Does Michele Bachmann Stand for Fair and Accurate Advertising?

And does a politician who aired and condoned slimy ads on her own behalf forfeit any of her right to complain when she doesn’t like the ads run against her?

As you may have heard, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann is asking local TV stations to yank an Americans United for Change 30-second spot, currently running on Twin Cities stations that pounds her for supporting Pres. Bush’s veto of the SCHIP bill.  A letter to the stations from the chief of her congressional staff (but written on Bachmann for Congress stationery) calls the ad “false” and “stunningly deceptive.”

Her particular complaint is pretty lame. The ad says that “Bush and Bachmann would rather send half a trillion dollars to Iraq than spend a fraction of that here at home to keep our kids healthy.”

Bachmann’s argument is that only 20 percent of the funds for the Iraq war have been appropriated since she took office. But Bachmann has supported the war since its inception, and has never uttered peep one of complaint about its cost or about other things that could be done with the money. This argument has been well-ventilated in the blogosphere this week.

As an ink-stained history nerd who covered Bachmann’s successful 2006 race for Congress against Patty Wetterling, and who wrote regular ad-watch pieces on my former Strib blog, The Big Question, my particular contribution is to review her position on false and deceptive advertising in general, which is, in short:

Bachmann likes false and deceptive advertising when she pays for it, or when it is paid for by others on her behalf.

Read more at  Eric Black Ink.