SPONSORED BY:

Distorting the DHL Deal

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

The upshot is that DHL cannot fly its own packages. It collects packages on the ground and transports them to airports, but it has to contract the air transport of those packages to U.S.-owned airlines. DHL had used ABX Air (which also operated the sorting facility in Wilmington) and ASTAR Air Cargo to move packages by air. But, in May 2008, DHL announced that it would no longer use ABX or ASTAR and would instead pursue an agreement to contract its sorting and air freight to UPS. ABX Air President John Graber says that the move could cost his company 6,000 jobs. Wilmington's mayor, David Raizk, told the Dayton Daily News that another 1,000 ASTAR employees as well as 1,200 DHL workers could face unemployment as well.

Part of the Rest of the Story
The Obama campaign and the AFL-CIO both use the Wilmington debacle to paint McCain as bad for Ohio workers. The AFL-CIO mailer informs us that McCain "turned his back on 8,000 Ohio workers" when he "helped cut a deal" to send those jobs "to a foreign-owned company." The mailer goes on to tell us that McCain "could have stopped the deal" but didn't.

Obama's television ad leads off with two local Ohio residents. Chris Fisher explains that without DHL, Wilmington will be "a ghost town." She is followed by Ed Rutherford who relates his personal hardship of losing his job. The announcer then informs us that McCain "helped pave the way" for "foreign-owned DHL to take over an American shipping company," putting thousands of jobs at risk. The ad closes with Rutherford saying that he feels a "foreign entity" is "sucker punching us."

Obama for America Ad:"Ohio Jobs"
Chris Fisher: If DHL [inaudible] if something happens, it's gonna be like a ghost town.

Ed Rutherford: I thought I was doing a good job providing for my family, and to have that taken away…

Narrator: In Washington, John McCain helped pave the way for foreign-owned DHL to take over an American shipping company. McCain's campaign manager was lead lobbyist for the deal.

Narrator: Now, thousands of Ohio jobs at risk.

Rutherford: It's tough times, when it's a foreign entity coming in and sucker punching us. That's how this felt.

Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Obama's radio ad hits on many of the same themes. It begins with McCain's admission that there is likely nothing McCain can do to prevent DHL from eliminating 8,200 jobs. The ad then intones that "there's something John McCain's not telling you" and goes on to explain that McCain "used his influence in the Senate" to help smooth DHL's 2003 purchase of "a U.S. company" and that, more alarmingly, McCain's campaign manager was a lobbyist who was paid $185,000 to lobby on behalf of DHL. Finally, we're told that "foreign-owned DHL doesn't care" that 8,200 Ohioans are losing their jobs.

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 Rest of the Rest of the Story
Both ads refer to a fairly obscure legislative battle. In April 2003, Congress was debating a supplemental spending bill to provide additional money for the then-fledgling war in Iraq. Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens wanted to insert an amendment that would have made it difficult – if not impossible – for DHL to acquire Airborne Express. A number of senators and representatives opposed the measure, as did President Bush. According to reports by Congressional Quarterly, McCain convinced Stevens to offer a watered-down version, which Stevens introduced as part of a 13-page "manager's amendment" just before the vote on the final bill. The proposal:

S. Amend. 522: None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or expended to pay for transportation described in section 41106 of title 49, United States Code, to be performed by any air carrier that is not effectively controlled by citizens of the United States.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: cmilesgervc @ 09/11/2008 4:53:55 PM

    I've really heard enough of McCain's whining. It is ok for his false remarks on Obama and yes i feel McCain is clueless the majority of the time on the middle class folks he or Palin does not have to do without

  • Posted By: dorfy @ 08/25/2008 5:52:47 PM

    McCain wants to take credit if a company comes in that supposedly bring new jobs. Then he should be equally willing to acknowledge that he brought in the employer who was not committed to this market. He should connect himself with DHL when they leave as much as when they arrive. Do I smell hypocrisy?

    McCain and Republicans want the big players in the market, but fail to work as hard on updating the tax code to penalize firms who move offshore. If McCain spent as much time in Congress as he has hob-nobbing with Petreaus and his pro-Bush buddies overseas, more might have been done to save jobs in the US. Not a big work ethic for him - missing at so many votes.

    No distortion of the facts by McCain's opposition - just some heated criticism of the sort McCain's own campaign has been flinging non-stop in Obama's direction. They often say - don't dish it out if youcan't take it...

  • Posted By: Murray Rizberg @ 08/18/2008 7:31:49 PM

    "Does either guy share your values" is not exactly the best question to ask about any candidate for the simple reason that some people's "values" are not what governs everybody - the Constitution is what is supposed to govern everybody. This is the problem with "values voting": "values voting" is nothing more than a euphemism for "religious voting" since almost all people's values come from their religions. Conveniently for us, most religions share a set of common values.

    The problem is that not all religions share the same exact values, of course. How does society address a difference in religious values that affect society? It defers to the Constitution, of course, and the Constitution allows freedom of religion except when that freedom infringes on the rights of other citizens to live freely. This dynamic should easily dictate the government's position on such disagreeable religious topics as gay marriage; sadly, however, because of the rise of "values voting," it does not. When we start trying to pass laws based strictly on religious values - that is, legislating morality by rule of the religious majority - then we are not adhering to the Constitution, which provides equal protection under the law to people of all religions or non-religions. Let us get back to the matter of homosexuality then: if we ban so-called gay marriage, we are doing nothing more than forcing our religious values on everybody else - including those who do not share our religious values - and thus denying them equal protection to pursue their happiness. And laws such as ones that ban gay marriage - which has never been shown to be detrimental to other citizens' constitutional rights or society itself - do not protect citizens from those who might interfere with our rights; they merely DENY some citizens one of the rights that almost every other citizen takes for granted. The only thing gay marriage has proven to be is an act (or just an idea in most cases) that is offensive to the religious beliefs of certain citizens - but nothing more, and certainly not detrimental enough to society as a whole to warrant a law forbidding it! (By the way: proponents of such a law proclaim that banning gay marriage would be protecting something - "the sanctity of marriage," that is - but I do not believe the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to guarantee safety to abstract ideals such as the "sanctity of marriage." Does THAT end this silly little argument?)

    The Founding Fathers had a very specific vision of government in mind: their government drew an extremely visible line between church & state and involved itself in the private lives of its citizens as little as possible. Thus, voting based on values - which is essentially passing laws based on your religious values because you are voting for "lawmakers" - is intrinsically incompatible with the Founding Fathers' vi

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 

A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.