Howard Kurtz in an ongoing livechat at washingtonpost.com:
Pownal, Maine: NARAL made a mistake. But were there any conservative columnists equivalent to EJ Dionne (for example) denouncing the Swift Boat commercials?
I do think it fair to say when you accept a political appointment, the assumption is that you agree with your employer’s goals, even if you are an attorney. It is not the same as agreeing to represent a client in trouble seeking a lawyer.
Howard Kurtz: If there were a number of conservative commentators denouncing the Swift Boat ads, I missed them. They would say, of course, that the NARAL ad contained greater distortions. It’s certainly true that a number of liberals, not just in the media, criticized the NARAL spot against John Roberts for twisting the facts. I found it interesting that the group never admitted or apologized for the commercial’s flaws, just retreated to “we’re taking it off the air because we don’t want to be a distraction.”
The Swift Boat ads turned out to be mostly true. Also, no comment on CNN’s decision to carry the NARAL ad (Kurtz hosts Reliable Sources on CNN).
So far nothing about Air America, either, which the Post has yet to cover (with the exception of a wire story on washingtonpost.com).
PostWatch is liveblogging.
UPDATE: Kurtz said, “If there were a number of conservative commentators denouncing the Swift Boat ads, I missed them.”
Podhoretz on the Corner last Friday:
Well, first of all, in the early going of the Swift Boats, the Wall Street Journal and others did repudiate them — until it began coming clear that they WEREN’T lying, that there was a great deal of truth in their revelations and that wasn’t true might not have been true because of the difficulty of reconstructing the events of the days in question, not because they were intentionally deceiving.