WASHINGTON – When Boeing Vice President of Tanker Programs Mark McGraw called Mobile a “higher risk” at a press conference and Gary Mears, another Boeing VP, made some lame analogy about Mobile – putting together tricycles and Christmas – it might have been a little bit of a reach to be offended and say they were attempting to disparage the collective intellect of Mobilians. There was perhaps a bit of an attempted elitist tone to their message, but their weak attempt to discredit the Northrop Grumman/EADS bid probably wasn’t the tasteless politically insensitive redneck joke as some interpreted.
However, that didn’t stop our congressional delegation from responding, with Sen. Richard Shelby giving the most zealous retort.
“I would hope that you would disavow the offensive remarks about Mobile and that in the future you will ensure that your company avoids publicly demeaning Alabama’s highly qualified workforce, including your own [referring to the 3,000+ Boeing workers currently employed in Alabama],” Shelby wrote in a letter to Boeing Chairman James McNerney.
Sen. Jeff Sessions had a similar response in a news conference Sept. 27 – “There’s no work Alabamians can’t do, so it’s a disappointment to hear that kind of comment. That’s part of the process I guess we’re going through. I would just say, I don’t think there’s any doubt whatsoever that the Northrop/EADS team would have selected Alabama as their site if they get this contract, if they weren’t absolutely confident our workers could do the work.”
However, if I were working behind the scenes, and thankfully I’m not – I would say you’d have to fight fire with fire. Why hasn’t anything been said about why we’re at this point in the first place?
My suggestion: conduct a press conference with some dignitaries like Northrop Grumman CEO Ron Sugar, Rep. Jo Bonner, Mobile County Commissioner Stephen Nodine and maybe throw in some star power (I heard Ludacris was in Mobile) and remind the taxpayers the reason why Boeing’s not building the refueling tankers right now is because of the shenanigans they attempted in 2003.
A disgraced Air Force acquisitions officer and a crooked Boeing executive cooked up a scheme for Boeing to lease the tankers to the Air Force. It turned out to be corrupt, so the deal was thrown out and they both ended up in jail. Once everyone has had his or her memory refreshed, then we should evaluate who is the “higher risk.”
Shelby and Sessions push amendments, but impact questioned
An amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Shelby and Sen. Jeff Sessions meant to “speed up the pace” of the Air Force’s refueling tanker replacement effort passed in the Senate, but Sessions wouldn’t say if it improved Mobile’s chances.
“We’d like to see this aircraft move forward as fast as possible,” Sessions said to Lagniappe. “We’d like to see the transition done in a way that maximizes the benefit to the taxpayers of America … The truth is, if we probably had two suppliers and did it at a faster pace, we would save a lot of money in the long run.”
All the back-and-forth rhetoric between the Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS sides might not mean a whole lot in the long run.
Sue Payton, head of Air Force acquisitions, said to the Financial Time back in August splitting the deal for an initial 80 tankers would be too costly and the refueling contract would be awarded to one bidder.
“I think it’s pretty much the same as it has been,” said Matt Grimison, a spokesman for the Aerospace Industries Association – an Arlington, Va. trade association that both Boeing and Northrop Grumman are members. Grimison would not give an edge to either side. “I have noticed periodic public relations initiatives from both sides, including the recent Northrop study saying their program would create the same amount of U.S. jobs as Boeing would. In the past, language addressing the competition specifically has been stripped, since there are well-placed congressional supporters on both sides.”
Democratic challenger Lodmell ‘urges’ Bonner investigation
Benjamin Lodmell, the likely Democratic candidate for the congressional seat currently held by Rep. Jo Bonner, sent a letter to the House Franking Commission Chairman Rep. Michael E. Capuano (D-Mass.) asking for an investigation into “possible misuse of the franking privilege” by Bonner.
“How a political brochure distributed by a commercial newspaper to an estimated 94,000 readers can qualify for the franking privilege, as claimed by Congressman Bonner, is unclear,” Lodmell wrote.
Lodmell was referring to an insert called “The Washington Report,” which ran in the Aug. 18 Press-Register. Lodmell claimed to qualify for the franking privilege it must carry a disclaimer stating: “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”
“No such disclaimer appears in the document,” Lodmell wrote.
Bonner’s office responded to Lodmell’s claims through a statement last week.
“The newsletter in question was properly executed under the congressional frank and was approved – as are all of Congressman Bonner’s newsletters – by the Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards,” Bonner Press Secretary Nancy Wall said in an e-mail to Lagniappe. “The newsletter was not distributed by mail – which is almost twice as expensive as inserting it in local newspapers – and therefore did not require the disclaimer, ’...mailed at taxpayer expense.’”
Contact Jeff Poor at jeffreypoor@yahoo.com.
Archives
Beltway Beat
