FactCheck: Obama Ad Distorts McCain's Role in Job Loss | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008

Distorting the DHL Deal

factcheck.org

Email To A Friend

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

SPONSORED BY

Sources
ABX Air Press Release. "DHL Announces Consolidation At Wilmington Air Park." 25 June 2004. ABX Air. 12 August 2008.

Air Transport Services Group Press Release. "ATSG Receives Notice of DC-9 Fleet Reductions from DHL." 26 June 2008. ABX Air. 11 August 2008.

ASTAR Air Cargo Charter Services. "History of ASTAR Air Cargo." 20 July 2006. ASTAR Air Cargo. 11 August 2008.

Aufterbeck, Sigrid. "Airborne Shareholders OK Sale to DHL." The Seattle Times 15 August 2003.

"Congressional Record: Senate (S4806 - S4808)." 3 April 2003. Thomas. 12 August 2008.

Economist. "Obama: Blame the Furriners!" 8 August 2008. Economist: Democracy in America. 12 August 2008.

Firestone, David. "A Nation at War: Paying for the War; Senate Rolls a Pork Barrel Into War Bill ." 9 April 2003. The New York Times. 12 August 2008.

Koff, Stephen. "John McCain Had Role in Original Wilmington DHL Deal." 6 August 2008. The Cleveland Plain Dealer. 11 August 2008.

McCain, John. "List Of Objectionable Provisions and Pork in the War Supplemental Appropriations Bill." 17 April 2003. United States Senator John McCain. 12 August 2008.

Mosk, Matthew. "Top McCain Adviser Has Found Success Mixing Money, Politics." 29 June 2008. The Washington Post. 12 August 2008.

Ott, James. "Integrators Integrate." 30 March 2003. Aviation Week. 13 August 2008.

Pilcher, James. "DHL Sees Benefits in Airborne Buy." The Cincinnati Enquirer 19 April 2003.

Public Law 108-11. 16 April 2003. 12 August 2008.

Robinson, Alan M. "The DHL Airways / Astar Air Cargo Controversy and Legislation in the 108th Congress." 29 December 2003. Policy Archive. 12 August 2008.

Smith, Ben. "AFL-CIO Hits McCain on DHL Deal." 11 August 2008. Politico. 11 August 2008.

Sorkin, Andrew Ross. "DHL Reported To Be in Talks To Acquire Rival Shipper." 24 March 2003. New York Times. 11 August 2008.

Sorrells, Niels C. and Peter Cohn. "Appropriators Bow To Bush on Iraq Reconstruction But Many Differences Remain." Congressional Quarterly Today 8 April 2003.

Sorrells, Niels C. "Supplemental Dispute Is Going Down to the Wire." Congressional Quarterly Today 11 April 2003.

Stevens, Ted. "S. Amend. 522 (S.762)." 3 April 2003. Thomas. 12 August 2008.

U.S. Senate. "U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 1st Session: S.762." 3 April 2003. United States Senate. 12 August 2008.

Wilkinson, Howard. "McCain faces tough questions." 8 August 2008. Cincinnati Enquirer. 11 August 2008.

Yahoo Finance. "Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (ATSG): Historical Prices." Yahoo Finance. 13 August 2008.

« Prev Page

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...

"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

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
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
- Reply
- Report Abuse
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...
- Reply
- Report Abuse
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