Factcheck.org gives McCain more cover, criticizes Obama's DHL ad

[ProSense]

Distorting the DHL Deal

August 15, 2008

An AFL-CIO flier and Obama campaign ads say that McCain cost Ohioans 8,000 jobs. We say that's a distortion of the record.

Summary

Ads from the AFL-CIO and the Obama campaign claim that McCain is partly to blame for the loss of more than 8,000 jobs in Ohio. They paint a false picture.

There's at least some truth in both ads: German-based DHL announced a deal that could result in 8,200 lost jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. And McCain did in fact oppose an amendment that would have kept DHL from buying Wilmington-based Airborne Express. McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, was also a DHL lobbyist charged with easing the merger through the Senate.

But the ads go too far. Some statements about McCain are misleading and some of the inferences the ads invite are unsubstantiated:

<...>

There is some truth to the ads. As we said, as many as 8,200 workers in Wilmington are likely to lose their jobs as a result of DHL's decision to outsource to UPS. It's also true that in 2003, some senators supported legislation that was designed to make German-owned DHL's purchase of U.S.-owned Airborne Express less attractive. McCain did in fact oppose the legislation. And it's true that DHL paid $185,000 to the firm of Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, to lobby for the merger (the $590,000 cited in the AFL-CIO mailer represents the entire amount that Davis' firm collected from DHL during Davis' tenure, most of which went for lobbying on other measures). But it's misleading to say, as Obama does, that McCain "used his influence" to help DHL "buy a U.S. company and gain control over" the 8,200 jobs in question. The AFL-CIO's claim that McCain "could have stopped the deal" is one we find dubious, to say the least.

<...>

The ads would be correct to point out that McCain opposed the version of the Stevens amendment that would have effectively prohibited the DHL sale. They would even be correct to point out that he opposed the watered-down version, which merely made the merger less attractive. But it's a stretch to suggest that McCain alone could have prevented the deal. There was considerable opposition even to the watered-down version, and President Bush opposed altering military contracts in the midst of two ongoing wars in Asia. Stevens' amendment might have passed if McCain supported it, but there is no way to know that.

Moreover the ads go too far in attributing motives to McCain. The Arizona senator has long crusaded against the practice of inserting pet projects into spending bills, and his April 17 press release lists the Stevens amendment as just one of the spending bill's 51 earmarks and 16 policy changes that he opposed. We can't judge people's motives, but we've seen no evidence to suggest that McCain's activities were directed at helping DHL do anything at all. And certainly we've seen nothing to suggest that McCain "turned his back on" Wilmington's workers.

more

Factcheck.org and Jake Tapper jump on Obama's ad to cover for McCain

[DefenseLawyer]

1. Keep playing it

Let McCain try to explain it.

[sandnsea]

2. Oh this is rich

"It's also true that in 2003, some senators supported legislation that was designed to make German-owned DHL's purchase of U.S.-owned Airborne Express less attractive. McCain did in fact oppose the legislation. And it's true that DHL paid $185,000 to the firm of Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, to lobby for the merger (the $590,000 cited in the AFL-CIO mailer represents the entire amount that Davis' firm collected from DHL during Davis' tenure, most of which went for lobbying on other measures). But it's misleading to say, as Obama does, that McCain "used his influence" to help DHL "buy a U.S. company and gain control over" the 8,200 jobs in question."

So McCain opposed the legislation that could have protected those jobs, his campaign manager was a DHL lobbyist, but the two aren't connected at all. :rofl:

McCain (April 17, 2003): If there are legitimate reasons to change the criteria for determining US-citizen control of air cargo carriers, these considerations should be clearly articulated and debated in the normal legislative process - not inserted into a non-amendable vehicle in the dead of night.

I noticed a long time ago that Factcheck wasn't very factual when it comes to corporate influence on politics.

[ProSense]

3. You should read their analysis on tire pressure vs offshore drilling

We find that proper tire inflation could save more than a billion gallons of fuel per year and do it several years sooner than expanded drilling could produce a single drop. McCain has exaggerated by representing Obama's suggestion as a silly notion or implying that it constitutes his entire energy policy.

But we also figure that expanded offshore drilling is projected to produce far more oil eventually than can be saved by proper tire inflation – nearly three times as much even by the conservative estimate of government experts, and more than 10 times as much if an industry-endorsed estimate is correct. And even taking into account additional fuel savings from tune-ups, which Obama also mentioned, he greatly exaggerated.

more

They go on to explain the benefits of offshore drilling in 2025.

It's a tie!

See: Saving more than a billion dollars immediately = possibly saving a billion dollars 17 years from now.

[ErinBerin84]

4. can't watch videos at my work computer, did McLame cite factcheck in a rebuttal?

Marc from The Atlantic makes it seem as if the video clip he posted (that I can't watch) has the McCain campaign citing factcheck.org in a rebuttal to the DHL ad, can someone watch it and describe it for me? Thanks

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/great_for_the_goose_bad_for_th.php
(video clip at link)

"15 Aug 2008 05:48 pm

"When Factcheck.org criticizes the accuracy of Sen. John McCain's ads, which is has done on numerous occasions, it's.. like a annoying fly that keeps buzzing around the candidate's face. (McCain on August 1: "I don't respond to websites that I have no idea what they're talking about.)

But when it tweaks Barack Obama for exaggerating a point in one of his ads, it's apparently an eminently credible non-partisan fact-checking organization... so suddenly credible, in fact, that McCain's campaign is comfortable borrowing their authority to blast Obama."

[blondeatlast]

5. FactCheck is biased, period. doesn't matter in which direction, they just are and

so have no credibility.

[babylonsister]

6. K&R with thanks. nt

[Median Democrat]

7. Factcheck Is Just Like Big Media - Engages In False Neutrality Analysis

The problem with Factcheck.org is that in an attempt to appear impartial, it presents the emphasis given by Obama commercial as false and misleading on the same scale as an outright lie presented by the McCain campaign such as Obama causing gas prices to increase. Thus, rather than provide an impartial analysis, Factcheck itself creates an illusion of neutrality by suggesting the two sides had equal value.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/huffington-rails-against-false-neutrality-of-media/

/snip

One of the worst things the old media do, the author, liberal pundit and founder of HuffingtonPost.com said, is present two sides of a story as if the two sides had equal value, creating a false neutrality that often does not exist. They fall back, she said, on “the illusion of neutrality instead of ferreting out the truth.”

/snip