Darryl at Hominid Views has been watching Dave Reichert's new TV ad carefully and found The Seattle Times has been misquoted.

I have to agree. And apparently so does the Reichert campaign because they say they will fix the ad.

The ad includes a graphic that reads:

"Burner's charges hurt by 'inaccuracies.'" Seattle Times 9/24/06

But as Darryl points out, and Goldy gets in on, too, there is no such headline and the story does not include that line.

There is a story that ran that day by Jonathan Martin that says:

Ads against both candidates contain inaccuracies.

And, I have to disagree with Darryl a little here, it does point out an error in Burner's TV ad.

Her ad emphasizes her military connections and accuses Reichert, a former Air Force reservist, of breaking the "promise America makes" to service members in action by voting to "cut funding for veterans' health care." But the votes it is based upon — Reichert's party-line votes for 2006 and 2007 budgets — do not cut Veteran's Administration health-care programs. Mike Shields, Reichert's chief of staff, said the VA's health-care budget increased 16 percent during the time Reichert has been in office.

The Burner campaign disputes that, but that's what the story says. Reichert spokeswoman Kimberly Cadena says the ad is being changed:

The Reichert campaign made a mistake with the punctuation in its ad. We are fixing the punctuation to accurately describe what was in the Seattle Times article.

What has not changed is what the Seattle Times said — and that is that Darcy Burner's ad was inaccurate and that Congressman Reichert did not vote to cut healthcare benefits for Veterans. The fact is Congressman Reichert voted to increase veterans healthcare by 16%.

So now that Congressman Reichert's campaign has fixed the punctuation in its ad, will Darcy Burner fix the false accusation in her ad and tell the truth about Congressman Reichert's record on veterans?

I'll have to see how the "punctuation" changes. Of course whatever headline is used, Burner's campaign could use a variation to say that Reichert was wrong since the story found errors on both sides.

And I bet at the debate tonight we hear more about veterans benefits.