FACTCHECK.ORG

AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain

It runs an ad claiming McCain voted "against increasing health care benefits for veterans," when he actually voted repeatedly to increase them.

By Justin Bank | factcheck.org
Jul 10, 2008 | Updated: 5:41  p.m. ET Jul 10, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 07/17/2008 4:21:26 PM

    I agree these damned unions created the middle class, and that is the real problem in America, People have the audasity to expect to live in a 1400 sq foot house, have a car and a boat, not to mention health care,
    America will be a better place just as soon as we get rid of the Unions so we can pay workers the same as the rest of the world.
    It would also eliminate health care for millions and that will take care of the Social security problem because more will die before they reach retirement........Go GOP down with liberals

  • Posted By: no-american @ 07/17/2008 10:10:49 AM

    The AFL-CIO has been lying about everything for years. No one with any common sense pays attention to them. They can claim blame with the shape this country is in. WHAT A BUNCH OF LIBERAL LOSERS!!

  • Posted By: Concerned Canadian @ 07/16/2008 11:36:16 PM

    Unions are corrupt....tell them to go to hell...they're a useless and incompetent organization. They are only interested in collecting union dues from the checks of hard working Americans...they can go to hell...a guy gets fired..guess what ?...ya thats right...the union can do sweet f a about it because they don't care and they are incompetent..please..unions...you should see what they do .....big conferences at golf resorts with company brass no less...ya unions...what a joke...oooooh....I'm scared of the union...oooooh...bunch of flunkies..thats all they are.

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 07/14/2008 2:32:55 PM

    Bush 2001 Tactics of FEARS ....2004 Tactics of LIES.........Successed.....REPUBLICAN repeating again comming for John MCSame for year 2008 !!!!! Hooray........

  • Posted By: Jack999 @ 07/14/2008 2:26:30 PM

    John MCSame Grumpy OLD man,Where's Liberman?Find me the Guy!!!! Im totally LOST weither I really VOTED that in Senate or I Just Dont bothers voting againts this Bill.Did I already send Liberman to Belarus????Or Gosh did I ,sending the Wrong Guy.....there.

  • Posted By: sam9455 @ 07/12/2008 10:17:52 PM

    tom from ga.@07/12/2008--we need new progressive ideas coming fram washington---not the same old ,20 century polotics ---new and real plans that don't require special intrest tn mind not just their own greedy pockets--i am tired of going backwards

  • Posted By: Ezana @ 07/11/2008 1:19:59 PM

    Jill, any discussion on increased spending needs to include the trillions (yes trillions) that go into tax breaks and subsidies that go to big oil. Its not a free market, its corporate welfare. Villify democrats in congress all you want but sanctioned white collar crime a la republicans costs this country soooooooooooo much more!

    • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/11/2008 2:09:38 PM

      There are MANY MANY tax loopholes that need to be closed. Including the low tax rate for income earned by hedge fund managers. Why has Congress NOT demanded that Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater return the fraudulent monies received for non-existence, overcharged, substandard work, etc? WHO HAS THE MAJORITY IN EACH HOUSE?

      I am not AGAINST Democrats - I am AGAINST NEOLIBERALS who call themselves Democrats.

      Most of the Corporate Tax laws were written by neoliberal Democrats in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, including many of the loopholes that can be utilized by paying by a tax expert to help qualify for those loopholes. (I am an independent tax accountant for small businesses, and I utilize those loopholes for my clients.) I am NOT for big business or big oil or for the elite. I AM for the Mom's and Pop's, which to me is the backbone of our great country. I AM for the working class.

      While we all know, or should know, MOST Republicans are strictly for big business - and they are generally the neoconservatives. What I have been finding in my research of various tax laws, is that it has been the practice of the neoliberal Democrats to take away the tax breaks for SMALL Businesses. The most devastating one came under the Windfall Profits Tax of 1980/1981 - under the Carter & Reagan Administrations. It took away the investment tax credit from small businesses. Since it was only for $25,000 a year, it was not beneficial to any large corporation. That act alone closed MANY small businesses, selling out to larger companies or closing the doors.

      It was the neoliberal Democrats joining the neoconservative Republicans for free trade, including NAFTA and World Trade Organization. Who benefits from free trade? Not the workers. Not the small businesses. Not our general economy. And who continues to promote free trade? The neoliberal Democrats and neoconservative Republicans. Most of Obama's advisory team are composed of free trade supporters and lobbyists. And McCain has made it clear that he is for NAFTA, but I have not yet seen clear evidence to label him a neoconservative.

      So, where does that leave small business and the working class? Hoping a centrist populist will enter the race. Trying to defeat both neoliberal Democrats and neoconservative Republicans in Congress. (That includes Senators Allard, Baucus, Biden, Cochran, Durbin, Harkin, Kerry, McConnell, Pryor, Roberts and Smith.)

      There are a minority of Democrats in the Senate who ARE champions for the working class and for small business. Senators Brown, Byrd, Dorgan, Feingold (a true liberal), Johnson, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Bill Nelson (FL), Stabenow, and Tester are some true Democrats. Other than Senator Byrd, they are not given the leadership roles in the party. And I will give credit, but only when credit is due!

      • Posted By: Ezana @ 07/11/2008 2:58:11 PM

        Who has veto power again? How many votes does it take to override a veto? What the heel is a neo-liberal. Sounds like a buzz word invented by republican strategist to blur the issue. What Democrats have voted to take away tax breaks for small businesses (i want names and the # of the bill, the burden of proof is on you there, I don't buy it). He never said he was against free trade he just wants to renegotiate NAFTA to include labor friendly (american labor friendly) and environmentally sound conditions. Obama is the centrist populist you're looking for. Whether or not he gets elected is dependent on how gullible americans will be about the disinformation campaigns out there.

        • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/12/2008 12:15:26 PM

          As long as the US is a member of WTO, we are unable to renegotiate ANY trade policies. As a matter of fact, we are not even able to write a law that would insist all American flags flown on government buildings must be MADE IN USA. It is against the WTO regulations. And, we cannot withdraw from WTO until 2010 when the renewal will come up. Obama should know that, especially since his advisers are the ones who wrote the law.

        • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/12/2008 12:09:36 PM

          Windfall Profits Tax of 1980 & 1981
          HR 3450 11/20/1993 : NAFTA written BY Dan Rostenkowski D-IL. Voted YEA: Pelosi, Hoyer, Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Tom Bradley, Daschle, Chris Dodd, Graham, Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Leahy, George Mitchell, Patty Murray, Sam Nunn, Durbin, Cantwell, Cardin, Bill Richardson, McDermott, Wyden.
          Voted NO: Byrd, Feingold, Inouye, Johnson (SD), Mikulski, Murtha, Wellstone (opposed strongly by Dorgan who could not attend for vote due to illness in family).

          HR 5110 (12/2/1994) membership to World Trade Organization: voted into law by the same supporters as NAFTA, and many of the NAFTA opposers including Conrad, Rockefeller, Boxer, Akaka, Glenn, Feinstein

        • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/12/2008 11:57:24 AM

          Look up neoliberal under wikipedia. There is a HUGE difference between a liberal and a neoliberal.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/11/2008 11:29:27 PM

    Know why McCain wants to distance himself from former Senator Phil Gramm? It is not just because of Gramm's recent obnoxious remarks calling Americans "a nation of whiners" and that unemployed Americans are in "a mental recession." In fact, those remarks were so obnoxious that I wonder if they were engineered just to provide McCain an excuse for publicly distancing himself from Gramm. This issue is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

    When Gramm was a Senator he was chair of the Committee on Banking, and in that capacity he was able to push through the legislation now known as the "Enron Loophole." This loophole allowed US investment banks to bypass the Federal regulations governing futures trading, and is the reason why the investment banks were able to falsely inflate the prices of oil, wheat, corn and other commodities through massive futures trading, causing your costs of gas, heating oil and food to go through the roof.

    Gramm was a member of McCain's campaign team, but now Gramms' name is turning to mud. In addition to the Enron loophole, Gramm pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act in 1999, which got rid of the laws that seperate banking, insurance and brokerage activities in America. Essentially, this Act did away with all of the good laws written after the Great Depression to protect us from another Wall Street/Banking Industry collapse. That's right, Gramm stripped the system of it's safe guards nine years ago, and guess what? The value of the dollar has nose-dived, three major economic institutions have failed, Wall Street is highly unstable, and we are in the midst of a worsening recession.

    Now you could say that this is not Gramm's fault, that he didn't know what the outcome of his actions would be. However, it turns out that the same investment banks that benefited from the Enron loophole and from the Gramm Act gave more than a million dollars to Gramm's campaign. Uh oh. A Congressional hearing is going to be convened to investigate this. And McCain wants to have noting to do with Gramm, wants us to forget that Gramm has been a key player on McCain's campaign team. Gramm was McCain's campaign CO-CHAIR and LEADING ECONOMIC ADVISER. Previously, McCain had said that he planned to appoint Gramm as SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. It looks like McCain is scratching that idea, now that the public is finding out about Gramm. Didn't McCain's team bother to find out about Gramm before publicly considering him as Secretary of the Treasury?

    With Gramm in the driver's seat as McCain's leading economic adviser, now you know why economists and analysts are saying that McCain's economic policy plans are untenable.

    • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/12/2008 11:55:15 AM

      Nins,
      Obama is looking for a VP that won't overshadow him with experience and knowledge.
      As a paid Obama rumor munger, maybe you could ask for an upgrade and apply for the job. You certainly meet his qualifications.

  • Posted By: ChrisRem @ 07/11/2008 10:43:08 PM

    AFL-CIO should pull their add, correct it, and remind their rank and file to vote their conscience... not waste their members dues.

  • Posted By: kesac @ 07/11/2008 9:07:19 PM

    Veteran's benefits increased nearly 50% under Bush in the first 4 years of his administration. Bush and McCain voted for a Veterans Bill that includes survivors rights for spouses and children. Obama, Kennedy and Hillary voted against that one.
    Obama just voted to cut funding to Medicare Advantage, that benefits over a million senior citizens.

  • Posted By: Pat S @ 07/11/2008 6:55:44 PM

    I suppose Obama's Nay vote regarding a proposal to improve access to affordable healthcare is of no concern to the AFL-CIO ( Ensign Amdt. No. 154)

  • Posted By: Pat S @ 07/11/2008 6:54:04 PM

    I suppose Obama's 1/25/07 NAY vote to an improve access to affordable healthcare is of no concern to the AFL-
    CIO (Ensign Amdt. No. 154).

  • Posted By: kleart21 @ 07/11/2008 2:45:02 PM

    This article was about McCain and yet some of you look for reasons to bash Obama. It makes no sense to me, I want all the facts about both candidates. This was about how McCain voted and some issues why are we not discussing that why is this a free for all to bash Obama? Think a lot of you have problems with the fact that (Obama) will more than likely be our next president.

    You look for any reason to bash him, but if something is said about McCain you will defend him to the end without knowing the facts.

    I found this article interesting and it just goes to show that no one in the media gets it right and they are going to continue to bash both of them until November.

    • Posted By: Hope for America @ 07/11/2008 3:07:10 PM

      This goes both ways. I've seen much more of Obama supporters bashing anything McCain while refusing to realize that they too are at fault than I have the other way around, as of late. But it certainly happens in both cases, and I for one totally agree with you that the media should maintain a nuetral standpoint, but that just wont happen, because they are too keen on keeping ratings high and attention. It's how their job prospers.

  • Posted By: Hope for America @ 07/11/2008 1:43:00 PM

    Ezana the mere use of "Recugnantcants" alone discredits your trying to say that Republicans are hateful.

    Some are. So are some Democrats. What does that have to do with Obama and McCain?

    As for Obama being a Muslim, I don't care if he is or not, he CERTAINLY is NOT Christian. See post here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143763

    The true Obama is lost somewhere in his own head. No one else knows what he is, or what he even believes. How anyone can vote for that is just beyond me, though I know the reason. The main reason is you are unhappy with Bush. That certainly is a poor argument to go so headstrong to vote for just anyone out of the blue like Obama. And yes, he most certainly is just someone out of the blue.

    I fear for America, I really do...

    • Posted By: Ezana @ 07/11/2008 2:08:29 PM

      repugnant-can is what I was going for (you misspelled my misspelling). Sometimes I type too fast. Incidentally you just discredited yourself by acknowledging that republicans are hateful. I read your post sounds fanatical to me. If you were a muslim you would be blowing things up i'm pretty sure. Your black and white view of the world sounds a lot like Bin Laden's to me. I bet you're for abstinence education too. What I don't have faith in is your ability to see how Ab. Ed. and your black and white view of abortion cqauses problems. Just like in the muslim world there are christians and then there are fanatical christians like yourself (i don't expect you to understand). Non of my decision to vote Obama is out of the blue I researched his voting record read his book, read his policies on his website (just like I did McCain's). Can you say the same?

      "He's so in his head..." classic anti-intellectual statement. So being educated about our laws and constitution is now a liability? Please. I'm glad he has the fancy book learnin' . Incidentally I am unhappy with Bush's destructive policies that empower fanatics like you who deny funding to anything but abstinence education, along with the Enrons, and war profiteers. It's not that dems are "Bush haters" (sometimes you right wingers sound like 8th grade girls). I know what i'm talking about, all spelling mistakes aside because I was doing my research while you were out holding up signs of fetuses and screaming at teen mothers.

      • Posted By: Hope for America @ 07/11/2008 2:30:51 PM

        Wow Ezana, you just lit into me because I said one thing about a misspelled word.

        You just accused me of sooo many things and that's just hilarious.

        Just because I'm anti-abortion doesn't mean all I want is the current Republican plan. But voting for Obama is a step further away from keeping those innocent lives safe. At least the Republicans have SOMETHING.

        Please do not harp to me about research and fanatics. I understand fully religious fanatics and the like, but that does not applly to me. To me, my views on faith have been stated plain and clear. Unlike what you have come to believe, I do not look down on others who are not in the faith, I look down on someone who CLAIMS to be so he can win votes. That's wrong. I actually consider it my dutie to be loving to all, EVEN THOSE MUSLIMS who's ENTIRE RELIGION was based off world domination (do your research there). That's what Christianity is about, love. For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall be saved. Love. I love you, Ezana, even though I don't know you. I disagree with your beliefs about Obama and McCain, but I still love you and hope for the best for you. THAT is where I stand. Hopefully that clears things up and you can refrain from uttering comments such as you have which are not only hurtful but insulting and quite unnecessary.

        The comment about Obama knowing only what he truelly wants has nothing to do with education. It has to do with how he has come across to the public, and in that sense, he has portrayed such a vague picture as to what actually he stands for that many Democrats have either gone independant or to McCain.

        I'm not saying McCain is a saint. On the contrary, he has many faults as well. But when it comes to the values I hold most high, my religious ones, McCain out-shadows Obama by leaps and bounds.

        THAT is the message I was portraying, I'm sorry you mistook it and turned on me for it. I forgive you, but would appreciate it if you were a little more considerate on the matter.

        Thanks

        • Posted By: Ezana @ 07/11/2008 2:48:25 PM

          I accused you of not doing your research and being a fanatic that's it. Don't paint me as irrational either that's straight out of "how to argue with a liberal" and it doesn't work any more. The fact is you haven't done your research (or least you haven't presented any evidence that you have). An will continue that as long as you're utterances are anti-intellectual. You can play passive all you want, lamby, but a sideways attack is still an attack. Are you saying that is Islam and it's 1.8 billion followers are about world domination (or only "those" muslims).? You weren't clear, you came sideways by indicting a whole religion while hiding behind yours. People project all kinds of things onto Obama, because he operating at a level that most people aren't doing their research don't get. If McCain out-shadows Obama with your values why is he so hush hush about his pro-life stance (most people don't knoe that's where he stands on this)? Why did he higher the the very same people who accused him fathering an illegitamate black child in South Carolina 2000 to work for his campaign? He said nothing about it in the main stream press and this was his own family. Are those the family values you're voting for? His morality is what the GOP tells him it is! He's no maverick.

          • Posted By: Hope for America @ 07/11/2008 3:05:07 PM

            I guess you just don't understand what I'm saying, sorry for being vague. By the Muslim statement, I was stating how the religion was formed. And that is fact. Do I believe that all muslims are trying to conquer the world? No. I was referring to these religious fanatics that you are discussing. I have several muslim friends, and they do not share those beliefs. Religions are reformed. And the statement about loving the muslims who are extremists is meant for those extremists. Even those who are hell bent on fighting a holy war, I love. I love them and hope that they see the error in their ways and find the true God. Hate the action, not the person.

            You seem to have skipped over the part where I said that McCain is no saint.

            As a rule the Republican party is FAR more conservatist and thus faith-based than the Democratic party. Voting for McCain is voting for some SEMBLANCE of that, which unfortunately is all we can hope for these days. I frankly would not vote for either if there was a choice, but either McCain or Obama is going to be in the house, and from what I have seen lately and from what the past has shown with Democrats vs Rebublicans, it is clear I have no choice but to vote for McCain.

            Research all you want about Obama now, you will have to do new research every day as he decides to handle something differently. If he is elected, you can be assured you will not be able to do any research on what is going on in the world, because what happens to the world will happen fast, violently, and extremely. Thus, I fear for America, that is my standpoint, and I stick to it.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/11/2008 12:31:53 PM

    Nins:

    Don't forget to talk about the sweetheart deals that the current chairman of the Banking Committee (Senator Chris Dodd) received from the same company (Countrywide) he had oversight on. Or mention how the elitist day traders, hedgefund managers and banking institutions are making money hand-over-fist from the Enron Loophole in the oil futures. OOOOPPPPPS, Guess that would be a bad thing to say about your candidate, Obama. NEVER MIND.

    • Posted By: Ezana @ 07/11/2008 1:28:05 PM

      I think what you said helped Obama do you have them mixed up. According to McCain the Enron loophole doesn't exist. You here alot about it from Obama. Unless it's another issue McCain is pretending he was on the right side of all along!

  • Posted By: speckelbelly @ 07/11/2008 1:27:00 PM

    IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT McCAIN VOTED FOR! HE IS A REPUBLICAN!
    THE RICH GET RICHER THE POOR GET POORER! ENOUGHT SAID!!!
    OBAMA/BIDEN 08!!!

  • Posted By: Ezana @ 07/11/2008 1:22:03 PM

    Mr. Hope 1 in 10 still think Obama is a muslim who won't say the pledge. That's hateful disinformation. Regugnantcants have no room to talk, period!

  • Posted By: Hope for America @ 07/11/2008 1:18:48 PM

    Just another example of how the media and the Obama hordes are so stubborn and hateful that they will go to any length to discredit someone so that they can have the White House.

    Doesn't surprise me though... coming from a party that is pushing for someone raised 20 years by a "spiritual" leader who is one of the most racist and unnaceptable contented individuals in the United States, someone who has proven nothing but selfish ambition throughout this campaign, and someone who the educated world is laughing at with all his "changes and plans for the future". He has no plans, he has ideas. Not one of his suggested methods for achieving them, IF he even ever does suggest a method to do so, is logical, realistic, or plausible.

    Just what I want to lead my country in this time of high-tention in the world, a man who has racist upbringing and lies to even those who support him. Woo hoo!

    McCain 08, for the prevention of disaster.

  • Posted By: Jill from Florida @ 07/11/2008 1:14:24 PM

    When Congress wants to increase spending, it has to be financed somehow - Either by taking it from another program, increasing taxes or increasing debt.

    Most people don't like option #2, increased taxes.
    Some people LOVE option #3, increasing debt - especially when they will be the ones to benefit.
    It's option #1, taking from another program that is the hardest to legislate. It is also the most fiscally conservative way to operate our government.

    Of the various amendments listed, the ones McCain voted against would have either increased taxes or increased debt. The ones he voted for took funds from one or more programs and gave it to the Veterans.

    WHICH IS BETTER?

  • Posted By: majcaj @ 07/11/2008 12:48:24 PM

    Justin Bank (fastcheck.org) I get from this that you will benefit finacially from McCain somehow? You must be in McCain's pocket. If not you did not do your fact checking very well. You really should go back and recheck your facts. McCain was out fund raising and did not even vote.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse