Plum line may have distorted the statement from Kerry's office in their title

[karynnj]

Here is the Hill report. Their take is merely that Kerry is open to supporting it. If you look at the statement itself, it has the same position Kerry had last September when he co-wrote the op-ed with Graham. It also does not say that this will give 60 votes. It says Kerry is looking to find what deals could get 60 votes.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/90061-kerry-endorses-obama-drilling-plan

Kerry is in the Middle East - so he likely has not commented personally on this.

Rereading the Plumline comment from Smith, her comment does NOT say definitively that Kerry supports the Obama plan, nor does it say what the Plumline title says. It simply says what has been said before that Kerry has shown openness - that he didn't in the past - to allow some OFS drilling if it was what was needed to get 60 votes. This has been true for more than 6 months - going back to when he and Graham wrote their op-ed.

(It is interesting that I did read the Plumline article and did not catch that their title went beyond the statement that Whitney Smith put out. This makes sense as Senator Kerry is in the Middle East http://www.digtriad.com/news/national_world/article.aspx?storyid=139771&catid=175 and likely did not personally comment. )

Any opinions on whether the Plum line or the Hill reported this straight?

[Cha]

1. Wow! I actually thought about the

way that was worded..and it turns out ..it wasn't exactly correct..actually a big differnce. Thanks, karyn.

[karynnj]

2. I am embarrassed to admit that I did not catch it until I read the Hill article

which was actually based on the statement given to Plumline. I really give a lot of credit to the Hill's reporter who based his story just on the office's statement. Both the title and the paragraph after the statement include conclusions - that while they could be true, do NOT follow from the statement.

It looks to me like Whitney Smith gave a pretty innocuous statement based on various Kerry comments over the last 6 months and the Plum line wanted to create news.

[Cha]

3. Right..there's no way it should

have been worded that way.. a lot of the "media" online and off take way too many liberties.

[karynnj]

4. Yep - and on DU alone over 1,700 people have read the misleading Plumline article

and 94 have read this - and at least one person unreccomended it without commenting. (If they thought I was wrong, it would have been better to explain why.)

[blm]

7. You need to change 'may have' to DID DISTORT

.

[karynnj]

8. I would rather err on the side of being not strong enough here, than too strong

I opted to be tentative, because I originally read the article without seeing the discrepancy - needing a different article based on the same statement to see it. In addition, a huge number of people read it without commenting on that. This suggests that the distortion is somewhat subtle.

I suspect that the plum line was looking for a statement that Kerry was either for this or against it. Instead what he got from the Kerry office was a statement that acknowledged that Kerry has been open to finding a way to getting 60 votes on pricing carbon - and that to do this he has been open to things that he has always in the past been a definite no on.

This shows the incredible priority he places on putting a price on carbon as a way to force the levels down. I have not heard anything in the Obama plan that makes this opening contingent on passing a comprehensive bill - though there have been comments that it was to gain support for the legislation. If it is a stand alone give away, it actually takes a tool away from KLG.

As Kerry is in the middle east, it looks like his office gave a "don't make news" comment that did not change Kerry's position at all, but Plumline was prepared to take anything other than a definite "NO" as being in favor. That said - from the actual statement, it is very possible that if this proposal - or a variation on it - if it is intended to be included in the bill AND if it gets a reasonable number of additional votes (netting out any who switch from yes to no), then Kerry might reluctantly agree to it.

[blm]

10. heheh...I understand your reasoning.....it's what makes you a solid poster....

I am far more cynical about the corporate media and its intentions towards the progressive movement and to John Kerry in particular.

[Moochy]

5. K&R for clarity

Thanks for pointing out the spin! :kick:

Whether or Kerry supports allowing it to get to the magical 60 votes, is two weeks of national oil consumption worth it?

The private oil companies who refine this will only sell it to whomever will pay the most, which will most likely be China.

It's a bum deal, which is why Candidate Obama and Senator Kerry were against it before now.

[karynnj]

9. Candidate Obama actually was for it in August 2008 - likely because

70% of the country was for it. Kerry was against it explaining that the amount was too small to change the price, which is the price of an international commodity. He made the same points you did.

[blm]

6. Funny how corpmedia makes sure the distortions play out, especially when they know Kerry's out

of the country.