Journalists know this to be true: Plagiarism arguably is Rule No. 1 that never should be broken.

To do so is to commit a firing offense.

Is it the same for political figures seeking the trust of the voters? I think so.

U.S. Sen. John Walsh, D-Mont., is running for election to the seat to which he was appointed when Max Baucus left the Senate to become U.S. ambassador to China.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/213161-report-montana-senator-plagiarized-masters-thesis

Now comes a report from the New York Times that Walsh plagiarized his master’s thesis.

Oops. Can’t do that, senator.

The Times reports that Walsh, who was an Army officer attending the War College, lifted material without attributing it for his thesis, which he wrote in order to graduate from the War College.

Walsh has denied any “intentional” plagiarism.

Whatever. As the Hill reported about a portion of the thesis Walsh submitted for review, “The 800-word section is copied nearly verbatim from a paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.”

The question now is this: Should voters in Montana “fire” Walsh for this kind of transgression? He has, after all, trumpeted his War College credentials and his experience as an Army officer to the voters. If he failed to complete the requirements needed to obtain that degree by copying large segments from other writings, isn’t that tantamount to falsifying his background?

Yes it is.

Walsh has an uphill fight as it is. Montana is leaning Republican this year. His opponent, GOP U.S. Rep. Steve Daines, at one time commanded a big lead. Walsh reportedly had cut into that lead.

This report is likely to hurt his standing with voters. As it should.