ouse Minority Whip Eric Cantor is a curious blend of contradictions. Aiming at the anti-government populism stirring about, he wants to be seen as an anti-tax and anti-spending guy. He’s also a Main Street Republican who is very comfortable with the captains of Virginia business at country club luncheons. Plus, he is an excellent fund-raiser.
Cantor’s Curious Contradictions
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
13 responses to “Cantor’s Curious Contradictions”
-
Good post, Peter. The question that comes to mind is: Is DoD opposition due genuine or due to political reasons, i.e., serving the interests of the existing vendor?
TMT
-
Peter, I fail to see what connection any of this has to the preferred sexual act of a certain group. You lose me there.
-
anonymous,
huh?
pg
-
I think he is confused by your use of the term Teabagger, which actually refers to one who performs a certain sexual act by inserting something I shall not name here into another person's mouth, not Tea Partiers, to which I believe you mean to refer.
-
Albert,
I bow to your understanding of sexual activity and my cluelessness.
So, it is politically incorrect to call the Tea Party, Tea Baggers?
Please advisePG
-
Peter. first you post a photo of the woman with the extremely attractive backside and now you are talking about sexual techniques. Dr. Freud could have a field day analyzing your blogging!
TMT
-
TMT
You have no idea!
PG
-
So I take it this won't make it to Eric's YouCut list…..or is it YouBris?
-
Not sure how much of a contradiction there is here. The Pentagon (inventor of the $500 toilet seat) wants one airplane engine provider. Once the planes are being built at scale that one builder will have the Prntagon over a barrel. Cantor wants two vendors with the ability to play one against the other if there are problems (and cost overruns) during construction.
The Pemtagon says having two providers costs more money now. Rolld Royce ssys thst having a choice will lower total cost ownership.
-
Peter, I am waiting for your auto-biography to hit the market! (Seriously, I suspect you could write some interesting vignettes.)
A sole-source provider must be under some type of price regulation. Otherwise, two vendors are better, but not as good as three or more. The telecom market has shown that at least three providers in a market are necessary for reasonable competition to develop.
TMT
-
Um, if you have been following the engine battles, including many defense commentary, you'll know that the current PW F135 was procured on nothing even resembling the modern definition of a competition. For all intents and purposes, its procurement was single source. Whatever Cantor's intentions, I think you'll agree that this is no way for the US to procure its defense equipment – especially when we're talking about an essential component for a plane that will be replacing a large number of the US tacair fleet.
Also, if you spend time with most anyone in the know, they'll tell you that the F135 was a stopgap and the JSF with the P&W is underpowered. Yes, it will go, but there's a performance issue. The F136, which is actually being designed specifically for the JSF, is seen as strong insurance for such a large project that many DO feel that is needed.
Let's be clear – when you say that the services don't want the F135, you're mostly talking about brass and bureaucrats – and this is the case after Bob Gates (a boot-centric SecDef if there ever was one) did a rather thorough housecleaning at the Pentagon. And even they are relatively divided. Please do not be so naive to assume that because Cantor is supporting an alternate engine that this must be some nefarious neocon plan. There is a very valid operational, military, and logistical argument to be made (and is being made) to support the F136 alternate engine. Yes, they have their lobbyists, but so do the P&W folks.
-
Cantor's not just "another big-spending Republican". He's a little more interesting than that.
One wonders, if the plane is unwanted by the Pentagon, then who does want it, and why would Cantor help? My prediction is that after a half-hearted effort to foist it off on the USAF it will end up being given gratis or at a steep discount to the Israelis. Just Cantor's way of saying "thanks, bros!" His expertise in channeling American taxpayer money to Israel is without peer.
-
Look at this:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/03/aipac-telling-a-whopper/
The F-35 isn't for us, it's for Cantor's masters across the big water. Nothing's too good or too expensive for Israel when the US taxpayer's buying.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.