Jonathan Martin asks "Does tanker deal push Washington off McCain's map?"
Maybe.
Let's presume it should even be on the map. Given the last few election cycles that's an open question. And if McCain is competitive in Washington state that probably means other states critical to a Democratic victory have slipped to the Republican column in the process.
Either way, the mere appearance that individuals with close ties to McCain were employed as lobbyists in favor of EADS is more than enough ammunition for Democrats to add to an already full bandoleer. They can deploy such shots in two clear forms in the coming months:
1) Targeted mail, phone banking, and door belling - from 3rd party organizations such as the State Democrats or unions - to pound McCain among the blue collar workers he would otherwise need to pry away from the Democratic nominee to have a real chance at Washington state.
2) Earned media from surrogates. Our largely Democratic Congressional delegation has had much to say on the issue, and could easily be seen escalating their rhetoric to burn McCain at every opportunity. That includes bracketing possible visits by McCain or his own surrogates to the state to knock them off message.
Meanwhile, Boeing has filed a protest to the tanker contract competition, in which their best grounds for objection appear to be the possibility that the flux in the size of the requested tanker negated Boeing's opportunity to offer a proposal based on the larger 777 rather than the mid-sized 767. Who knows how that will fare.
Of course, the politically opportunistic hackles from Democrats omit the lurid beginnings to this affair, in which Boeing engaged in behavior that eventually led to revelations of broad and deep scandals; which read like a how-to book on not to run a large, multi-national corporation with business before the federal government. Thankfully, there is new, ethic-focused leadership at the corporate helm with the hot-selling 787 working out the kinks in the pipeline.
This blogger has gleefully cheered Boeing's current management and the initial success of the 787 line. But let's not forget the mess Boeing's own repellent behavior created at the beginning of the tanker contract saga. Even as Democrats take the understandable opportunity to score points in spades.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 11, 2008 08:12 PM | Email ThisMy research indicates that the Grumman design was superior in EVERY RESPECT, and that the Air Force will be able to BUY 167 tankers for what the whiney, sniveling, Patty Powerful was going to hose us for LEASING 100 of them.
I sincerely hope that the democrats do come after him with this: McCain should be able to stuff it up their noses.
Posted by: Hinton on March 11, 2008 08:45 PMI hope the people of Washington are not so parochial that they would want to award Boeing a clearly inferior and corrupt deal just because it's Boeing.
As for the lobbyists who have some connection with the McCain campaign, look at the deal on the merits. Sometimes you have to hire lobbyists just to keep from getting screwed. Because Boeing sure as hell has them.
The polling here shows McCain running well, particularly against the Clintons, winning in the last two I've seen. This state could be in play. At the momement, the polling shows McCain doing better here than in Ohio.
But maybe I should just assume the worst--Washington is probably too Democrat anyway and the Boeing deal just caps it.
Posted by: besquared on March 11, 2008 08:50 PM
How is he on the FIRST Amendment to the US Constitution? The SECOND? Etc, etc, ad infinitum.
How is he on protecting our borders from terrorists/illegal aliens? (Without some minimum screening system, say, a fence, perhaps, how strong can he be on protecting the USA?)
I'd vote for him just every bit as soon as I'd vote for Hussein Obama or Billery. That is to say: NEVER.
Posted by: cmiklich on March 11, 2008 08:51 PMBut what about Ohio, Kansas and Illinois? And their neighbors?
And the issue has general appeal. Folks already believe that jobs are going overseas as is, but when they see the USAF giving jobs to Airbus, who benefits from government subsidies, folks won't repsond nicely, no matter what state their in.
And the fact that McCain found corruption at Boeing won't get him anywhere.
Eric, I think it was unfair of you to dump on Boeing so early in the game.
For those of you interested in this, go to
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/03/10/2004273079.pdf
to get a summary of Boeing's take on this issue.
-Dave
P.S. Where's Rossi on this? He's on Boeing's side, right?
Eric, you need to drop this stupid criticism of the previous deal. The lease thing is a red herring. The USAF was trying to make a PUBLIC statement to the Congress that they needed funding. Although leasing is not normal for gov't contracts, it is very common in the commercial side of the business to help airlines fund their purchases. Everything about the deal was PUBLIC. And yes, there was some hanky panky going on between a McDonnell Douglas Exec and and an AF officer. But these folks got busted and went to jail, the CEO was replaced, and all Boeing employees (from top brass to janitors) must spend hours in ethics training each year.
That McCain saved the gov't billions is a fallacy. In the long run, it's going to cost billion$ more. McCain has a hatred for Boeing, pure and simple. I suspect it is left-over from MD days, and the feelings remained after MD bought Boeing.
Posted by: Seabecker on March 11, 2008 09:35 PMThe contract was Boeings to lose, and I would not hold the current 3M Chairman out as better than the fired Condon
TA Wilson and Dean Thornton must be rolling over in their grave at the current gross mismanagement
When the investigation is over Boeing will end up paying the government for wasting their time, and hopefully the shareholders of Boeing will fire their grossly incompetent management
The Dems vote at every opportunity to double tax big corporations and raise taxes on them even more. Then at the state level they refuse to pay for infrastructure improvements the big companies want, and when a big company has the gall to ask for some help, Pugetopolis thumbs it's nose at them and says no subisidies for the big corporations. The Dems insist on huge regulations on the big corporations, it goes on and on. ..
Then to have the esteemed Norm Dicks cry because European governments actually see that destroying big business isn't necessarily good - well, I say teach Dicks and the Demoncrats a lesson about why it's important to make sure your country's businesses have a chance to succeed.
Posted by: Doug on March 11, 2008 11:57 PMMcCain would never have won WA anyway. The state is ridiculously Democrat, even though these people can't get anything done. But, he definitely will win Alabama, where these planes will be put together!
Posted by: BananaLand on March 12, 2008 12:14 AM'Remember no one here is right of wrong - until I say so.' Immortal words of that great orator -Homer Simpson
Posted by: Duffman on March 12, 2008 06:11 AMOur economy sucks, jobs are being outsourced, our currency is falling, and fuel and energy prices have pushed up the prices of everything you use and consume on a daily basis.
Hey I have idea....why don't we just continue to give everything away until we ourselves fall to the wayside.....I'm sure all the other countries that hate us so much would love to see that!!
One more thing for the record, I too will be sitting out this election and I PRAY that McCain's stupidity doesn't some how mess up Dino Rossi's bid this time around!
Posted by: Scott on March 12, 2008 06:38 AMIt may be that McCain's best defenders will be the USAF.
Posted by: KW64 on March 12, 2008 11:13 AMAirbus talking points to their blogger hacks - Just keep ignoring the facts about unfair practices in the RFP process, and just keep repeating:
'EADS simply had a better proposal...EADS simply had a better proposal...EADS simply had a better proposal...'
Posted by: Scott on March 12, 2008 11:30 AMOne of the really key points in the matter is that the AF made a last-minute change in the evaluation criteria that favored the Airbus tanker.
For the facts, see my comments (85, 87) at:
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010309.html