McCain NOT in the Pocket of U.S. M/I Complex - and getting hammered for it

[101A]

Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/beab3936-ebe8-11dc-9493-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)




Pelosi points finger at McCain on Boeing

By James Politi and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: March 7 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 7 2008 02:00


function floatContent(){var paraNum = "3" paraNum = paraNum - 1;var tb = document.getElementById('floating-con');var nl = document.getElementById('floating-target');if(tb.getElementsByTagName("div").length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagNam e("p")[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName("p").length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName("p")[0]);}}}}The controversy over the Pentagon decision to award a $35bn refuelling tanker contract to EADS spilled into the presidential race yesterday, when a senior Democrat suggested that John McCain, the Republican nominee, was responsible for the deal being "outsourced" to a European company.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, said Boeing had been on course to supply the US Air Force with tankers until Mr McCain "intervened".

"My understanding is that it was on course for Boeing before. I mean, the thought was that it would be a domestic supplier for it," Ms Pelosi told reporters.

"Senator McCain intervened, and now we have a situation where the contract may be - this work may be outsourced."

The air force originally chose Boeing to supply it with 100 tankers. But Congress cancelled the deal after it emerged that Darleen Druyun, a former top air force acquisitions official, had held illegal job discussions with Boeing while still negotiating the deal. Ms Druyun admitted boosting the value of the deal to help Boeing.

Mr McCain has pointed to his aggressive investigation into the Boeing deal as evidence that he is willing to stand up to powerful corporate interests.

The tanker scandal claimed the career of former Boeing chief executive Phil Condit. Ms Druyun and Mike Sears, Boeing's former chief financial officer, were sent to jail.

The suggestion by Ms Pelosi came as Boeing supporters on Capitol Hill opened a new line of attack against the deal, which ultimately could be worth more than $100bn as the air force replaces its entire fleet of about 600 in-flight refuelling tankers.

Pat Roberts, a Republican senator from Kansas, where Boeing has a strong presence, claimed the decision to award the deal to EADS and Northrop Grumman, its US partner, ran counter to US trade policy.

Mr Roberts said the decision "defies common sense" because the US was pursuing a subsidies case against Airbus, a subsidiary of EADS, at the World Trade Organisation.

"This is an outrage. It truly makes me question our trade agenda," the Kansas senator told the Senate finance committee.

Mr Roberts' attack follows a spate of criticism in Congress. The decision stunned most analysts, who expected Boeing, which has supplied the US military with in-flight refuelling tankers for five decades, to win.

Boeing will have 10 days to lodge a protest with the Government Accountability Office, the oversight arm of Congress, after it receives an air force briefing.



Copyright (http://www.ft.com/servicestools/help/copyright) The Financial Times Limited 2008

[PixelPusher]

Before you award McCain the Dwight D. Eisenhower Courage Award for opposing the Military Industrial Complex, understand that those EADS tankers will be assembled in Georgia, adding a couple hundred new jobs to our Military Industiral Complex...albeit in a more Republican state.

[Holt's Cat]

So he's in the pocket of the European Military-Industrial Complex.

[Extra Stout]

Before you award McCain the Dwight D. Eisenhower Courage Award for opposing the Military Industrial Complex, understand that those EADS tankers will be assembled in Georgia, adding a couple hundred new jobs to our Military Industiral Complex...albeit in a more Republican state.
Than Kansas? What?

[101A]

So he's in the pocket of the European Military-Industrial Complex.Would you rather we just not get new tankers?

[Extra Stout]

So let me get this straight... Boeing had an insider who conspired to boost the value of the contract to build 100 tankers. In other words, they were conspiring to defraud the taxpayer.

In light of this, somebody from Congress intervened to prevent Boeing from getting away with it. Another contractor got the job as a result. The Boeing CEO was fired, and the CFO, along with the conspiring insider, went to prison.

And now, Congresspeople and Senators with Boeing ties are crying foul.

Why is this about McCain? Why isn't it about the unethical and illegal conduct by Boeing and its unseemly influence in Congress? isn't this exactly the kind of corporate/lobbyist influence against the public interest we decry in this country? By jumping on the protectionist bandwagon here, we're just playing into the hands of K Street and the pork peddlers.

Nancy Pelosi is just proving that she is a shameless corporate whore who will go to the mat for a company like Boeing against the taxpayer, in spite of whatever liberal veneer she purports to possess. Remind me how this is supposed to reflect badly on McCain?

[Extra Stout]

Barack Obama claims to stand against the influence of corporations and lobbyists in Washington. When will he rebuke Nancy Pelosi?

[PixelPusher]

Than Kansas? What?
Than Washington and California, where the bulk of Boeing and it's employees are located. Hence Pelosi's deep concern.

[clambake]

this so outweighs the fraud in Iraq.

[Ignignokt]

this so outweighs the fraud in Iraq.




clambake... you're such a shemale.


Just trying to outdo you in relevance on this topic.

[clambake]

so new fraud beats old fraud?

[Ignignokt]

so new fraud beats old fraud?


so old fraud justifies new fraud.

[clambake]

so old fraud justifies new fraud.
in a sense, apparently.

[Ignignokt]

in a sense, apparently.


so because Iraq was a fraud in your sense committed by Republicans, New Fraud committed by Democrats is ok.

[Extra Stout]

this so outweighs the fraud in Iraq.
What exactly does the fraud in Iraq have to do with the fraud in the Boeing case? Are EADS or Airbus implicated in a fraud case in Iraq? Is John McCain? Are you arguing that because Dick Cheney has been a corporate whore for Halliburton in Iraq, it is therefore OK for Nancy Pelosi to be a whore for Boeing? Or are you arguing that because Bush and Cheney are Republicans, no Republican is allowed to try to stop fraud? Perhaps you're arguing that because of the fraud in Iraq, we should just embrace all fraud by defense contractors? Maybe fraud is OK if it helps the economy in blue states?

[Extra Stout]

My problem is not corruption itself. My problem is that Democrats are not reaping enough of the spoils of corruption.

[101A]

Than Washington and California, where the bulk of Boeing and it's employees are located. Hence Pelosi's deep concern.

pssst. They were going to build the planes in Kansas (you think E.S. was just blowing smoke?)

[PixelPusher]

pssst. They were going to build the planes in Kansas (you think E.S. was just blowing smoke?)
psst. Plane parts are manufactured by several diffrent plants at several different locations...including, for example, California.

Hence Pelosi's concern.

[101A]

psst. Plane parts are manufactured by several plants at once.

Hence Pelosi's concern.Not if the planes are built in Alabama?

[Extra Stout]

pssst. They were going to build the planes in Kansas (you think E.S. was just blowing smoke?)
But a lot of the executives are in Washington and California. What, you think assembly workers are giving the big campaign contributions to Pelosi and Murray? If those two aren't openly whoring for Boeing, Boeing will buy influence elsewhere.

You need to understand that lobbyist influence is a good thing when lobbyists fill up Democratic coffers.

[PixelPusher]

Not if the planes are built in Alabama?
They will be assembled in Alabama, parts manufactured overseas (mostly France).

[101A]

They will be assembled in Alabama, parts manufactured overseas (mostly France).I'm not calling you a liar; dont' need a gotcha here; figure you have it.

Please link your source for the source of parts for each manufacturer.

(also, I figure now you are ON record for supporting Boeing in this matter, regardless of their criminal behavior?)

[Extra Stout]

This is clear contrast between right and left viewpoints.

Those of us on the right of this issue think that the purpose of building a military aircraft is for military operations, and that the primary criteria for buying a plane should be getting the best plane for the taxpayers' money.

Those of us on the left think that the purpose of building a military aircraft is to create jobs in states that vote Democratic, and that the primary criteria for buying a plane should be creating as many new jobs as possible that Democratic politicians can point to when they run for re-election.

Those of us on the right find it appropriate that Boeing did not get the contract, since it acted criminally in attempting to steal money from the taxpayer.

Those of us on the left find it inappropriate that Boeing did not get the contract, since inflating the contract as a bribe is a small price to buy for getting more public-sector jobs in your district.

[Extra Stout]

I take this incident as an object lesson in the confidence we all should have that Democratic leadership will clean up the culture of corruption propagated by the Republicans they replaced.

[Nbadan]

the Dwight D. Eisenhower Courage Award

:lmao

[101A]

This is clear contrast between right and left viewpoints.

Those of us on the right of this issue think that the purpose of building a military aircraft is for military operations, and that the primary criteria for buying a plane should be getting the best plane for the taxpayers' money.

Those of us on the left think that the purpose of building a military aircraft is to create jobs in states that vote Democratic, and that the primary criteria for buying a plane should be creating as many new jobs as possible that Democratic politicians can point to when they run for re-election.

Those of us on the right find it appropriate that Boeing did not get the contract, since it acted criminally in attempting to steal money from the taxpayer.

Those of us on the left find it inappropriate that Boeing did not get the contract, since inflating the contract as a bribe is a small price to buy for getting more public-sector jobs in your district.'s about right.

[101A]

:lmaoWhat's funny?

I thought it was one hell of a reference, frankly.

8y06NSBBRtY

[PixelPusher]

I'm not calling you a liar; dont' need a gotcha here; figure you have it.

Please link your source for the source of parts for each manufacturer.
I have no specific knowledge of particular parts of or particular plants, just a basic understanding that aircraft, like automobiles, are not manufactured in one location.

I based my "bulk of Boeing in Cali and Washington" on the numbers in in this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing) (3000 in Kansas as opposed to 28,000 in Cali and 74,000 in Washington). The Integrated Defense Division employs 71,000 total, so I think it's safe to assume that these tankers aren't going to be built completely from scratch by 3000 Kansans.

The EADS stuff is just what I remembered when I heard this story on NPR.


(also, I figure now you are ON record for supporting Boeing in this matter, regardless of their criminal behavior?)
No, I don't really care one way or the other. I just wanted to point out that the state of Georgia was getting it's back scratched in all of this.

[101A]

I have no specific knowledge of particular parts of or particular plants, just a basic understanding that aircraft, like automobiles, are not manufactured in one location.

I based my "bulk of Boeing in Cali and Washington" on the numbers in in this wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing) (3000 in Kansas as opposed to 28,000 in Cali and 74,000 in Washington). The Integrated Defense Division employs 71,000 total, so I think it's safe to assume that these tankers aren't going to be built completely from scratch by 3000 Kansans.

The EADS stuff is just what I remembered when I heard this story on NPR.


No, I don't really care one way or the other. I just wanted to point out that the state of Georgia was getting it's back scratched in all of this.Fair enough.

I wouldn't assume, however, that many parts for the Airbus are not ALSO manufactured in this country. US labor is not appreciably more expensive than French, afterall. Making parts (especially I assume big-ass aircraft parts) near the point of assembly would seem to be economically responsible.

Pelosi is not looking out for what's good for American, any more than any other politician in this. California Democrat is how she rolls (and gets reelected with a nut-burger anti-war freak running against her)

[clambake]

sorry clambake, i jumped to a stupid conclusion when i assumed you gave a rats ass about what Pelosi thinks.

[PixelPusher]

Fair enough.

I wouldn't assume, however, that many parts for the Airbus are not ALSO manufactured in this country. US labor is not appreciably more expensive than French, afterall. Making parts (especially I assume big-ass aircraft parts) near the point of assembly would seem to be economically responsible.

Actually, US labor is considerable less expensive than French labor (again, according to the story I heard on NPR) so this is Airbus's way of outsourcing and saving labor costs.

btw, I've already spent way too much non-work time on this board today, but I'll try and find links on this whole Airbus/Georgia aspect of this story later on.


Pelosi is not looking out for what's good for American, any more than any other politician in this. California Democrat is how she rolls (and gets reelected with a nut-burger anti-war freak running against her)
No arguement here.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, let me get this right.

McCain has a roll in this because there are under the table deals going on, and he's the bad guy?

[AFBlue]

This is an interesting debate that has absolutely nothing to do with John McCain...

It's actually really simple. Air Force Acquisitions officers are taught to measure against three variables; cost, schedule and performance. Clearly the lead for this Air Force development program decided EADS could deliver a lower cost, higher quality product in a shorter time.

It should be pointed out that job creation does NOT enter into the equation during this process. And I find it funny that senators are going to bat for poor little ol' Boeing, when they've got plenty of work to keep them busy (i.e. F-15's for Singapore).

But, I've actually talked to a Boeing guy who tells me the AF initially gave a no-go to the Boeing 777 in favor of the 767, then changed the requirements document mid-stream that would've made the 777 the preference. I gotta get some more info from him on Monday, but I actually consider this guy to be credible and not necessarily a "company man".

If he shares anything interesting, I'll let you know...

[McFudpucker]

Regardless of McCain's role, or lack thereof, in this, something stinks.

The Airbus entry, the KC-45 is a derivative of the A330, a plane that is superior to Boeing's 767, no surprise it beat out the Boeing Entry (KC-767). The problem is, once figures are finalized, the KC-45 will come in some 50 to 80 Million Dollars/unit more expensive than the KC-767. If the Air Force was willing to spend that kind of money, the 777 comes into play.

It's as if RFP's went out with two different sets of specs.

[AFBlue]

It's as if RFP's went out with two different sets of specs.

Or the specs were changed during the acquisition process, which is what my guy at Boeing implied. But I have to get more details from him...

[AFBlue]

The problem is, once figures are finalized, the KC-45 will come in some 50 to 80 Million Dollars/unit more expensive than the KC-767. If the Air Force was willing to spend that kind of money, the 777 comes into play.



Is that the projected LRIP cost difference or the cost difference once the production line is rolling them out on a regular basis?

[Wild Cobra]

Or the specs were changed during the acquisition process, which is what my guy at Boeing implied. But I have to get more details from him...
I wonder what the Boing guys in Gresham have to say about this?

Maybe I'll go hookup with a bartender friend I have where they go after work and see what she knows.

[boutons_]

"absolutely nothing to do with John McCain"

McCain was involved in uncovering the Boeing fraud.

Boeing and its employees are now going after McCain for that very involvement.

Seems like a lot of people think McCain is involved.

[AFBlue]

"absolutely nothing to do with John McCain"

McCain was involved in uncovering the Boeing fraud.

Boeing and its employees are now going after McCain for that very involvement.

Seems like a lot of people think McCain is involved.

McCain was at the forefront of the Darlene Druyun story, but I don't believe he's made a comment about the controversy of this story...outsourcing of military tanker aircraft contract to builder of Airbus.

[AFBlue]

It's as if RFP's went out with two different sets of specs.

Boeing officially announced that it will file a protest with the GAO, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was on these grounds, alleging some ambiguity in the proposed capabilities and functionality of the tanker.

After all I've heard, I can't say I blame them.

[boutons_]

To land $35B in contracts, Boeing can sic a lot of their corporate lawyers on the DoD.

If Boeing wins, they'll end up charging/hiding those legals fees to DoD/taxpayer as part of the absolutely invevitable "overruns".

We need those tankers to go after ragheads with AK47s, RPGs, IEDs.

[PixelPusher]

Before you award McCain the Dwight D. Eisenhower Courage Award for opposing the Military Industrial Complex...
Oh, well. At least he gets a nice door prize for his troubles.


McCain Recieved Defense Firm Cash After Backing Its Contract (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/mccain-received-defense-f_n_90951.html)

Critics on Tuesday questioned whether Sen. John McCain catered to special interests when he aggressively threw his support behind a $35 billion Pentagon contract for a European plane maker.

McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, played a crucial role in blocking the deal to build air tankers from going to U.S.-based Boeing, instead paving the path for EADS to score the loot. He framed his decision as an example of political integrity; Boeing has previously been exposed of contract abuse. But a review of campaign finance donations and lobbying records suggests that money and personal lobbying may have also been in play.

On January 15, 2007, McCain appeared at Alabama Gov. Bob Riley's gubernatorial swearing in ceremony and formally called for multiple bidders in the tanker deal. The push for an open process had only one true beneficiary, however, and that was the Northrop Grumman/EADS consortium, which was poised to be Boeing's sole competitor.

A day after McCain made his proclamation, the contributions began to flow. John Green, a lobbyist for EADS donated $2,100 to the senator's presidential campaign. Ten days after that, Michelle Lammers, the "Chief of Staff" for EADS North America, gave $250 to the McCain campaign. It was her first political contribution ever. Less than a month later, the long-time head of EADS' government affairs program, Samuel Adcock, made a $2,100 donation to McCain. And eleven days later, Ralph Crosby, the head of EADS North America, donated $2,300 himself.

All told, as documented earlier by CQ PoliticalMoneyline, McCain received more than $15,000 from EADS and its subsidiary, Airbus North America. Not only was this the highest amount received by any federal candidate, but prior to 2006, not a single employee from EADS had ever contributed to McCain. Two Airbus employees did donate nearly $4,000 for his 2000 run at the White House.

"It has a bad appearance," said Phillip Finnegan, the director of corporate analysis at The Teal Group, a market analysis and consulting firm. "Clearly, companies contribute to members of congress who are sympathetic with there position. But it doesn't necessarily mean that it influences their position... McCain is a bit of a crusader. And when he has an issue like he had with Boeing, he pursues it. But [the contributions] definitely doesn't look good."

Finnegan was referring to McCain's 2003 investigation into Boeing's billing practices and lock on the tanker business. That investigation resulted in the company losing out on a $23 billion deal to lease tankers to the Air Force. On Friday, McCain defended both his current and past positions: "I never weighed in for or against anybody that competed for the contract. All I asked for was a fair process. And the facts are that I never showed any bias in any way against anybody -- except for the taxpayer."

But there are myriad signs that EADS curried up to the Arizona Senator. And it wasn't just the money. According to an Associated Press report published on Tuesday, the McCain campaign currently employs individuals who just last year were lobbying on behalf of EADS.

"Two of the advisers gave up their lobbying work when they joined McCain's campaign," the AP wrote. "A third, former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, lobbied for the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. while serving as McCain's national finance chairman."

One of those advisers, John Green, left Ogilvy Government Relations to become McCain's congressional Republican liaison shortly after the EADS deal was announced.

"They never lobbied him related to the issues, and the letters went out before they were contracted" by EADS, McCain campaign spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker told the AP.

In the end, McCain may have received more than just campaign contributions in return for his support of the EADS contract. Parts for the refueling tankers are slated to be built in Mobile, Alabama. And just days after the deal was finalized, the state's governor, Bob Riley -- a long holdout in the presidential process -- finally offered his endorsement of McCain's candidacy.

"To say this is a great day for Alabama is a monumental understatement," Riley said of the contract. "This will go down in history as one of our greatest days."
Not that I think $15K and a red state gubernatorial endorsement will be the difference in his Presidential bid, but it's good to see the other shoe dropped.

...and FWIW, I still don't have a dog in this MIC turf war.

[McFudpucker]

An update, the GAO has sided with Boeing and urged the Air Force to rerun it's Bid for next generation tanker aircraft.


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. auditors urged the Air Force Wednesday to rerun its marathon, $35 billion competition for refueling aircraft, upholding a protest by losing bidder Boeing Co.

The Government Accountability Office found the Air Force made "a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between" Boeing and Northrop Grumman Corp.

"We therefore sustained Boeing's protest," Michael Golden, head of the a GAO bid protest unit, said in a statement.

Northrop was teamed with EADS, parent of rival passenger-jet maker Airbus. EADS had no immediate comment.

Boeing shares briefly spiked up 2 percent on the news, but pared those gains to less than 1 percent on the New York Stock Exchange. Northrop shares were down 1.4 percent in mid-afternoon trade.

"The Air Force is aware of the Government Accountability Office's report and will review the findings and recommendations. We will release a statement this afternoon," said Air Force spokeswoman Maj. Dayan Araujo.

The Air Force "conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing" by telling the company it had fully satisfied a key performance criteria, then later determining that Boeing had only partially met the objective, the GAO said.

Auditors Sustain Boeing Protest (http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSWAT00969020080618)

[ElNono]

I hate Pelosi. She will probably go down in history as the leader of one worst Congress this country has ever seen.

[xrayzebra]

I understand McCain is being controlled by the beer industry. Reckon there is any truth to that.

Let me see, good looking blond, nice figure, hugh amounts of money and has a beer distributorship. Hot, damn, he ought to be President.