The Congressman Foley Page scandal has embroiled the Republican Party in yet another political battle but, worse, it has plunged the Democrat Party to a new low. With the evidence still being sifted as to what House Speaker Dennis Hastert knew and when he knew it, at least one Democratic Party candidate is already running TV Ads erroneously attacking Mr. Hastert and the entire Republican Party leadership.

It is bottom-feeding politics at its worst.

In my 15+ years as a broadcast journalist I have seen the sleaziest of campaigns. They were based upon a thread of truth but most of the finished garment was woven by experts in the art of dirty politics. This is the case of the Foley Scandal - a thread of truth about Mr. Hastert, a finished garment of distortion. At the very least it is distortion regarding the facts as we know them at this moment.

I am not in a position, nor are Democrats, nor are you, to know what the full story is. For the purposes of this commentary, what Mr. Hastert knew, when he knew it, what he did about it (or didn't do), are irrelevant. My purpose is simply to ask whether attack Ads are ever justifiable. In the case of the Foley scandal and Mr. Hastert, the answer is an emphatic - "No". We will see them in greater and greater numbers as Election Day draws near. They are likely already on-the-air in your community.

Are attack Ads ever justifiable? The answer is definitely - "Yes" - when they expose the voting record of an incumbent or the political philosophy of a challenger that can be fully verified by facts. No one would argue against a fair game. Professional Sports has strict rules forcing both sides to play fair. When players cheat, they are penalized. They lose yardage or get ejected or pay a fine or get suspended. Pete Rose gambled and likely will never get into the Hall of Fame. He broke the rules.

Maybe it's time for such rules in politics. Maybe it's time Media took responsibility for vetting Ad content, something I have advocated for more than 30 years. During my years as News Director/Editor I would not allow political Ads in my News programs. None.

I am not calling for censorship of free speech. Vetting political advertising is the same as preventing a product advertiser from scamming the public. The unfounded attack Ads are, in fact, scamming the voters and should be prevented. They will stop when they have no outlet or, at the very least, when Media exposes them for what they are.

Recently, a local TV news program (WICU) examined a particular attack Ad for accuracy and aired their conclusions. The Ad was by an incumbent attacking the challenger for the sources of the challenger's campaign contributions. They exposed that the facts did not support the Ad content. There was a thread of truth but the finished garment was distortion. The Ad was pulled by the incumbent. Local Media did its job. National Media should do the same. They owe it to us. After all, Media has a free license to the airwaves that we, the public, own. They are in business because we allowed it through our government.

The Democrat Party should do the honorable thing - pull the attack Ad. It's bottom-feeding politics. Media should also do the right thing - expose the Ad for what it is.