Nuclear Fallout

Kerry and Bush are in a tight race in Nevada, where Bush's flip-flopping on a nuclear waste site may cost him the state. (He pledged in the 2000 race to veto the proposed site in the Yucca mountains but went back on his word as soon as he got into office. Kerry has always been consistently opposed.)

But what's annoying is this article about that race and how it mildly offers up in the middle that Bush is flat-out lying about Kerry's record on the issue. Here's one example.

"'The Kerry-Edwards ticket was for Yucca Mountain before they were against it, and Nevadans should not be fooled by election-year pandering,' Nevada's Republican senator, John Ensign, said in a statement circulated by the Bush campaign.
"But Mr. Ensign himself, when pressed on a cable television program last week, said of Mr. Kerry that 'on this one issue he's been better than George Bush, but that's on one issue.'"

Why isn't this article about Bush distorting and lying about his opponent's record? Isn't that worthy of mention any more? Or is it just a given? There's a big difference between saying your way is for the good of the country and their way leads to disaster and flat-out lying.