't delay. And honestly, I don't care to have to deal with this any more than I feel I have to, so I'll try to address it now and get it out of the way.

In a comment on one of my previous posts, our fellow blogger at "No More Mr. Nice Guy" brings to my attention that Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal, quite unsatisfied with allowing his unethical Wikipedia-editing behavior to simply fade into history, is still actively trying to rationalize his actions.

Personally, I had hoped we had moved beyond this whole thing and that Senator Huppenthal, even if he didn't have the good graces to admit his error and apologize, would at least have had the good sense to stop talking about it. Yet now, on the eve of Christmas, Senator Huppenthal steps into it again with an even more offensive attempt to justify his behavior.

The latest Huppenthal spin? In a comment on NMMNG's post, Huppenthal has the gall to say his blatant deletion of true but embarrassing political facts about himself and his political ally, Ken Bennett, was either a "truthful or compassionate" act.

I'll say that again: Huppenthal says it is truthful or compassionate to hide the truth that a Recall election was launched against him last year. He says it is truthful or compassionate to edit his political opponent Slade Mead's article to hide the truth that Huppenthal spent twice as much money as Mead did in order to beat him. He wants us to believe it's truthful or compassionate to delete references to two key political controversies that embroiled his political ally, Ken Bennett.

If this is what some people call "true" and "compassionate", then no wonder politics is in such a sorry state and people like Tom Delay and "Duke" Cunningham and Jack Abramoff are so popular with some people.

We are supposed to have leaders of integrity and discernment representing us in the corridors of power. But when a State Senator engages in blatantly unethical behavior - on even so seemingly trivial an issue - and then rationalizes it as "truthful or compassionate", it seems to be just one more data point supporting the cynics' argument that politicians can't be trusted.

We all have a responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable for ethical behavior. Sadly, it seems that traditional media here in our state is dropping the ball on some of the ethical lapses of our representatives. In such a vacuum, private citizens have a responsibility to speak out. That's what has motivated me to divulge the story about Huppenthal to begin with and is also why I have posted a response to Senator Huppenthal's latest assertion, which I repeat here.

Dear Senator Huppenthal,

Seriously, Senator. I've tried to maintain a degree of respect for you when discussing this, but your persistent efforts to excuse what was clearly unethical behavior is fast becoming ridiculous, and in such a way that it seriously impeaches the respect one would like to have for you as a person, as well as for your office.

"Compassionate"? You deleted information about the Recall launched against you in order to be "compassionate"??? That you would suggest that your unethical behavior was an act of compassion is outrageous and offensive, and that you would say it in the Christmas season is all the more insulting to the very meaning and spirit of compassion. As a Christian, you surely should know better.

And let's be very clear. I am not "attempting to imply otherwise". I'm stating it outright: you have UNETHICALLY DELETED TRUE BUT EMBARRASSING INFORMATION about yourself and a political ally from a publicly maintained database of information. I want to state that again, explicitly, because I am not playing with implications or using misleading half-truths. Every assertion I have made about what you did is backed up by clear evidence that any of my readers can see for themselves. No, the facts of this matter are adequately demonstrated and are not in question at all, sir.

Moreover, if you seriously expect people to accept that your edits to Wikipedia were done while being open and above-board about your involvement in making these edits then I regret to inform you that your sense of "openness" needs some very real recalibration.

You did NOT make your edits to Wikipedia under an account name which clearly indicated who you were. The only way that it became clear that you made these edits, is that you told me you had been editing another entry. Then I pieced together from your IP number the other edits you'd made. Had I never addressed this on my blog, probably no one would ever have known that you, specifically, had made these edits.

As for "truthful or compassionate", sir, it pains me to have to repeat this, but you DELETED true information about yourself and your political allies that reflected badly on you. You hid the TRUTH, sir. The truth that Bennett had been involved in two key controversies. The TRUTH that a Recall election had been launched against you. The TRUTH that you spend twice as much as Slade Mead to beat him. Deleting that information is not an act of "compassion", as you absurdly suggest. It's an act of egotism and unethical politics and you should know it.

When you actively work to conceal from your constituents the embarrassing TRUTH about yourself, it is not an ethical act. I find it disturbing in the extreme that you suggest otherwise, when you are supposed to be representing me and my neighbors with integrity, sir.

Is this the ethical standard to which you have held yourself during the many years of your political career? If so, one shudders to imagine the hidden results of this kind of attitude wielding a modicum of temporal power for so many years.

It is bad enough that you did these things to begin with, Senator. But that you persist in trying to rationalize these unethical actions is far, far worse! It indicates a disturbing lapse of ethical sensibility, as well as a gross inability to admit when you're wrong (or at least have the good sense to stop trying to rationalize bad behavior). For someone who has a position of leadership in our community, that is extremely distressing.

I know your legacy means a lot to you, Senator. In every interaction I've had with you, online or in person, you've taken great pains to heap praise upon yourself. Indeed, your lengthy, meticulous crafting and editing of your own Wikipedia article demonstrates amply your desire to polish your legacy to a fine gloss.

But I am sad to inform you that, by your own actions and comments, you, yourself, are continuing to do far more to damage your "legacy" than anyone else could. If you do not have the ethical sensibility to realize or admit that you are wrong on this issue, at least do yourself a favor and quit trying to defend such clearly indefensible behavior.

Senator, I hope your holidays are filled with much joy and peace as you share them with your family. I also hope you will do some serious soul-searching about this issue - not just to determine how you can spin it to your benefit, but to actually recognize that what you did was unethical and that your continued defense of it reflects very poorly upon you.

I do hope and pray for better from you in 2007, sir.

Your very disappointed constituent,
Geo