Perhaps the reason BSP is so critical about legacy media types dunking bloggers over accuracy is that we often find that the mainstream media has a really difficult time reporting simple facts about Tim Walz.
The Strib reprints a New York Times report on the bailout bill for the automakers and the inaccuracy is glaring. In GOP revolt threatens auto bailout deal, we read this passage:
Elsewhere, the Strib posts an accurate Associated Press roll call of the vote . The Strib essentially screws the pooch as far accuracy goes for reporting the votes of 2/5 of Minnesota's DFLers in the House in the longer article; the AP has the vote right, placing "N"s beside Walz and Peterson.
Folks, here's the official roll call vote on the bill. Readers don't have to take our word for the vote--or the Strib's. Click on that link, and you'll find the Clerk of the House's record of the vote. Congressman Tim Walz voted against the bill, as did Congressman Peterson.
We have to ask: where does the Strib come up with this crap when it edits an NYTimes article? [Update: a note for clarity: the New York Times article didn't contain the error in fact about the votes by two members of Minnesota's congressional delegation, nor did it focus that tightly on Minnesota at all; that paragraph appears to have been added by an editor at the Star Tribune. [end update]
KETC-TV in Mankato gets it right, and even manages to report Walz's reason for voting against the measure. The Rochester Post Bulletin's headline correctly summarizes area representatives' votes: Walz, Kline vote against House auto bailout bill.
The PB reports:
Meanwhile, Walz, the DFL 1st District representative from Mankato, said he voted against it for the same reason he voted against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout package earlier this year. Kline voted for that measure.
"Nothing in this bill will prevent the auto manufacturers and their suppliers from continuing to move jobs overseas," Walz said in a statement released after his vote. "And we have no guarantee that spending $15 billion in taxpayers' money will actually solve the Big Three's problems. We must preserve and create jobs in America but this isn't the way to do it."
Some nights, we just have to wonder if there's something in the water up there. Time to take a blogger to the blog cabin for forty lashes.
Update: MinnPost follows the Strib's leadership on this one:
The House approved the plan mostly along party lines. In Minnesota's delegation, Republican Jim Ramstad joined Democrats Betty McCollum, Collin Peterson, Tim Walz and Jim Oberstar in supporting the legislation. Democrat Keith Ellison did not vote. Republicans John Kline and Michele Bachmann voted against the bill.
That paragraph is awfully close to the Strib's version in the screenshot above (and equally incorrect about the Walz and Peterson votes), though not attributed:
The House approved the plan, 237 to 170, mostly along party lines. Among Minnesota's delegation, Republican Jim Ramstad joined Democrats Betty McCollum, Collin Peterson, Tim Walz and Jim Oberstar in backing the measure. Democrat Keith Ellison did not vote. Republicans John Kline and Michele Bachmann voted against the measure.
The Minnesota Independent gets it right in Minnesota delegation mixed on auto bailout and even manages to quote the statement Walz released after the vote. Fancy that. As the old joke goes, time for a seminar on blogger ethics. [end update]
Image: A screenshot of the Strib's article; see second paragraph, on the lower lefthand corner.
Can we say that the Auto Bailout bill was passed on a bi-partisan vote … after all there were 32 Republican crossovers and 20 Democrat crossovers. No doubt, many Representatives just voted based on party leadership instruction, but the crossovers defied the leadership and voted either on the legislation’s merits or the impact in their home district. I think Pete Stark (D-CA) and Minnesota’s Colin Peterson and Tim Walz voted on their philosophy of government as all three voted against the Alternative Minimum Tax legislation as well as October’s bailout of the financial industry. Voting in a fiscal responsible manner has been a hallmark for these three.
Time will tell whether the Democrats that voted against the Auto Bailout were right, but it’s not to early to tell that the $700B TARP Bailout is not working … just listen to any of the hearings that Barney Frank has held … including yesterday where Republicans and Democrats attacked the Treasury leadership.
They were right on TARP. It has solved nothing and actually has set-up tax breaks for banks. (PNC Bank is entitled to a $5.5 billion tax break in acquiring National City that is almost equal to National City’s purchase price, and will also get National City’s share of $7.7 billion in bailout money. Wells Fargo acquisition of Wachovia would have the same effect. See also Capital One acquisition of Chevy Chase Bank.)
And like the TARP legislation, the Auto Bailout has provisions involving IRS section 382 whereby the federal government would serve as the guarantor in Sale-in-Lease-out (SILO) tax shelters … and who benefits from this … yep, banks !
The TARP legislation essentially created a “CreditCrisisCzar” in the form of the Paulson … do we really want a “Car Czar” … haven’t we learned the lessons when Jerry Bremer was given all the power as Iraq’s Czar? And Senate Republicans, like Norm Coleman, are concerned that the Car Czar doesn’t have enough power.
That’s two good reasons why the list above deserves credit (and why I voted for Tim Walz).
Should tax dollars be used to save the Auto Industry, or improve the economy? Although, Americans have concerns for Detroit operations, I have more concerns for operations that support the auto industry. How will any of that money maintain lower tier businesses? A massive infrastructure program makes sense … providing money for two car makers does not. What would it take for you to buy a new car now (ignore the question if it’s a Big-Three vehicle) … unless Congress enacts tax cuts to promote vehicle purchases, the Big-Three will just bide time. The monies would be better spent by providing the states with monies for unemployment benefits and food programs … since the lower tier companies will have workforce reductions. Long term, the Big-Three is suffering from retirement and medical programs … that is something that this Bailout will not address … but something the 111th Congress must.
Posted by: MinnesotaCentral | December 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM