McCain aides defend (lobbied for) tanker deal

It's nice to see that John W McBush is keeping his pledge of not letting lobbyists influence him in any way, shape or form....uh....wait a minute.......nevermind.

John McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, and yet he said "I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROVh8zK4

"THE CHAIRMAN SPEAKS"

I'M BROKE! I'M BROKE! YOU DO THE NUMBER, YOU DO THE MATH. 35,000,000,000 AMERICAN DOLLARS EQUALS 58,000,000,000 EURO DOLLARS.

40,000 JOBS MEANS 40,000 PROVISIONAL BALLOTS THAT DON'T COUNT! LIKE IN MY GREAT STATE OF ARIZONA. 40,000 FORECLOSURE MEANT "I WIN" WITHOUT WINNING. JUST ASK "MITT THE QUIT"

YOU DO THE MATH, THE DEMOCRATS AND INDEPENDENTS ARE VOTING 3-1 ACROSS AMERICA.

BOEING GOT 85 MILLION DOLLAR VIRTUAL MONEY, THAT WILL CREATE "INVISIBLE" BOARDER JOBS. THE BOEING CO DIDN'T PLAY BALL "THE CHAIRMAN" WAY.

SO STOP YOUR GRUBLING AND GO GET JOB AN IMMIGRANT JUST LOST.

IT'S MY WAY OR THE "GRUMMAN/MCCAIN WAY"

NO MORE QUESTIONS, I SAID NO MORE QUESTIONS!

This is exactly what you can expect out of McCain. More Bush/Cheney.

How can anyone interested in fair play and competitive bidding go too far in its cause? The LACK of competitive bidding was what got Boeing in trouble in the first place!

McCain said this deal should be open and transparent. AEDES/NG made a better bid than Boeing. Plain and simple.

Who cares if some people who lobbied for AEDES joined the McCain campaign? Find me a presidential campaign that doesn't have federal lobbyists and I'll find you one that's lying (I'm looking at you, Obama and ComEd).

Even though Madhani's headline is a lie (McCain never told congress they should pick AEDES/NG) he at least includes Gates' response to McCain where he agrees with him that the deal should be open and fair (like it was): "I agree that the competition for this important program must be conducted in a full, open and transparent manner," Gates wrote McCain on Jan. 26, 2007, according to a letter released by the Pentagon.

How much longer will we have to deal with the sour Boeing grapes around here?

Mr. McCain you are another Bush!!! Phony and a liar.
More jobs lost again...Republicans are just out for them selves.

Jeff, let's have the spin please.

How much longer will we have to deal with the sour Boeing grapes around here?

Posted by: Jeff | March 12, 2008 2:26 PM

Keep Spinning, Jeffy!

You haven't seen anything yet, believe me. I laugh everytime I hear the Rethugs talk about how easy of a time they will have with Obama in the general election...

Jeff-

I'm all for fair biddig.
Why isn't McCain?

Why did he fight to have EADS subsidies from the EU not taken into accout? Why did he fight to give one side an affair advantage?

The answer is simple: He was doing his lobbyist buddies a favor. Fairness took second place.

I don't have to spin anything here. Steve Schmidt's comments are dead right:

“Should the fraudulent deal have been permitted? Should criminals not have gone to jail? Should the Department of Defense not be held accountable to select the most capable systems for the best price to the taxpayers? Isn’t that what our security requires, and American taxpayers deserve?”

What, exactly, do you guys want? Do you want Boeing and its former CFO and his Air Force liaison who are now in jail to profit off the taxpayers? Do you want a closed, inflated deal? You guys tell me, what do you want.

CREW has defended what McCain did to save the taxpayers billions. That's all I really need to know.

More importantly:

How much in contributions did McCain get from EADS North America and Loeffler Group?

Any straight talk on that??

Still waiting for the Swamp post on the Fallon resignation.

Tell me how demanding that an open and fair competition be conducted to win the tanker contract is spin? Gates agrees with McCain in his letter. McCain or his lobbyists didn't have the ability to grant the contract. Only the Pentagon did.

You guys want Boeing to get the contract no with no competition and be allowed to defraud the taxpayers. I get it.

CREW has defended what McCain did to save the taxpayers billions. That's all I really need to know.

Posted by: Jeff | March 12, 2008 2:51 PM

Once again Jeff, you're letting your McCain hero worship cloud your judgement.

McCain is all about old time crooked Washington politics and despite his slick PR move of calling himself a "straight-talker" (whatever that means), objective people who look back at McCain's Congressional career see him for exactly what he is, a power hungry hypocrite.

John W McBush, more of the same:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1188858/posts

BUMPER STICKER: "OBAMA '08: Not giving jobs away to foreign countries!"

How could the GOP send someone like McBush out on a campaign trail? First off he isn't even a natural born citizen, secondly he has stated time and time again that he 'doesn't agree with 70% of the American people', third off can't everyone see that he wants open boreder to continue on his war crazed path?? He isn't out for America he is out or himself. He's taking endorsements anywhere he can get them. If a man like John Hagge supports him we know what kinf od a person this man is. He is Bush incarnate. Plain and simple. The GOP has an amazing candidate who they are not stepping behind because of some serious bootlicking McCain has done over the years. Ron Paul stands for change in America. Ron Paul wants to keep jobs here in America where they belong. Ron Paul wants to end the war while John McCain wants to continue fighting until his kids kids and our childerns childern are long dead. Because John McCain loves war. Vote Ron Paul 2008 and save America from 4 more years of Bush.

RonPaul2008.com
DailyPaul.com
RonPaulForums.com

Meanwhile, more news from Iraq:

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi police raided strongholds of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army in the southern city of Kut on Wednesday after the militia broke a ceasefire and clashed with security forces a day earlier.

The city's police chief said at least 11 people were killed in Tuesday's gunbattles in which U.S. special forces called in air strikes after Iraqi authorities asked them for help.

With U.S. forces already stretched by an upsurge in violence in Iraq since January, such ceasefire violations are a worrying development. U.S. commanders have credited the ceasefire with sharply reducing sectarian bloodshed that threatened civil war."

And just for good measure:

"Afghan war trend worse than Iraq: U.S. trainer"

You know - Afghanistan. The country W. pulled us out of before the job was finished to go after Saddam.

Better to be ripped off by Boeing than to ship jobs to france

Looky here, McCain's "straight-talk express" bus is now adorned with his lobbyist's friends logo's.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/12/mccains-cronies-all-aboard-the-lobbyist-express/

Yep, McCain's a "straight-talker" alright, he's full of the same straight-talk that we've been getting from George Bush and Dick Cheney the last seven years.

Michael, this statement is just blatantly false: "Why did he fight to have EADS subsidies from the EU not taken into accout? Why did he fight to give one side an affair advantage?"

All McCain did was write a letter to Robert Gates expressing that the competition be fair and open. CREW has praised him for that. McCain's letter says nothing about EU subsidies. Besides Boeing's foreign operations collect the same subsidies.

As far as the lobbyists, I've looked through McCain's FEC filings and no AEDES executives or NG execs are in there. It's unfortunate that the lobbyists for AEDES later joined his campaign, but like I've said before every campaign has lobbyists working for it. You can't run for president without them and I don't think anyone would want to.

Until there's something more here I have to say Rahm and Nancy have nothing.

Look if you guys were honest about wanting this deal fairly investigated I'd be right there with you. I bet CREW would too. But this is obvious election year pandering. Everyone who knows anything about the trouble Boeing got itself into with bid rigging in the original deal knows that this is sour grapes.

If you want to continue this conversation rationally with regard to how the deal was awarded I'd be glad to, but if you just want to talk about K street BJs, rethugs and the rest of the rhetoric we're seeing here then, well, I think everyone will understand where the spin is coming from.

"By attacking Senator McCain, who happens to be the Republican presidential nominee, congressional Democrats are playing politics with billions of taxpayer dollars. Senator McCain was one of the few people to take on the original Boeing tanker deal and Representative Murtha and his colleagues should have been supporting McCain’s investigation at the time. Those who criticize Senator McCain over this are rewriting history.

Literally hundreds of millions would have been wasted if that deal had gone through. Senator McCain was one of the few members of Congress to courageously stand up against it. Members should be thanking him – not condemning him. As opposed to the original Boeing deal – this most recent deal went through competitive bidding process and appears to have been justifiably awarded." -Melanie Sloan, executive director, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

False? Not hardly.

"In December 2006, just weeks before the Air Force was set to release its formal request for proposals, McCain wrote a letter to the incoming defense secretary, Robert Gates, warning that he was "troubled" by the Air Force's draft request for bids.

The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.

Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. Airbus objected to the provision and asked the Pentagon to drop it in June 2006.

McCain, in his letter to Gates on Dec. 1, 2006, said the proposed bid request "may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted." The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.

Dicks, a senior member of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said the removal of the subsidy language was a "game-changer" that favored EADS over Boeing."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163799,00.html

If Both Boeing and Airbus benefited from subsidies, ther would be no reason for Airbus to object to answering the questions. The fact is that McCain intervened to make sure less information was available in analyzing the bids. Maybe that information wouldn't have changed the bid outcome, but we will never know due to John McCain's favor. That's not openness and transparency, that's choosing a side.

Face it Jeff, if this was any other candidate, no one would be screaming about the corruption and conflict of interest louder than you. No one would be screaming louder than McCain about the "Iron Triangle of lobbyists, big money and legislation". In this case he is clearly on the side of the lobbyists and big money personified in Tom Loeffler's role in both his campaign and in the deal.

Jeff,

What is it with you that you can't see McCain for the lying corrupt longtime Washington insider that he really is?

Elisabeth Bumiller wrote an article on the "inconsistencies" in Senator John McCain's voting record and his current positions.

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.

Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him. His most striking turnaround has been on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent. Mr. McCain has also expressed varying positions on immigration, torture, abortion and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the former defense secretary.

The article points out that McCain has reversed course on several key issues as he has tried to gain the support of the Republican base. To summarize the article:

On tax cuts...

In 2001, McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts, saying "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." He also voted against additional tax cuts in 2003, later saying that "I just thought it was too tilted to the wealthy, and I still do."
Today, McCain wants to make those tax cuts permanent.

On immigration...

In 2005, McCain supported comprehensive immigration reform, which included a pathway to citizenship.
Now, he claims that "if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."

On abortion and Roe v. Wade...

In 1999, McCain said that he would not support overturning Roe v. Wafe "int he sort term, or even the long term," because that would "force X number of women in America" to undergo "illegal and dangerous operations."
Today, McCain has campaigned on overturning Roe v. Wade.

On his revisionist history regarding Donald Rumsfeld...

In 2004, McCain refused to call for Rumsfeld's resignation, saying that Bush "can have the team around him that he wants around him." In 2006, retired generals called for Rumseld's resignation, but McCain did not.
Now, while running for president, McCain has claimed that "I’m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go." The article notes that "[t]he campaign has since acknowledged that Mr. McCain was incorrect, and more recently the senator has stopped short of claiming he called for the defense secretary’s ouster."

On torture...

McCain has traditionally been against torture, citing his experience as a POW for his decision.
Now, McCain voted last month "against a bill that would require the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the restrictions on interrogating prisoners outlined in the Army Field Manual."

In his decades in office, McCain has an average party unity score in the low 80s. Since he has campaigned for president, his party unity score has skyrocketed (link, link).

2005: 81%
2006: 76%
2007: 90%

It's refreshing to see members of the press taking a closer look at John McCain's disparate record instead of taking his "maverickness" at face value.

The current resident, his boss chainsaw, and all the shrub apologistas here on the Swamp defended shrub for not signing the Kyoto treaty because it would cost jobs. Now that earboy's pentagon has given billions of American taxpayer dollars to the French, where is the outcry for all the jobs that'll cost. Yup, just as I thought. Shrub's decisions are all good, even if it betrays Americans and the American economy. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

CREW has defended what McCain did to save the taxpayers billions. That's all I really need to know.

Posted by: Jeff | March 12, 2008 2:51 PM
___________________________
So Mr Jeffy, do you also support this CREW action?

__________________________
12 Mar 2008 // Washington, DC – Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called on FBI Direct Robert S. Mueller to open an investigation into whether White House officials obstructed justice by destroying documents relevant to the criminal investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's covert CIA identity.

"EUROS SPEAKS"

HEY BROTHA DO YOU NEED A "DOLLAR" TO GO WITH THAT DOLLAR, DOLLAR BILL!

"DOLLAR SPEAKS"

HELL YEA! I CAN'T PAY FOR IT WITHOUT IT.

"EUROS SPEAKS"

OKAY, WELL WHEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GIVE US 35 BILLION U.S. CURRENCY THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO FINANCE THE 23 BILLION AT 9% INTEREST. SO IN THE YEAR 2010 YOU WILL OWE US APPROXIMATELY 100 BILLION.

SHUT UP BOEING, "EUROS SPEAKING RIGHT NOW" SHHHHHH.

We are witnessing the decline, hopefully not the fall, of the Roman, doh! I mean American empire.

This is what over extension does to a nation. Ask the Brits. They are right over there. Declined, but didn't fall. Hope we can manage that one.

Competitive bidding is good to keep prices in-line. However, the bidding process needs to account for the final costs of plane to the taxpayer and that should include payroll/income taxes that would come back to the gov't via US workers.

Also, I heard on the radio that the original RFP was changed to meet the specs being put forth by NG. IF that is the case, there needs to be an investigation. Look for some congressmen,either party, that hace rec'd pymts for this.

http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1191030/

Michael, you're dead wrong as usual. I would NEVER be complaining about the government requiring competitive bidding. Boeing wanted their competition eliminated before the bids came in because they knew their proposal was bloated. Sorry folks, that ain't how competitive bidding works.

I'm glad McCain and Gates required it. I, as a taxpayer, am also concerned that Boeing was going back to its old ways of trying to get their competition disqualified before bids go in to the pentagon so that they can gouge the taxpayers by being awarded a no compete contract by the Pentagon.

Yeah John, I DO support CREW'S investigation. It probably won't turn anything new up (since we already know Richard Armitage did it) but the possibility is worth investigating.

Also, listen up earmarxists, I know how gung ho you all were to shut down Senator Jim DeMint's earmark moratorium legislation. Oops, bad news. McCain just peed on your parade. He'll be there Thursday to quash your attempt to stop earmark reform.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/12/mccain-schedules-time-for-senate-votes/?mod=googlenews_wsj

And McCain associates with a psycho that has called for the eradication of Islam in the USA and the world. Nothing to bring respect to his campaign like calling for another Crusade.

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

Jeff-

Are you being intentionally dense?

The problem isn't the competitive bidding. It's McCain interveneing to have an element of the bidding removed to specifically aid one bidder. He worked to give one side the advantage.

You may think that's noble but it's not. He was making the bidding LESS competitive not more.

Panama John

Since Senator John McCain was not born "in the United States" he is not a natural born Citizen of the United States and therefore is not eligible to the Office of President.

It's really quite simple, and only needs further explanation because the general consensus of politicians and the media has been to duck the issue. All evidence supports the conclusion seen in the topic sentence. Sources that support this conclusion include the U.S. Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, The Naturalization Act of 1790, The Naturalization Act of 1795, and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty ratified for the construction and operation of the Panama Canal Zone.

John McCain was born on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Panama to U.S. citizen parents. McCain is a United States citizen due to parentage, not naturally by reason of birth on U.S. soil which is a basic constitutional requirement.

The ineligibility of John McCain to serve as president may not prevent his run for the office. However, he cannot hold the office. If he were elected president, legal challenges would be inevitable.

Without an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is unlikely the Supreme Court of the United States could rule in McCain's favor except by legislating from the bench. The more conservative side of the Republican party has typically represented the case for separation of powers with a louder voice than the more liberal side of the Democrat party. Have conservatives been gagged?

The sidestepping of this critical issue in the media, by the politicians, and the political parties is alarming and may lead to a national crisis in the event of a McCain win in the general election.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 that changed the definition for natural born citizen to include parentage was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Since then the constitutional requirement has not again been broadened to include parentage in the definition of natural born Citizen.

See more detail at http://idacres.com/politics/mccain/natural_born_Citizen.html

"an element of the bidding removed to specifically aid one bidder."

Another blatant falsehood. Removing bidders to favor Boeing is not a part of any open and fair bidding process. I don't know what estimation school you went to but it's usually a sign that one competitor isn't playing fair when they try to get other bids disqualified.

We can go back and forth all night on this but the fact of the matter is Boeing wanted AEDES/NG's bid disqualified because they knew they couldn't compete with it. Plain and simple.

It's just like when they agreed to give an Air Force official a job to rig their bid for extra cash. You simply can't trust these people to tell the truth (that's why their CFO's in prison) and you democrats are basing your whole argument on their little "poor pitiful me" story.

This pretty much says it all because it's true: "Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks." They do.

I joined this thread late. I see Jeff is trying his best to defend his man. Spin it anyway you want Jeff. Throw CREWs name out there all you want. This is just plain stupid that we outsource our national defense to any company overseas at the expense of the American worker. This should NEVER stand.

Good morning bill r. and John E.

Another day, and more trash from the new Johnny D., Jeff. It's so hard to have a battle of wits when your opponent is unarmed.

Bobin, then an unarmed opponent just beat the snot out of you. Here's an analysis from a senior defense engineer from a non-affiliated company (Lockheed Martin for those that care).

"First, contrary to what those Boeing douches are saying, no jobs are going to be lost overseas. The tanker will be an Airbus instead of a Boeing, but Airbus has a facility in Alabama where they'll be assembled. The military gear will be put on at an NG facility in Alabama as well, so no US technology or defense secrets are given over to EADS."

So, there goes your argument that we're "outsourcing" our national defense, Bill Hussein. American workers will build these tankers.

"Boeing got caught with their pants down. The NG deal not only was cheaper but their proposal was better. The size of the tanker and the amount of fuel being held, the whole thing was better for NG. Boeing is crying about that too, saying size was part of the RFP, but it wasn't and NG and EADS outsmarted Boeing. It's a big contract for NG, and it could mean more big USAF contracts down the line. It's the USAF's largest acquistion this year I believe (biggest program budgeted). Plus with Boeing in the doghouse and being such babies about it, NG is poised to win future upgrades and the followup contracts as well.

"The only ones worse than Boeing are LM. In my experience, they never want to work with others well, they want to continue to take over projects, squeeze more money for themselves, they always want to follow their processes instead of the Governments or the program's, and they always seem to put out crappy products, force rework, get more money, and blame it on others. But they're so big and deeply entrenched and have so much sway over the military and Congress that they keep pulling this crap.

Anyway, this contract is good for NG and Boeing only has itself to blame for this mess."

There you go, all the BS from the Bill Husseins and Michael Husseins of the world. A defense industry insider has just reduced your silly arguments to what they are: Boeing whining over having to fix its own inefficiency.

The manufacturing guys over at Evolving Excellence have also been taking Boeing to task, first in terms of the hypocrisy of whining about losing the tanker deal to NG/Airbus at:

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/boeing-whiner-e.html

Then the even greater hypocrisy of the politicians that are siding with Boeing:

http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2008/03/so-whos-more-pa.html

Ken

I see that all the Boeing bashing has ended now that the GAO has substantiated the Protest against EADS winning the contract. The whole selection process has had political intervention from the start. With the top Airforce representatives being relieved of duty for gross neglect of duties and the GAO sustaining the complaints of Boeing. The contract will be rebid and should have an outcome that favors Boeing.