Jon Ralston on why the story is about Ensign — and his hypocrisy and lies

By Jon Ralston

Friday, July 10, 2009 | 2:10 a.m.

Let’s give Doug Hampton the worst of it:

Let’s say he was an unqualified crony hired by Sen. John Ensign solely based on friendship. Let’s say he should have punched out Ensign and never have been around him again after discovering his wife’s affair. And let’s say he looks like a desperate, vengeful greedy man, whom Ensign helped get two jobs and whose caring gaming mogul father forked over $96,000 to a the Hampton family to assuage the pain.

Even if all or some of that were true, this story is not about Doug Hampton; it is about John Ensign.

Even if you discount much or all of Hampton’s version of events – and I don’t – one player here is a broken man trying to rebuild his life, whether or not you agree with his methods, and the other is (or was) a powerful U.S. senator, a proven liar and serial hypocrite who drenched an evanescent apology to his then-lover in his Christianity, had his family pay off his former employees and then continued the affair for months.

Proportionality often is lost in the heat of these stories, especially in the 24/7 media world, where revelations come hourly if not faster and perspective is lost. So here is some: John Ensign not only has betrayed his wife, his best friend and his faith, he has embarrassed his party and disgraced the U.S. Senate. And he wants to stay -- he thinks he deserves to stay -- in office?

This story is not about Doug Hampton; it is about John Ensign.

Hampton’s shocking disclosures this week on “Face to Face” of how the affair began while the couples shared a home, of how the senator wrote a letter to Cindy Hampton expressing remorse and then continued pursuing her and of payments the Hamptons sought and received are a grotesquerie unmatched even in Nevada politics.

Some have blanched at Hampton’s willingness to come forward now, raising questions about his motives (yes, he wants money) and his credibility. But it is Ensign who has refused to answer any probing questions about the sordid affair. Indeed, Ensign has provided information not out of any Christian devotion to truth but because media outlets – first FOX News and then “Face to Face” – came into possession of damning information.

This story is not about Doug Hampton; it is about John Ensign.

Ensign only disclosed that his parents gave $96,000 to the Hampton family – conveniently at the limit for tax consequences– after Hampton’s assertion on the program that his wife was paid well over $25,000 in severance, which could result in criminal penalties for non-disclosure.

So Ensign had his lawyer put out a revolting “I didn’t do anything illegal” statement Thursday. “After the Senator told his parents about the affair, his parents decided to make the gifts out of concern for the well-being of long-time family friends during a difficult time,” the statement said. “ The gifts are consistent with a pattern of generosity by the Ensign family to the Hamptons and others.”

Well, that was mighty Christian of the Ensigns, wasn’t it?

Generosity? Oh, yes, John Ensign was quite generous to the family.

And gifts? Call it severance, call it a payoff, call it hush money. Even if it’s legal, I wonder if the moralizing John Ensign would call it moral. To most sentient beings, this looks like Daddy the casino boss helped buy his randy son out of a jackpot, lending a Vegas seaminess to this tale.

This story is not about Doug Hampton; it is about John Ensign.

Ensign seems to be acting as if this was nothing, as if this should all be papered over and he should be allowed to get back to doing the great work he has been doing for the great state of Nevada. It reminds me of Murray Hamilton’s line to Dustin Hoffman in “The Graduate” after Hoffman describes his affair with Mrs. Robinson as nothing, like they were shaking hands. “Excuse me if I don’t shake your hand.” Hamilton says as he leaves in disgust.

This story is not about Doug Hampton; it is about John Ensign.

I know there are those who believe Cindy Hampton is equally responsible, that she is not a victim. Maybe she embarked on the affair with ardor, maybe she pursued the senator, maybe it was love.

But even if that were true – and I doubt it -- this is not about Cindy Hampton, either; it is about John Ensign.

I actually don’t think I have to tell the senator who this story is about. If this proves anything, it is that he believes everything is about John Ensign.