McCain Acceptance Speech, Numbers and Fact-Check

[Pangloss]

Well here's one surprise: Apparently McCain drew even more viewers than Obama, by half a million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2008/09/01/daily33.html

 

More than 38.9 million people watched McCain on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, Telemundo or Univision, according to The Nielsen Co. results. A week earlier, Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver was watched by 38.4 million viewers.

 

I still think Obama's numbers fed McCain's and Palin's numbers, but I'm just guessing there.

 

Anyway, FactCheck.org has an article up on McCain's acceptance speech:

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

 

A couple of highlights:

McCain claimed that Obama’s health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor." In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

 

McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

 

McCain said oil imports send "$700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." But the U.S. is on track to import a total of only $536 billion worth of oil at current prices, and close to a third of that comes from Canada, Mexico and the United Kingdom.

 

And this one responds to what is becoming a very popular meme amongst McCain supporters:

 

He said Obama would "close" markets to trade. In fact, Obama, though he once said he wanted to "renegotiate" the North American Free Trade Agreement, now says he simply wants to try to strengthen environmental and labor provisions in it.

 

It just doesn't feel right to me, these accusations that Obama is anti-free trade. I think he's just, to steal a popular phrase from another subject, right-sizing it.

 

In fact, Obama has said he thinks it's unwise to repeal the trade deal, because to do so "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains." And in a June interview with Fortune magazine, he stated that he didn’t plan on pulling out of NAFTA. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he said.

 

It's true that McCain has been a stronger advocate of free trade agreements than Obama, who supported the trade deal with Oman in 2006 and one with Peru in 2007 but opposed the one with Central America and another with Colombia. But saying he would "close" markets is nonsense.

 

Free trade is going to require continual adjustment, to reflect disparities between nations in the area of labor costs, benefits, and other factors.

[bascule]

McCain's speech was certainly less invective-laced than Palin's, but contained more egregious factual inaccuracies than Obama's

[CDarwin]

(Only vaguely on topic rant) Of course how much of 'renegotiate NAFTA' comes down to 'screw Mexico with tariffs'? NAFTA has been a relatively unmitigated success in all the countries in involved (it precipitated no less than an economic and democratic revolution in Mexico, with the GDP shooting up and the first free multiparty elections in the country's history being held). Talk about environmental concerns and market distortions are fine and noble, but I don't know how much of that can really be enforced without punitive tariffs that just give big economies that were allowed to grow and dominate unfettered with such concerns unfair advantages (especially when they keep up with subsidies).

 

But, no, I wouldn't call Obama anti-free trade either. I don't think any serious observer or policy maker is any more.

[Pangloss]

Then punitive tariffs it is. What's so unusual about that? We make laws to require companies to do what they're supposed to do, and then we enforce them. What's the alternative? Sure it can be difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

[swansont]

I still think Obama's numbers fed McCain's and Palin's numbers, but I'm just guessing there.

 

Obama's speech was on a Friday night and McCain's was on a Thursday. Different viewing habits also come into play — not as much TV watching in general on Friday, AFAIK.

[Pangloss]

Well yes, but I think people decided to watch McCain in part because they had watched Obama the previous week. I.E. it had nothing to do with viewing habits. On the other hand, it comes during a lull in network programming, so maybe you have a point.

[CDarwin]

Then punitive tariffs it is. What's so unusual about that? We make laws to require companies to do what they're supposed to do, and then we enforce them. What's the alternative? Sure it can be difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

 

But it gives our economy an unfair advantage, and I think that's a lot of why it's done. We have a massive, developed economy that became so under none of the restrictions we now want to impose on Mexico's. And what's more, we subsidize that massive economy in those sectors where it directly competes with developing nations'. Mexico's economy, by contrast is 1/13th the size, and has drastically cut subsidies since the 1990s when it began to neoliberalize in line with US and European wishes.

 

Basically, by violating the spirit of NAFTA with tariffs functionally directed at its weakest member, you risk undoing all the good it's done for that country. You risk job loss and a slide in GDP and you risk destabilizing it's infant liberal democracy. And I think these things are more likely to lead to the results we want than imposition from the outside in trade deals to which Mexico is practically captive.

 

If the Obama wants to seriously and fairly improve NAFTA, than he needs to put on the table cutting subsidies and providing capital for Mexican industry to make the improvements necessary to comply with any new labor or environmental supplements. I don't know if that's politically possible, though. That's a big reason why the Doha round of trade negotiations broke down, by the way. Industrialized countries refused to drop subsidies. They're like economic crack.

Edited September 6, 2008 by CDarwin

[iNow]

Well yes, but I think people decided to watch McCain in part because they had watched Obama the previous week. I.E. it had nothing to do with viewing habits. On the other hand, it comes during a lull in network programming, so maybe you have a point.

 

Studies show that people are much more likely to go out and leave their homes on Fridays than on Thursdays. It's pretty straight forward, but of course we cannot chalk this up to one single thing. It's a combination of factors.

 

It's also more likely that a democrat would watch the republican convention to learn more about the opponent than a republican would watch the democratic convention (where they feel it's all leftie liberal crap to which they cannot expose themselves). I am, of course, speaking in generalities, and there will of course be outliers in both groups, but my anecdotal encounters these past several days certainly lend support to the conjecture. YMMV.

 

Also, more people watched the republicans because we are so hungry to learn information about the relatively unknown Palin pick. Obama has been vetted for 2 years, under public scrutiny, and during INTENSE primaries. Palin is a no-name from nowhere that nobody knows, so this was a chance to learn about why she was picked and who she is.

 

 

 

That said, I find McCain's inaccuracies and questionable facts not very statesmen-like. More republican slander due to a lack of fortitude and ability on the issues themselves. Joe Biden summed it up rather well here (still partisan and somewhat of an attack, I concede, but he's still at least making an insightful point):

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=955Y3NJTRIE

[bascule]

Obama's speech was on a Friday night and McCain's was on a Thursday. Different viewing habits also come into play — not as much TV watching in general on Friday, AFAIK.

 

Actually Obama's speech was on a Thursday as well...

[Pangloss]

Studies show that people are much more likely to go out and leave their homes on Fridays than on Thursdays.

 

Interesting! I guess that makes sense, given the standard work week and its demands. Now I know why the conventions ended on Thursday nights. I wondered about that. That seems to tie in also with the whole Friday night "taking out the trash" news metaphor.

 

 

It's also more likely that a democrat would watch the republican convention to learn more about the opponent than a republican would watch the democratic convention (where they feel it's all leftie liberal crap to which they cannot expose themselves). I am, of course, speaking in generalities, and there will of course be outliers in both groups, but my anecdotal encounters these past several days certainly lend support to the conjecture. YMMV.

 

Could be. I think I agree with you -- hardcore liberals seems to like to listen to the opposition more than hardcore conservatives. Kinda goes back to the whole CTR thing. Liberals have Air America and The Daily Show (which isn't as bad but it's comparable to less extreme conservative commentators, I suppose), but I don't think they've really caught up in the media world with CTR and its ilk just yet.

 

But yeah, I think liberals deserve some credit here for at least listening better than conservatives. (Present company excluded, of course -- most of our resident SFN conservatives seem to be pretty good listeners. With the exception of myself, that is -- I usually have to be told something two or three times!)

 

 

That said, I find McCain's inaccuracies and questionable facts not very statesmen-like.

 

Now you know how I feel when I listen to Obama distort and meander around the truth regarding McCain and Republicans. Politics in the 21st century, I guess.

[swansont]

Actually Obama's speech was on a Thursday as well...

 

Mea culpa. I misread the calendar.

[Bignose]

I know that it probably wouldn't be easily passed or easily enforced, but I'd like to see more free trade with one major restriction. That for every item that is imported, that it has to be manufactured/produced with labor that was paid at the the current U.S. minimum wage. That would eliminate sweatshops and probably significantly reduce the elimination of a lot of the manufacturing jobs here in the U.S. because while not a lot of jobs are minimum wage here, it is probably still a lot cheaper to pay people above minimum wage than it is to pay someone minimum wage and then also pay to transport it.

 

Like I said, I know that this probably won't be passed or easily enforced -- someone would have to interview the workers constantly to ensure they are being paid the U.S. minimum wage -- but I think that it is a fair way to still allow fair trade while still protecting U.S. workers.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting subject in itself and may deserve it's own thread. I must confess I don't know enough about the pros and cons of trade balancing along a wage-earning axis (perhaps scaled for cost-of-living). I'd like to learn more about it.

[iNow]

Is there no longer any political risk for saying things which are demonstrably untrue about your opponent? Does debunking no longer have a place in modern politcs? I wish more news pieces were like this one:

 

[john5746]

Like I said, I know that this probably won't be passed or easily enforced -- someone would have to interview the workers constantly to ensure they are being paid the U.S. minimum wage -- but I think that it is a fair way to still allow fair trade while still protecting U.S. workers.

 

One of the benefits of trade is to leverage the low wage earner or cheaper resources in other countries so we can concentrate on automation and innovation. Unfortunately, we are falling behind in that area as well.

[bascule]

Is there no longer any political risk for saying things which are demonstrably untrue about your opponent? Does debunking no longer have a place in modern politcs?

 

Judging from the response on SFN, it only matters if you're a liberal