Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won't air his misleading ad about Bush "misleading" the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: "Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from 'We report, you decide' to 'we let Bush decide what we air.'"

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

"You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network," she said.

Yeah, you'd think.

What a maroon. Here's hoping that the Dems don't come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate's judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won't be misleading. Ain't that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans...

...As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I'll have no complaint, if it's as bad, or even if it's not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying "enough" to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don't believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There's enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can't get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they're a political party.

I believe that the only real chance for the Democrats to win agains Bush will be with their firm and fundamental support of science and space exploration. taking pop shots (whatever they may be) can not succeed with nationalism as high as it is.

Republicans have always been reluctant to spend money on science and space and always favor the military. The only counter to this, that I can see, is to be equally as fervent on Science and Space! Why not forget about the pop shots and promote real programs that will ultimately draw unity and peace together again?

Chris

What firmn and fundamental support is that? Walter Mondale and William Proxmire(Is that bastard pushing up daisies yet?) trying to kill the manned space program?

With the exception of Kennedy and Johnson, more damage has been done to NASA by the likes of Liberal Democrats raiding NASA's budget for more assinine vote buying give away programs. All the Democrats want to do is to turn us into a visionless, wimp nanny state like the once great Britan.

Yes, I distinctly remember Mondale's legislative attacks on the space program, and Proxmire doesn't surprise me.

By contrast, I seem to recall a certain Ronald Reagan talking up a variety of space initiatives -- though of course the Dems and their willing accomplices in the media would like us to remember only "Star Wars."

Why is "Science & Space" treated so separately from the military? From what I can see, an investment in one is, to a large degree, an investment in another.

Republicans have always been reluctant to spend money on science and space and always favor the military.
I can't speak for all republicans but this is my thoughts on govt sponsorship of science and space.
It is better to allow private entities to pursue those goals and to perhaps spur it on with tax incentives or such. Otherwise what we wind up with is similar to the National Endowment for the Arts. To promote arts we give a taxpayer funded grant to a lady to smear herself with chocolate.
Or this one:
"I waited a year to get a severed head," he says, congratulating himself on his own forbearance as Le Baiser (The Kiss) appears up on the wall. The picture caused a scandal in 1982 when a janitor, who happened to be a born-again Christian, discovered prints of it (along with some actual fetuses) in a darkroom at the University of New Mexico. The police were called, the pictures confiscated.
Mr Witkin, it was determined, wheedled the cadavers out the the medical facilities at the University of New Mexico until they discovered the uses to which he was submitting them. In one photo he had sawed a man?s head down the middle, ?He then photographed the two halves together, touching at the mouth, a neat conceit joining necrophilia, homosexuality, and an inert form of auto-eroticism.?
He has been described as ?Jeffery Dahmer with a camera. Since 1980 he has received four grants from the NEA. The latest, in 1992, for $20,000.
link
If these people don't get a grant the following year they sue the govt.
This kind of stuff results from govt involvement in affairs that they should just stay out of and let the market handle.

Gosh, does anyone have a comment that actually relates to the post?

Geez, Rand, this is the 'net... I thought topic drift was obligatory! ;)

I belive that a useful quote (relating to the original topic) might be:

'Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one' -- A.J. Leibling

Is anyone surprised at the reaction the Fox news Station in madison has gotten? If your from Wisconsin you wouldn't be. The great country of madison is the perfect place to continue the DNCBS

Steve H. Milwaukee, WI, USA

I don't understand why this is even news. TV affiliates are a business, and unlike in Europe businesses still have some free reign over their own operation.

Gosh, does anyone have a comment that actually relates to the post?

Well, yeah. I do.

I think broadcasters should be forbidden to charge politicians for air time. BUT, they should not be required to give air time to any politician.

That would pretty much take care of misleading radio and television ads.

Garry, your suggestion would fill the midnight airwaves with partisan comercials as different stations picked their candidates and were forced to give them free air. I don't think it would work as you intend.

In my humble opinion by the time the 2008 election rolls around candidates will have to have blogs and respond in near-real time to ensure their message gets out undiluted. They'll still have comercials to scare the old folks, of course, but that trick will work less and less as even dimwitted folks start to catch on to the game.

Like Tim Rutten last month, Mr. McAuliffe is simply in shock and awe that anyone would dare interfere with the divine right of liberals to invent history as it happens. At least Rutten salted his tripe with a couple of innocuous facts about who really made some statement and when. God forbid an independently owned station should make telling the actual truth a requirement! It's bad enough those pesky facts and you annoying blogers keep getting in their way. Next thing you know someone will start a whole network that refuses to take orders directly from the DNC! Oh, wait. They already did that didn't they? Gosh. No wonder Hillary wants to shut you guys down.