This could really be the end of the GOP -- can they be held accountable to facts? The horror!

FOR BREAKING NEWS ABOUT ALASKA'S
PRINCESS SARAH, SEE BELOW

YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY
Our motto:
Every Word Out of Our Stinking Maws
Guaranteed a Lie or
Double Your Money Back
(Offer Void Where Prohibited)

by Ken

Is that the earth trembling beneath their feet that Republicans are feeling? All because of the actions of the management at a small TV station in southern Virginia?

But just imagine, what would happen if the Republicans suddenly weren't allowed to lie, now that they've perfected the practice -- in the works for years -- of foreswearing any obligation to the fact-based world? After all, as I pointed out a number of times, they got through an entire presidential campaign on nothing but likes, obfuscations, and simple slime. In the world of "reality-substitute," where people get to believe whatever makes them feel best without regard to the factuality of their beliefs, all that's necessary is some verbal link to the reality.

TO PICK A RANDOM EXAMPLE

Mere use of the word "Iran" is apparently enough of a link to reality, along with perhaps mention of one or two other names of actual Iranians, to allow loons of the Know-Nothing Right to embroider upon them one of the demented, counterfactual fantasies they draw from some apparently primitive nodule of the reptilian part of the human brain.

You would think that a local TV station that rejects a TV spot because of factual inaccuracies would take some pride in the fact -- you know, placing principle ahead of profit. Instead, WDBJ Roanoke seems almost embarrassed, and yet the station is more or less confirming the fact, although not surprisingly it's being denied, sort of, by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), which is paying for TV spots that attack Virginia Rep. Tom Perriello for his support of the ACES climate bill. So far Perriello is the only congressman thus targeted by the NRCC, apparently considering him especially vulnerable since his narrow defeat of one of the nuttier Republicans in Congress, former Rep. Virgil Goode.

Surprsingly, this only-too-predictable RNCC "Just Say No" attack campaign ran into a snag. As Ryan Grim reported yesterday on Huffington Post, WDBJ nixed the NRCC ad --

citing factual inaccuracies, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee communications director Jen Crider. A source familiar with the station's decision confirmed Crider's account; WDBJ general manager Jeff Marks confirmed that the ad would not run, but declined to say why.

"The ad is not running, be we have not characterized why that is," said Marks. "We don't characterize why an ad is not running. We looked into the complaints [from national Democrats], but other than saying that, you really need to find out from the NRCC."

Dave Thompson reported in the Lynchburg (VA) News & Advance:

The nonpartisan political analysis Web site, http://www.factcheck.org, published an analysis critical of the ad, calling the NRCC “wrong” in the amount of money it claimed the bill would cost a family of four. The site claims the NRCC misinterpreted data from a study performed by the Heritage Foundation analysis calculating the GDP loss in 2020.

Marks said the station’s decision to decline the ad should not be interpreted as an agreement with the site’s analysis of the ad.

“We didn’t say it was false or misleading. The Democratic Party may have, or Perriello may have,” he said.

“I’m not making a connection between [Perriello’s concerns] and it not running,” he added.

Sure enough, according to Ryan Grim:

An NRCC source said that Democrats are mischaracterizing the station's decision. "One station has temporarily pulled the ad. The station manager has also informed us that he plans to notify the DCCC about their mischaracterization of what exactly has transpired. The ad is still set to run on the other stations in the local market," said the source.

The fact remains, though, that Marks vetoed the ad, and according to Ryan Grim, "a source familiar with the station's decision confirmed" the account of DCCC communications director Crider, that the ad was nixed because of factual inaccuracies. Especially in this economy, what TV station turns down business without a good reason?

It's no wonder that R's are in a tizzy. Imagine if their unqualified media privilege of unlimited lies is suddenly revoked! They won't be able to open their mouths.


SPEAKING OF TOM PERRIELLO AND ACES --

I want to take this opportunity to call attention to a correction I've added to a post from Tuesday. I was purporting to explain how Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett had made his sudden switch Friday, from arguing eloquently that the cap-and-trade bill before him, saying on the House floor early in the day, "This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real 'cap' is on the public interest and the 'trade' is the billions from the public to polluters," to ultimately voting for it."

However --

CORRECTION: PERRIELLO ALWAYS INTENDED
TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ACES

There doesn't appear to be any doubt about Politico's report that Lloyd Doggett was one of the earnestly environmentalist Dems whose arms were twisted by Speaker Pelosi on Friday to support ACES. Apparently, though, Jane and I are mistaken in saying that Tom Perriello was among that group.

His office confirms that Congressman Perriello always intended to vote for the ACES bill, believing it represents a necessary starting point in taking action against manmade climate change, and despite my grave reservations about the bill, I understand that someone committed to protecting the environment could support it. After all, no less than the League of Conservation Voters has declared it "the most important piece of environmental legislation to ever come before the House of Representatives," adding, " The historic bill has the potential to transform America by creating clean energy jobs, improving our national security, and protecting our planet from global warming pollution," and taking the extraordinary step of promising to refuse endorsement in 2010 to any House member who votes against final passage of this bill." And my energy-and-environment go-to guy A Siegel allowed: "There are quite strong (and even compelling) arguments to vote for the bill despite its flaws. Honestly, in [Comgressmen Doggett and Pete DeFazio's] shoes, I don’t know what statement I would have made today."

Tom Perriello is one of the congressmembers we most admire, and we wouldn't want his position misrepresented. There is, apparently, some apprehension that he can be portrayed as a "tool" of Speaker Pelosi. Indeed, I've heard suggestions that the DCCC was actually pressing him to vote against the bill. It would be interesting to have confirmation of this. Is it really possible that, with both the White House and the House Democratic leadership supposedly all-out committed to the bill, the DCCC was actually lobbying against it?