Questions swirl.
Critics have pounced on presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, saying his campaign’s ties to a European company have cost Americans jobs.
The inquiries and implications began when the Pentagon announced last month that it would award a $35 billion contract for new Air Force tankers to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., instead of to Seattle-based Boeing Co.
McCain had pushed the Pentagon to open the bidding process to EADS, and some question whether the three former EADS lobbyists who are on his campaign staff had anything to do with that. “Mr. Clean has a bunch of lobbyists that work for a company that won that contract,” House Democratic Caucus chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said. “Some people claim the way the specs were written, it was all but certain that the company that his campaign lobbyists worked for couldn’t but get that contract.”
Boeing has filed a formal challenge with the Government Accountability Office, which will have 100 days to review the contract and make sure it’s fair.
But today in New Hampshire, McCain argued that his interest in opening up the bidding process was to benefit the taxpayer. He cited his 2004 congressional investigation of a previous Boeing tanker deal, which uncovered a procurement scandal. “The rather bizarre aspect of it is that I killed off a program that was going to cost the taxpayers an additional $6.2 billion, executives went to jail, CEOs were fired,” McCain said.
Still, others believe McCain has opened himself up to criticism.
“It’s an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, he’s presenting himself as the crusader against special interests and yet, on the other hand, he’s surrounded himself with senior advisers that are lobbyists,” said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research group focused on money in politics.
>> McCain Stiffs U.S. Workers, Helps Europeans Win Air Tanker Deal
Linking Iraq to the economic woes is pretty easy. Linking exporting jobs to the economic woes is child’s play.
This is like the only thing that McCain has been right on in 20 years.
The first Boeing deal was dirty, and the award to Airbus was because the A330 is just plain better, and Northrop is less prone to cost overruns than Boeing.
They could have offered the 777, but that would have been inconvenient, because they have a commercial backlog.
Unfortunately Mccain was not quite up front about where his bread was being buttered when he became involved in trying to change the RFP to benefit the Airbus plane. The Airbus plane is not better! The cost to the tax payer for the increased fuel prices, the larger hangars and runways has not even been taken in to account. The Boeing plane provides more flexibility to the pilots in tight situations. My husband flew tankers in both gulf wars and his choice would be the Boeing plane by far! Ask a pilot instead of the brass and the choice would be Boeing!
The first Boeing deal was dirty, and the award to Airbus was because the A330 is just plain better, and Northrop is less prone to cost overruns than Boeing.
The first deal was very dirty and needed to be tossed out. And people rightly went to jail for it.
But how exactly is the A330 “just plain better”? You’re comparing two entirely different airplanes. They are different sizes, fit different market niches and have different economics. Do you have facts to back up your assertion?
And what are you basing your cost overrun argument on? ALL defense contractors have cost overruns to one extent or another. It’s the nature of the government-contract beast. Northrop has ‘em too. Here and here are two examples that took me all of 5 seconds to google.
They could have offered the 777, but that would have been inconvenient, because they have a commercial backlog.
They could have offered the 777 if that’s what the RFP had called for. But it didn’t. It called for a 767-sized tanker. What Boeing is protesting is that the specifications were changed at the last minute (and not necessarily openly) to call out the need for a larger platform (like the A330). Backlog has nothing to do with it.
Sorry, I’m sure my facts are inconvenient for the BS you were trying to push.
And yes, I am a Boeing employee (although I have nothing to do with either the 767 or the tanker program). But at least I do my homework.
What Boeing is protesting is that the specifications were changed at the last minute (and not necessarily openly) to call out the need for a larger platform (like the A330).
And here is my source for that statement.