Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by TarHeelWtrFwlr, Mar 19, 2008.
Wonder if the 150,000 Boeing employees are going to vote McCain, or Dem, or just stay home ?
Newton said "for every action there is a reaction, equal in force and opposite in direction"
Sure will make for an interesting election.
Wonder if McCain gives a crap since the location of Boeing employees are in democrat hotbeds that he wouldn't have a chance of winning even if he doubled the contract volume and gave it to Boeing. An extra added bonus is that the place where the planes and engines will now be built are in states that either support McCain or are on the bubble.
As to the Boeing deal...
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
Patriot Tanker Games
March 18, 2008; Page A22
Boeing last week lodged a formal protest over its loss of a $35 billion contract for U.S. Air Force refueling tankers. If the company wants to anger a big customer by further delaying what the Pentagon considers its highest-priority procurement program, it has that right. But the complaint also adds fuel to the misguided calls on Capitol Hill for "patriotism" in defense procurement.
Members whose districts include Boeing facilities are up in arms because the winning team is co-led by European Aeronautic Defence & Space Co. (EADS), whose owners include Daimler AG and the French, Spanish and Russian governments. Senator Patty Murray went so far as to question whether the U.S. was "going to lose our ability to build airplanes on American soil." Thousands of jobs, the Washington Democrat said, were headed "to the guillotine."
Ms. Murray is one of those liberals who want to build weapons but never use them. But her claim will come as a surprise to the thousands of workers in Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina and other states who will help build the new KC-45 for EADS and its Los Angeles-based partner Northrop Grumman. The modern aerospace biz is an increasingly global affair, and more than half of the Northrop/EADS tanker (by value) will be made in America. Much of Boeing's tanker would also have been built outside the U.S.
So the noise on the Hill isn't even a case of the patriotisme économique typical of EADS's native France. What's really going on is a familiar scrum for federal cash, with politicians from Washington and Kansas using nationalism as cover for their pork-barreling. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican, has even talked about a ban on companies whose home governments don't spend 2% of GDP on their militaries, which would include most of Europe.
The numbers about which tanker bid would have created more jobs are impossible to confirm and meaningless. The Pentagon's job is to defend the country, which means letting contracts that best serve American soldiers and taxpayers, not certain companies. Defense Department rules explicitly state that jobs cannot be a factor in procurement and that companies from certain countries, including France, must be treated as if they are U.S. firms in contract bids. Such competition ensures that taxpayers get the best value for their money and soldiers get the best technology.
Competition, though, is a two-way street. If Congress tries to keep European firms out of the U.S. defense market, it will invite retaliation. Not all European nations have open markets, but it would be a big blow to Boeing and other American defense contractors if they were locked out of the entire EU because Congress started a trade war.
As for Boeing's actual protest, the company alleges that Air Force requirements for the new flying gas stations were modified along the way to keep Northrop/EADS in the competition. Boeing says this ended up tilting the field in its rivals' favor.
This complaint is a technical, rules-based one that the Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, will presumably examine on the merits. Whatever those merits, this long-running matter needs to be concluded quickly. The Air Force had planned to lease tankers from Boeing until a 2004 ethics scandal in which a senior Air Force official pushed the deal while holding job talks with Boeing. It took until late last month to finish the rebidding.
The current U.S. tanker fleet dates to the early years of the Cold War. Even at the replacement rate envisioned in the EADS contract, the last of the existing tankers won't be relieved until mid-century -- some 80 years after they were built. Tankers aren't the most sophisticated aircraft, but they ensure that fighters and bombers can carry out missions far from base. Given the emphasis on air supremacy in modern warfare, that importance can't be overstated.
Protectionists in Congress want to make America's soldiers wait even longer for this new equipment, all to score political points at home. There's a word for that, but it's not patriotism.
Missouri, Alabama and Kansas are Democrat hotbeds ?
Who Knew ?
St.Louis, Huntsville, Wichita, all big Boeing locations.
But you are correct in a larger sense, McCain will probably be better than either Dem.
Y'all go ahead and fly Airbus - - - -
I'll wait for a Boeing equipped flight
No, but Washington and California, where 2/3's of Boeing employees work are.
I know nothing about airplanes and don't claim to, but that post makes about as much sense as this one will:
That's why Rush asked Texans to vote for Hillary, to keep the chaos going.