Much of the media seems determined to convict the Democrats of using the same kind of negative ads as the Republicans.
First, I am still bummed that the Tigers were done so quickly. Hats off to the Cardinals. Boy that was hard for this Cub fan to type.
The Cards were well managed and well prepared. During the post season they played the game they way it is meant to be played. They deserve to be champs. Blech and ptui.
There. Now, let's move on.
Much of the media seems determined to convict the Democrats of using the same kind of negative ads as the Republicans. The worst example of this is the way the Michael J. Fox ads are cited as somehow being in the same category as the Harold Ford miscegenation commercials.
This is nonsense, of course. Another lame example of this kind of equivalency was seen last night on Real Time. Christy Todd Whitman, the former EPA Administrator who said the air around ground zero was safe to breathe when she knew it wasn't, admitted that yes, the Corker anti-Ford ads were hitting below the belt. Then she complained about a woman running for office in Vermont who had been unfairly attacked by Democrats. All I could gather from what Whitman said was that the Dems had accused this woman of belonging to the same party as President Bush (and is therefore what, also incompetent and mendacious)?
I'm sorry, but that is a relevant issue in this election. All Republican candidates are supporting the President by belonging to his party. If voters do not want to support the President, they have every right to not vote for a Republican.
But Whitman, like those who equate the anti-Ford and pro-stem cell research ads, is trying to create an equivalency where none exists. She and they are trying to be fair and balanced, to coin a phrase, when they should be trying to be fair by being accurate. Sometimes the truth is not divided equally between the two sides in a debate.