Factcheck.org: Distorting the DHL Deal

[CATagious]

I had concerns about going to far with accusing McCain of causing the loss of 8,000 jobs. Looks like my concerns were well-founded according to factcheck.org's research. Let me be very clear: I am not a lurking freeper! I've supported Obama from the very beginning, emotionally and financially. I feel like there are plenty of legitimate issues to attack McCain on without resorting to flimsy, exaggerated claims. Attack me if you want, I don't care.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_the_dhl_deal.html


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:

* The ads charge that McCain opposition to a 2003 amendment helped DHL and amounted to turning his back on workers. That's misleading. McCain said he opposed a version of the amendment because it was a special project inserted into an unrelated bill, not to help DHL. And the Teamsters union praised the merger at the time, saying that it would lead to more jobs. And at first, more jobs indeed followed.

* The ads also imply that the DHL merger is a direct cause of the job losses in Ohio, which we find to be both unlikely and unsubstantiated. Airborne Express had laid off 2,000 employees before the merger, and analysts at the time said that the struggling carrier would need to make expensive investments in its international infrastructure to remain competitive.

[babylonsister]

1. Thank you for your concern. Did you happen to see this one?

Funny you'd point one out and not the other. :think:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/more_tax_deceptions.html

More Tax Deceptions
August 8, 2008
Updated: August 12, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
Summary
McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.

* A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.

* A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

* The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

* The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.

* A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.

These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.

more...

[CATagious]

4. funny how that is off topic.... but, ok nm

[Pilotguy]

2. If there is one thing...

...that we can learn from the RepubliCONs is that, even if something is not true, if you repeat it enough times then it MUST be true. The MSM doesn't care if it is true or not, only that it is repeated over and over again.

[glowing]

3. Notice how fast the media is to all of a sudden care about facts.

[CitizenPatriot]

5. this is not relevant

the PROBLEM is that McCain LIED to the woman in the audience. He acted like he had no idea about this, when in fact, he opposed the amendment and his advisor was behind the deal for DHL to buy the local company.

The ISSUE is about he integrity. Sorry, but do you not care that he lied to that woman? That he presented a false front? A president is supposed to be transparent and accountable. How can McCain's behavior here be described as transparent or accountable? Exactly how much dishonesty are we supposed to tolerate about THE ISSUES like our jobs, the economy, the war?

McCain hasn't been honest about one topic that I can think of. He changes based on the audience and youtube proves it. Not shades of grey, but outright 180 degree shifts which all hide and mask his real intent.

He LIED to that woman. On purpose.

Done.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Thanks for the concern.

[ProSense]

7. I've had some

concerns too

[geckosfeet]

8. Wow. Misleading capmaign ads!?! Thanks for the heads up!

:evilgrin: