GOP leaders: Don't 'Bob Dole' us again

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 13, 2007 | Mychal Massie

[Paul Ross]

It could be Newt, it could be Fred Thompson, or it could even be Duncan Hunter if he addresses the weaknesses in his campaign

I agree. But let's acknowledge that one of the raps against Hunter, a purported lack of humor, doesn't jive with reality. I really liked this observation Duncan made at CPAC, which was very Reaganesque in humorous tone:

After all, went the reasoning on Fox News, Hunter had his son campaigning for him the entire week before the straw poll – to which Hunter, in classic fashion responded, "You know, I woke up to ... one of the commentators saying that the only reason that Hunter beat all those guys in South Carolina is because his Marine son has been there for a week. Well, I looked down at that army of consultants – everybody who was vertical in South Carolina was hired by the other guys – and I said, 'You know, that is a good match-up: One Marine versus 550 consultants.' We did have the advantage!"

(From Hunter's speech given at Conservative Political Action Conference, Washington, D.C., March 3.)

[The Pack Knight]

I smiled when I read that the other day.

I'm not against Hunter per se, and issues-wise I agree with him more than any other currently declared candidate I can think of. I simply see nothing in his background or in his speeches so far that convinces me he'd be a successful candidate or that he'd be an effective executive. I also have some serious yet-to-be-addressed issues with his record on spending, particularly some of the junk projects he championed against the Navy's wishes. However, it might be worth it to have him as the nominee just to make the "chickenhawk"-squealing Michael Moore crowd squirm.

[Paul Ross]

I simply see nothing in his background or in his speeches so far that convinces me he'd be a successful candidate or that he'd be an effective executive.

Fair enough. There are cases where we can expect good executive conduct. Reagan being Governor CA clearly showed the way. But not all Governors are in fact good managers for the cut-throat political partisan RAT attack-dog environment. Nor would all businessmen necessarily be good government managers. McNamara wasn't. Bush wasn't. All divisive substantive policy issue disagreements aside...his managerial skills proved seriously exaggerated. A good manager can admit mistakes, and also revisit failed policy positions...and correct them.

I also have some serious yet-to-be-addressed issues with his record on spending, particularly some of the junk projects he championed against the Navy's wishes.

The 27 year career in the House will do that. But after you really dig into those "junk" projects you find that they were in fact supported by pretty damn good reasons.

And much to the dismay of the MSM which wants to try and smear him as a Randy Cunningham corrupticrat...it turns out that for rather principled reasons he OPPOSED the get-rich-scams of Brian Wilkes and his ilk like on the foreign software projects he had licensed. He wasn't for sale.

And the military services position against some such supposed "junk" was either not really the service's real position, or it was based on game-playing at some levels.

This ranges from the data conversion issue to the LC-X combat craft. A lot of times the need for a domestic manufacturer, or pushing to see if an experimental breakthrough can be achieved, is not prioritized...or sometimes considered at all by this and needless to say, the previous Administration.

A perfect example of where the military says they don't want something....but really rather badly do...but have to say otherwise...is the C-17. The finest military transport ever made. Those in logistics will tell you we need a hell of a lot more than 180 such planes...and would definitely want to keep the option of having fresh replacements in inventory for the ones that get beatup and used up. But the AirForce is dutifully playing ball with the Administration which wants to arbitrarily cut strategic defense procurements...and is cancelling further production. Just to restart the assembly lines and vendors...without producing a single plane...would cost $4.3 billion now. They could have easily kept those lines open and running for four or five years with the same amount of money just stretched into a minimal number of plane orders. But oh no. Got to kill it.

It is those kinds of inanities...which cost both the warfighter and the taxpayer ultimately... that Hunter has made his reputation opposing. He has seriously impressed Donald Rumsfeld as a "detail" guy on defense needs. Keeping a vast array of elements in his memory. He lives and breathes this stuff. To wit:

Rumsfeld effusive

In late September, Hunter was the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner in a hall at Washington's Union Station, where the hawkish defense group the Center for Security Policy presented him with its annual "Keeper of the Flame" award.

Among those lauding him at the Center for Security Policy banquet that evening was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who said the Pentagon relies on Hunter's "wisdom, his leadership, his experience and his 'get it done' attitude.'

"It is something when he comes into your office like a whirling dervish and starts discussing a subject first at the national level and then down at the microlevel, and then leaves you pieces of metal on your desk that you can hardly lift and has explained exactly where it goes, what it's for, why it should be there and then wants to know why it isn't. And God bless him for it."

Rumsfeld also said the U.S. is more secure because of Hunter.

"He's never let the troops down, and as a result of his leadership and his hard work, our nation is a safer place today," Rumsfeld told the dinner gathering that included Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

You obviously have some idea about his seriously sterling defense mindset. And no one amongst us conservatives can fault your thinking for your final sentiment...which we can all heartily agree with:

However, it might be worth it to have him as the nominee just to make the "chickenhawk"-squealing Michael Moore crowd squirm.

Indeed, it would.

[Paul Ross]

FYI:

This evening, Congressman Hunter will be appearing on MSNBC's Hardball at 5:30 PM EST and CNN's Lou Dobb's Tonight at 6:30 PM EST to discuss his recent trip to Iraq and his plan for the successful handoff of battlefield duties to the Iraqi army.

At 7:18 AM EST tomorrow, Congressman Hunter will be appearing on FOX and Friends to discuss the same topic.

www.gohunter08.com

[The Pack Knight]

A perfect example of where the military says they don't want something....but really rather badly do...but have to say otherwise...is the C-17.

The C-17 is an interesting case. As a tactical transport, it's clearly a necessity. However, there are many more routine "administrative" duties it is being expected to perform that could be handled by a much cheaper aircraft, like, say, a converted 747 such as what FedEx flies. Sort of the same thing as all the HMMWV's the Army likes to use as staff cars and utility transportation, when they're really designed to be tactical vehicles.

The Air Force needs more than 180 new transport planes. I don't think it really needs more than 180 new planes with advanced avionics and navigation systems. This is the whole problem with bureaucracies. It's easy to overlook these things when you're spending someone else's money.

[Paul Ross]

The Air Force needs more than 180 new transport planes. I don't think it really needs more than 180 new planes with advanced avionics and navigation systems. This is the whole problem with bureaucracies. It's easy to overlook these things when you're spending someone else's money.

Actually, the numbers requirements were for 210 C-17s in the initial Pentagon Orders under Caspar Weinberger and President Reagan.

The Democrats, when they got control of both Houses cut the order to 120 planes and relied upon the propaganda put out by the GAO in a "study". In fact, it was their Leftwing-stuffed-shirts in the GAO which suggested we could get by with 60 C-17s, and 40 commercial freighters.

That's where this all comes from. And while indeed, some of the work, hauling personnel and such between civilized locations, could be done by commercial freighters...we do need the 210 C-17s for the maximum contingency of rough fields. But we don't have that. We got 180. And that was thanks to the Republican Congress which came in after 1994 and started trying to undo some of the DemocRAT damage. But under both of them....for some odd reason, despite the proposed "savings" option of commercial freighters...they never seem to get bought. Ever. It likely seems inappropriate to be buying the lesser planes because we still haven't gotten the numbers of the ones we need.

But I'm with you, that if the undue pressure and over-use of the C-17s [already triggering a surprise AirForce request for "exceptional maintenance and repairs" due to unforseen levels of usage...weighing in at $1.3 billion I think]....can be mitigated with some "throwaway" commercial freighters...we should try and save some money.

But we're not really "saving money" by shutting off the hot line of C-17s with less than we need for the real mission.

[Paul Ross]

Pinging FYI

Any points that you feel need to be made about this formerly McDonnell-Douglas bird?

This may qualify as spilt milk and all that, but I've a question for those with institutional memory: How the heck did M-D beat out Boeing for the contract in the first place? A deliberate underbid?