Slimed!

Bob Herbert in The NY Times wonders, Where is the shame? (I'm going to start using the phrase "GOP slime machine" at every opportunity.) And here is another op-ed piece, by author Larry Heinemann:

When I came back from Vietnam, I always thought that the next argument was going to be between those who went overseas and those who stayed at home. But it turns out that the big argument now is between those veterans who thought the war was right and those who didn't. And further, it is amazing to me that the argument should revolve around medals and Purple Hearts and honorable service.

I can't believe there's even a question about how to cover the Swift Boat Veterans group. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm astonished that anybody even agreed to air these ads in the first place. It crossed my mind that maybe stations were required to air them, but then I realized that I already know that that's not true - CBS refused to air MoveOn's ad during the Super Bowl. So what is their excuse here?

Also, I keep forgetting to mention that factcheck.org has really good, definitive answers up to all the Swift Boat nonsense. And they are pretty definitely nonpartisan - if you don't believe me, scroll down to where they blasted Kerry about his attendance record on some committee meetings a couple of weeks ago. And I just found an article there that answers some of my questions about campaign ads - it's called False Ads: There Oughtta Be A Law! Or -- Maybe Not.

Stations can reject ads for any reason from political groups other than candidates. And they may reject ads from all candidates for a given office. But if they take ads from one candidate they can't legally refuse ads from opponents, except for technical reasons (such as being too long or short to fit standard commercial breaks, or if the recording quality is poor) or if they are "obscene." Rejecting a candidate's ad because it's false is simply not allowed.