Washington has voted Democratic every cycle since 1988. How would the Republican candidate losing face cause it to be a swing state, Subby?

McCain himself has received support from the EADS North America executive suite. He has received more than $12,000 in campaign donations from some of the company's top U.S. officials, support that continued even as his presidential campaign was foundering in mid- to late 2007.

Uh huh.

Uh, yeah, WA is already pretty blue.

Is subby trying to say that Washington will now vote for McCain since this happened?

I am confusded.

I think it means that now they'll focus their energy on making swingsets since they won't be making planes anymore.

Giant, flying swingsets.

Looks like someone is bitter they got caught pulling shenanigans. Try loaning the Air Force plans that aren't a hundred years old next time, chums.

"The only reason that (Airbus) could even bid a low price is because they receive a subsidy," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., whose Seattle-area district includes thousands of Boeing workers. "Senator McCain jumped into this and said that they (the Air Force) could not look at the subsidy issue, which I think is a big mistake," he told PBS.

And Boeing doesn't get a single subsidy at all? Blow it out your Guardian Marine ass Dicks, you don't even know what a subsidy is.

Maybe if Boeing was a more ethical company, or if they didn't offer up the soon-to-be-retired 767 for this project they would have gotten the contract.

And if there's going to be complaints about not giving it to the US run company why even have a bidding process at all? Why don't we just give Boeing $80B for the $40B contract and be done with it?

I don't see that airbus contract standing. A lot of members of congress are VERY upset about it.

And they should be.

"McCain's efforts scuttled that project in 2004 and helped uncover criminal wrongdoing on the part of a senior Air Force official and a senior Boeing executive. Both went to federal prison for conspiracy to violate conflict-of-interest rules after the Air Force official admitted steering huge contracts to Boeing, including a $20 billion project for tankers."

Evil, evil McCain. Boeing needs under the table deals to survive!

Congress: Pentagon, you cannot take job losses or locations into account when determining suppliers.
Pentagon: Ok, the Airbus/Northrup Grumman tanker is the best.
Congress: HOW DARE YOU SELECT THE PROPOSAL WHICH COSTS OUR STATES JOBS!
Pentagon: Umm...

johnsoninca: Washington has voted Democratic every cycle since 1988. How would the Republican candidate losing face cause it to be a swing state, Subby?

dillenger69: Is subby trying to say that Washington will now vote for McCain since this happened?

Came in here to say that, and that. Carry on.

So is Boeing now considered some sort of national resource? It seems like their capability should be something that we try to keep, but do we try to keep that while Boeing remains a totally non-governmental entity?

or if they didn't offer up the soon-to-be-retired 767 for this project

Is there something wrong with that design? There are older designs out there still flying with no complaints.

gtraz: Congress: Pentagon, you cannot take job losses or locations into account when determining suppliers.
Pentagon: Ok, the Airbus/Northrup Grumman tanker is the best.
Congress: HOW DARE YOU SELECT THE PROPOSAL WHICH COSTS OUR STATES JOBS!
Pentagon: Umm...

sad, but true

From what I have read on some AV sites the EADS offering is the fighter pilots friend. Transfers are at higher speeds and altitudes plus the EADs can carry more Jp to off load. The better plane.

Transfers are at a higher speed above stall for the fighter.

Maybe subby meant Kansas?

scifarker: Maybe subby meant Kansas?

This, pushed hard, plus Obama/Sebelius = Kansas. Maybe.

Isn't Boeing a Chicago based corporation. Do believe it is having moved their headquarters from Washington state.

Or so I've been told.

Thats an 827: Isn't Boeing a Chicago based corporation. Do believe it is having moved their headquarters from Washington state.

Or so I've been told.

Boeing still has large production factories in Washington.

And now you get what this war, like every war before it was all about. Billions in [preferably no-bid] contracts for the MIC.

I recall some line from a movie [Eraser?], where the guy says "War doesn't change anything. The only things that matter is who gets rich and who gets dead. Me? I plan on getting rich."

And yea to echo earlier comments, if people are gonna biatch when the US company doesn't get the bid, why bother have bids? Just give it to the US company and cut the hypocrisy.

Man, havn't they cottoned on to the fact that the US of A is really the last country that should be complaining about unfair trade subsidies...

sounds to me like Boeing needed to grease the wheels a little more.
that's how contracts are doled out you know. Whoever bribes the right people with the most money wins.

Subby has no clue how blue Washington is. It's the state that LOST the Boeing HQ to Chicago.

How did a non-American corporation get awarded a US Military contract when there is a US corporation who can fulfill the contract?

I thought there were laws to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

I WANT THE BEST DEAL FOR MY TAX DOLLARS.

PERIOD.

Hobodeluxe: sounds to me like Boeing needed to grease the wheels a little more.

Wasn't for lack of trying.

It is only a continuation of his crap...

Making their way into the chamber for the first time in days, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Warner (R-Va.) took to the microphone. With great ardor, they ripped the amendment apart on grounds that it would cripple the nation's defense. Noting that the amendment had been "debated ad nauseam," McCain said: "Straight talk -- I do not support the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut. If we do not allow the purchase of foreign-manufactured defense equipment, then sooner or later they will retaliate by not purchasing ours. This could have a significant effect."

McCain pulled out a letter from Michael Wynne, acting undersecretary of Defense, which said the provision "would impact our ability to sustain our troops stationed overseas."
Senator Dodd subsequently rewrote the amendment stating that it "shall not apply to any procurement for national security purposes entered into [by] the Department of Defense or any agency or entity thereof." He hoped this would erase Republican concerns about the amendment adversely affecting our troops.

McCain voted to outsource US Troop jobs, anyway.

http://whereistand.com/JohnMcCain/4717

The only true blue area in Washington is Seattle and possibly Olympia. Thankfully, Seattle is big enough that none of the other areas really matter.

Ron Paul got 49% in the Spokane caucuses. No lie. There's Ron Paul stuff EVERYWHERE there.

When the news breaks about an additional six month delay on the 787, people might begin to realize that Boeing isn't exactly the best company for the tanker job.

(For those of you keeping track, that means that the 787 will be over a year and two months behind schedule)

Echoic: Seattle is big enough that none of the other areas really matter.

Let me add that McCain could beat Hillary in WA.

WA basically just completely rejected Hillary when we had our primaries. WA is a state that is very fond of electing women - both our senators and governor are women. Both our senators endorsed Hillary. Yet, she lost by I think 30 points here. People in Seattle are like the Vermont types, and they want Obama, and people everywhere else hate Hillary.

Aquadyne: How did a non-American corporation get awarded a US Military contract when there is a US corporation who can fulfill the contract?

I thought there were laws to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

FTA... McCain's efforts scuttled that project in 2004 and helped uncover criminal wrongdoing on the part of a senior Air Force official and a senior Boeing executive. Both went to federal prison for conspiracy to violate conflict-of-interest rules after the Air Force official admitted steering huge contracts to Boeing, including a $20 billion project for tankers.

Boeing farked it up with the usual corrupt military procurement (not saying the competitors aren't doing it, they do) and apparently offered an inferior plane. Under the tanker deal, some parts will be produced in Europe, but the planes will ultimately be assembled in the US.

I can't claim to have followed this story very closely, but it has been pretty funny to see people whining about treason and how this is going to let the terrorists win, etc. I thought they believed in the free market?

/not saying anyone in this thread is doing that
//but I've seen it elsewhere

Recent polling suggests that WA could move around a bit...

obama/hillary vs mccain

I'm from Seattle and I have a hard time seeing the state go Red, but I'll be pissed if it happens. Like Oregon (my current home), outside of the largest city there is a lot more red. The city usually wins, but not always.

WE SHOULD NOT GIVE OUR TROOPS THE BEST EQUIPMENT IF THE ALTERNATIVE IS MORE PATRIOTIC. END OF ARGUMENT!

Sigh...this isn't about money. It's about maintaining our military manufacturing infrastructure. Your goddamn neoliberal free trade sucked out the rest of our manufacturing base - can we at least keep our military hardware here at home? Christ, if WWIII came tomorrow, we'd be shiat out of luck trying to keep our troops supplied if we have to rely on other countries for all of our guns, tanks, and planes. It's a national security issue, to be sure. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your 'Flat Earth' philosophy. Anything we can do to continue our race to the bottom, eh Randroids?

Boeing lost because it offered an inferior product. Airbus offered a platform that had more cargo capacity, fuel capacity, and passenger capacity (since the new refueler will actually triple up as a C-17 of sorts), plus a faster fuel transfer speed, longer range, and a myriad of other quantifiable improvements over the Boeing frame. Boeing was resting on its laurels as America's dominant aerospace platform producer and didn't bother actually beating the opposing proposals. Serves them right.

Subtard Thanks to the Pentagon's decision to award the new tanker contract to Airbus, and the fact that McCain helped make that happen, Washington just became a swing state

Von Mises: I don't see that airbus contract standing. A lot of members of congress are VERY upset about it.

And they should be.
Why? If Airbus is getting subsidies to make the planes cheaper for the USAF to buy, doesn't that mean that Europeans are being taxed to provide our tankers? Is that a bad thing for American taxpayers?
The orginal sop to Boeing was made after 9/11 and a slew of aircraft order cancellations. The deal that McCain helped kill was a bid to pay Boeing tax dollars to build a full 767 with seats, then pay to remove all that crap and put in fuel tanks and boom, lease the plane for a period of years, then have the taxpayer pay to put the seats back in and let Boeing sell them.

Boeing doesn't need to rip off the pentagon, but American companies should certainly get the first look for giant taxpayer funded contracts.

Everywhere I go, there is all this uproar about how McCain/Congress must hate America for awarding this $35B contract to a French company. Yet so far, I have yet to see how much Boeing bid for it. I'm guessing it was quite a bit more.

Let us not forget, also, that Boeing is notorious for sending jobs overseas thanks to 'free trade'. So even if they did get the contract, a lot of the parts of these planes wouldn't be produced in America either.

Aquadyne: How did a non-American corporation get awarded a US Military contract when there is a US corporation who can fulfill the contract?

I thought there were laws to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

Read above. EADS offered the better product at the better price. Boeing felt entitled to dip into the public coffers to squeeze a little extra ROI out of a production line about to close. Saddling the troops with inferior gear and the taxpayer with an inflated bill, verrryyy patriotic.

Sadly for them, they ran into an honest man or two in Washington.

tiiger: When the news breaks about an additional six month delay on the 787, people might begin to realize that Boeing isn't exactly the best company for the tanker job.

(For those of you keeping track, that means that the 787 will be over a year and two months behind schedule)

You know the exact same goes for the A380/400 right?

Echoic: Seattle is big enough that none of the other areas really matter.

Let me add that McCain could beat Hillary in WA.

WA basically just completely rejected Hillary when we had our primaries. WA is a state that is very fond of electing women - both our senators and governor are women. Both our senators endorsed Hillary. Yet, she lost by I think 30 points here. People in Seattle are like the Vermont types, and they want Obama, and people everywhere else hate Hillary.


That's not actually true. Hillary came in dead even with Obama in WA state primary. Where she lost by 30 points was through the caucus system...which is of course where the delegates count... keep in mind that for our general election... WA state as well as EVERY other state in the country uses a ballot casting system. What's working for Obama right now simply may not work in the general.

Come on people, don't let Obama be your rebound boyfriend. Don't go from extreme lack of leadership to leadership only.... Obama will not be able to get done what he claims he can. His economic plan does not work fiscally and several economists have stated the same. Don't make another mistake by voting for a man not qualified for the job.

JooJooJoo: Don't go from extreme lack of leadership to leadership only.... Obama will not be able to get done what he claims he can. His economic plan does not work fiscally and several economists have stated the same. Don't make another mistake by voting for a man not qualified for the job.

So what do you suggest? Voting for ANOTHER man who is not qualified for the job (because he has no emphasis on economic matters, and plans on following the same idiotic domestic policy that has begun to cripple this country)?
Or, vote for a woman who even LESS qualified for the job?

Remove all Republicans: So I'm guessing you just buy cars from "American" companies (that are built in Mexico), rather than from "Japanese" companies (that are built in Alabama), because it's important that American companies should certainly get a first look? Or, do you actually just look for the best deal, regardless of where it came from?

The single purchase of a private consumer v. tens of billions of dollars in a large military contract... no differences there.

/not that I care who got this contract
//just saying

I have national security/guaranteed supply concerned, too, over EADS winning the contract, but the fact is, they offered the superior product.

My earnest hope is that this forces Boeing to get their act together.

Shaggy_C: Sigh...this isn't about money. It's about maintaining our military manufacturing infrastructure. Your goddamn neoliberal free trade sucked out the rest of our manufacturing base - can we at least keep our military hardware here at home? Christ, if WWIII came tomorrow, we'd be shiat out of luck trying to keep our troops supplied if we have to rely on other countries for all of our guns, tanks, and planes. It's a national security issue, to be sure. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your 'Flat Earth' philosophy. Anything we can do to continue our race to the bottom, eh Randroids?

I think the chances are good that Europe would be on our side in WWIII. We should work on that issue, if it is in doubt.

I also think that WWIII will be fought with ICBMs, and these airbuses wouldn't have time to get off the ground before it was all over.

The interesting thing about the neocons is that for all their "mugged by reality" talk, they haven't woken up to the reality of globalization. America isn't going to conquer the world, but we have no growth plan.

JooJooJoo

And for what it's worth, Presidents aren't to be selected specifically on the policies they support (because a hell of a lot more has to go into choosing a President... this isn't a Senate seat, this is President of the United States). I don't think anyone is fooling themselves into thinking everything Obama (or for that matter, Hillary or McCain) supports will become law.

ilambiquated: I think the chances are good that Europe would be on our side in WWIII. We should work on that issue, if it is in doubt.

Nothing is for certain; and think about it, the way to occupy a country involves heavy ground forces. I think it would be far easier for a Russia/China/Iran entente to overrun Europe before turning their full attention to the US mainland. And without production facilities here, we'd be fighting a losing battle of attrition, to be sure.