Posted on 03/15/2008 3:52:13 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
John McCain might be taking this maverick thing a bit far. I mean, sending good aviation jobs to France?At least that's the charge from Boeing backers, who accuse the Arizona senator of helping Airbus get a $35 billion Air Force tanker contract at the expense of American jobs, including hundreds of them right here in the Air Capital.
Boeing supporters, looking for a villain in this economic defeat, have put McCain in their crosshairs.
"I hope the voters of this state remember what John McCain has done to them and their jobs," said Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat.
Many Republicans, too, are unhappy with McCain's role.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, told The Eagle editorial board last week that he thought McCain was dead wrong on this issue.
"I'm going to learn to love him," Tiahrt said of his party's nominee, with as much conviction as he could muster.
But Tiahrt clearly wasn't feeling the love on this issue.
Take McCain's comment that creating jobs shouldn't be a factor in military procurement contracts.
Tiahrt begged to differ. "McCain needs to make a decision," he said. "I want him to come down on the side of American jobs."
For many Americans, it's that simple.
McCain, for his part, says he's simply worked hard to ensure a fair competition and the best weapons systems for our troops.
The attacks on McCain may backfire. After all, McCain was right back in 2004 to scuttle the previous tanker deal after he helped expose a bribery scandal involving an Air Force buyer and Boeing executives.
McCain's crusading arguably saved taxpayers billions of dollars and rooted out corruption in the procurement process.
Back then, Boeing's wounds were self-inflicted.
And it's possible the company simply lost on the merits this time around.
If so, that's not McCain's fault.
All sides perhaps should take a deep breath and wait for the General Accounting Office to review Boeing's formal protest -- a ruling is expected within 100 days.
Boeing's main objection seems to be that the Air Force allegedly switched criteria, telling Boeing that a smaller tanker would fit the mission and then rewarding Airbus for its larger plane.
If the Air Force has reasonable explanations for its criteria and evaluation process, then this will blow over.
Of more concern for McCain, though, are reports that he intervened to help Airbus in this latest tanker competition by persuading the Air Force not to disqualify or penalize Airbus for receiving subsidies from European governments.
Again, McCain says he wanted to ensure competition, but Boeing supporters rightly ask: How does ignoring Airbus' subsidies ensure a level playing field?
What could most hurt McCain, I think, are reports that several of his top campaign advisers worked as lobbyists for Airbus last year, during the height of the tanker competition.
Ouch.
Details of their lobbying haven't come out yet. There may be nothing improper in what they did.
But it again shows how McCain, who prides himself on independence and taking on lobbyists, has surrounded himself with staff members who seem to be embedded with the enemy.
That might be the biggest target on McCain's back.
Some have even asked whether McCain's bad publicity on the tanker deal could put Kansas in play this fall for a Democrat such as Barack Obama, who polls well here and has questioned the Airbus contract.
Obama might have a chance in Kansas, but I doubt that McCain's tanker role will be a major factor.
Chances are, the deal will have faded as a hot-button issue by the time the general election gets under way.
But it could return to haunt McCain here, if the perception persists that he helped tipped the scales in Airbus' favor.
Kansans like mavericks, but they also like jobs.
For now, though, the Democratic candidates are too busy mauling each other on issues of gender and race to turn their sights on McCain.
As Geraldine Ferraro might say, McCain's just lucky.
Please it's a tanker. For the latter half of the 60s the French Nuclear deterrent relied on Boeing built KC-135Fs to get its bombers to Moscow. That didn't seemd to bother them.
Americans, they make the French look manly.
Was that before they pulled out of the military part of NATO in '66?
Were the French producing long range strategic tankers back then?
” Please it’s a tanker. For the latter half of the 60s the French Nuclear deterrent relied on Boeing built KC-135Fs to get its bombers to Moscow. That didn’t seemd to bother them.”
What do fighters and bombers need to reach their targets, why they need fuel. Tankers are critical.
“Americans, they make the French look manly. “
Thats only cause we Americans shower on a regular basis.
Anything that keeps strategic assets in the air and circumnavigating countries (and so called allies - Like France) that won't allow flyovers for political/military reasons IS a "Strategic Asset".
We up to speed on that now, OB?
“I would also add... and C-17 & C-5A ‘s ....”
Didn’t mean to exclude those. Pretty hard to drops bombs if some cargo plane hasn’t hauled them across the ocean. Not to mention all the other stuff.
To be sure: My Browning FN Hi-Power and Shotgun are prized possessions.
Small arms, and Radios are commodities. Too many home grown companies could replace them in a heart beat. Hell, IBM even produced arms for the War Department in WWII!
Large Multi Million (a piece) strategic military assets cannot be so quickly replaced with domestic suppliers if the need arises.
>>BTW: Did you know Russia owns at least a 5% stake in EADS, and would like more?<<
I agree with you.
The point is that awarding the contract to EADS increases the risk that unfriendly nations could be involved with our defense suppliers. Russia has long standing relations with Iran. In 1943 Stalin insisted that Roosevelt and Churchill meet him in Tehran.
If you could add to your tagline: ... and they’ll sell out our military capabilities to any foreign government.
while, I disagree w/ Sinister Juan "Keating Five" McCranky, on many things.....Boeing did try to bribe (or did bribe) gov. officials and the "deal" would've cost taxpayer 6 billion on a leasing agreement....
this "article" smells...badly. *is it from $hrillarys' DNC*
A good acquaintance of mine is an ex Boeing executive (he was a VP in charge of the 767 for a decade). He was shocked that Boeing even got the chance to bid again, considering the criminal acts when the bid first came up in 2002-2003 (for which Boeing staff actually served time in prison).
Boeing in this case lost fair and square, and its incumbent upon our DOD to get the best they can for the dollars equipped. IF we went to war and France did not want to supply us, Boeing would be called upon to get new tankers rolling. We’d use the existing fleet for the year or so until replacements were needed/ready. It’s why you maintain a standing force and supplies - to hold you until you can get more production ramped up.
Too true, much of what Boeing sells in made in China for example....
If EADS and thier American partners land this and produce the A/C, the Boeing slime machine will find something else to complain about.
They already have a massive number of FedGov contracts - mostly disasters, the latest, the ‘border’ fence. Sorry Boeing, you lost. Man up and move on....
>>If you could add to your tagline: ... and they’ll sell out our military capabilities to any foreign government.<<
I don’t like McCain at all, but in this case, as I understand it, he wanted to open the bidding to Airbus, but the Air Force made the decision. If it turns out that McCain twisted arms to get the contract for Airbus, he could be in trouble. Boeing and Airbus both claim that their aircraft are cheaper and better. The dilemma is: How to ensure that our military buys from US producers without allowing some companies to overcharge the taxpayers?
Meanwhile, our industrial base capable of supplying the military continues to decline, as the Air Force admits, and I don’t think that is good.
Boeing vice president and general manager for global mobility systems Ron Marcotte wasn’t impressed by size, however. “In the final request for proposals, it became clear that the Air Force wants an agile, medium-size tanker,” he said. “It’s all about the number of booms in the sky,” he added.Maybe the Air Force thinks also it's all about the booms but not about the sole number in the sky.
(http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/tanker-competition-a-real-dogfight)
Boeing displayed a KC-767 here two years ago and had a head start with orders for four each from Italy and Japan. But development ran into aerodynamic problems with the wing-mounted refueling pods and the digital fuel-transfer system. Deliveries of KC-767s to both countries are seriously behind schedule, though Boeing said that fixes are in hand and about to be flight-tested.
IMHO, Part of the problem we're seeing is a result of the consolidation of our defense industries. I'm not sure allowing Boeing to buy MD was such a good idea. Both Northrop and Lockheed are capable of building a tanker, and Lockheed actually has some experience there, while Northrop's larger aircraft have been limited. Of course Northrop never really had a viable commercial offering, and Grumman's larger aircraft are not large enough. Leaving just Lockheed with any experience with large commercial airframes that lend themselves to this application.
I'm all for competition, but I'm also for keeping large strategic assets "in-house" so to speak, and one of the reasons for that line of thought is that which you mentioned.
As for McCain, yea, he may have an ax to grind with Boeing, and Boeing (former MD execs IIRC) along with people in the Airforce, were responsible for that debacle. People are in jail, heavy fines have been paid, and Boeing's CEO at the time resigned in disgrace.
And there's the so far alluded to changes in the RFP for various reasons. A whisper here, a whisper there, money talks, and future funding requests for other (AF) projects can be put in doubt if certain political games are not played. Some here have expressed doubts about such things, but there is actually a lot of precedent for it when Billion dollar contracts are at stake.
The whole thing smells.
And I put much of the blame for that on an Administration that's really not too interested in a border fence. Perhaps by failing, Boeing did right (if you catch my drift).
Now aircraft on the other hand...
Boeing is a major pig at the FedGov trough.
They squeal the loudest when they get the slops (pork) they think is “theirs”.
But, that just my view of a lot of the beltway bandits.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.