The Watchdog with David Bozell

The old revolutionary creed was simple: the ends justify the means.

Few stories illustrate it better than the reaction to the Alaska Senate bombshell.

According to a New York Times investigation, operatives tied to Democrat Mary Peltola's Senate campaign allegedly spent months searching for another "Dan Sullivan" to run against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan S. Sullivan. The objective wasn't exactly subtle: create confusion and siphon votes from the incumbent by placing another Dan Sullivan on the ballot. The eventual recruit was Dan J. Sullivan, a retired schoolteacher with no political background. 

His value to the operation wasn't political experience, fundraising prowess, or public service. The one credential that mattered was what appeared on his birth certificate.

The allegations are remarkable. According to the report, Peltola campaign staffers compiled lists of Alaskans named Dan Sullivan, contacted potential recruits, and internally referred to the effort as a "ballot composition project." The scheme was designed to exploit Alaska's ranked-choice voting system, where even a small number of votes cast for the wrong Dan Sullivan could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.

President Trump called it "a fraud on the American public," saying Democrats "got caught" after denying involvement. He said those responsible should be removed from the ballot and prosecuted.

Earlier in the week, CNN's Dana Bash and Attorney General Todd Blanche argued over the Justice Department's Alaska lawsuit. Bash pointed to the Alaska Supreme Court's decision allowing Dan J. Sullivan to remain on the ballot. Blanche pushed back, noting that election officials had already warned that the made-to-order Sullivan candidacy wasn't an accident.

Then the story got worse.

But what was the media response?

Not outrage.

Not concern over intentionally confusing voters.

No moral judgment about the tactic itself.

No questions about whether it squared with the lofty rhetoric about protecting democracy.

Instead, many rushed to reassure audiences that the alleged scheme was "not illegal" and "not new."

One suspects the coverage would have been different had the party affiliations been reversed.

CNN's Dana Bash distilled the media's response perfectly. After the Times bombshell, she repeatedly stressed that the conduct broke no laws and characterized it as the sort of political "dirty tricks" both parties use.

Over on The View, the intellectual heavy lifting amounted to: "I don't know what the problem is. Alaskans are unable to read?" The details changed. The shrug remained the same.

The same instinct appeared elsewhere. ABC's Mary Bruce and CBS's Ed O'Keefe both found time to reassure viewers that recruiting spoiler candidates isn't illegal and that similar tactics are common in politics.

Whether any of it was right seemed almost beside the point.

Because "not illegal" isn't the same thing as ethical.

The real takeaway isn't just what happened in Alaska.

It's how quickly "protecting democracy" became "just politics" once their side was accused of gaming the system.

Concerns about deceiving voters gave way to excuses for it.

When the objective is important enough, we're told not to worry about the method.

In other words: the ends justify the means.

Take it easy,David Bozell
President