The France Ad

The Campaign for America's Future proudly emailed this attack video against John McCain to me the other day, and frankly it's disappointing stuff:

There's just no evidence that McCain did anything wrong here. He was on the side of the angels in helping to investigate some dirty dealings in the contracting process for this tanker back in 2004, and the idea that Boeing should have a permanent monopoly on Air Force contracts because to work with rival firms would be "shipping jobs to France" is absurd. If people don't want to go after McCain for something real, they should go after his shabby treatment of his first wife or make fun of him for being so damn old or something. Or go after him for something real! But this ignorant and silly.

Comments

Not only is it ignorant and silly, but it's damaging to the Democratic party as Democrats claim that they can improve international relations. This is not the way to go about it.

This video is so childish and xenophobic, I could hardly stand to watch it.

It seems like something the "freedom fries" Republicans would do.

Sad.

Posted by JoAnn | March 23, 2008 12:30 PM

Fair is fair; now try to be as fair to Clinton. Every time you rant against Clinton, I become more doubtful about supporting Obama. The campaign is Obama's to win, and Clinton can run as long as she wants to run in the hope of getting better policy from Obama.

Posted by Jennifer | March 23, 2008 12:34 PM

In addition, their main assertion (that MCain is "shipping jobs to France") is factually wrong. Airbus will assemble the planes at a brand-new plant in Alabama. That's in America, not France.

If Airbus makes better planes than Boeing, then we need to tell Boeing to improve their product.

That said, there are plenty of reasons to attack McCain. This isn't one of them.

Posted by Drew | March 23, 2008 12:36 PM

The ad is idiotic and insulting.

Posted by Jennifer | March 23, 2008 12:38 PM

The ad is idiotic and insulting.

So, it should be effective.

Posted by George | March 23, 2008 12:46 PM

The deal does make more jobs in France and fewer in America than would be had under the Boeing contract. The ad is factually correct.

As for the merits of attacking McCain for taking a stand against military-industrial complex welfare...fuck it I want to win this election. You gotta campaign in the country you got, not the one you wish you had. I think this is a very powerful ad.

Posted by skyler | March 23, 2008 12:56 PM

Gee, Mr. Yglesias criticizes the CAF for taking a page out of the Rethuglicans' playbook.

Posted by SLC | March 23, 2008 12:59 PM

What JoAnn said. Dreadful. Our side should be better than this.

One of the uglier run-up-to-war 2002-03 sideshows was the tacky, ugly-American Francophobia of the right.

Posted by Bart Acocella | March 23, 2008 1:09 PM

If people don't want to go after McCain for something real, they should go after his shabby treatment of his first wife

Or the fact that he made over a dozen tapes for the Vietnamese Communists denouncing US imperialist war crimes. And that Hanoi has never released these tapes, though McCain himself alluded to their existence shortly after he was released. And that McCain's extremely pro-Vietnamese political stance since the early 1990s may be related to the existence of those tapes, which Hanoi could no doubt release, if McCain ceased to act as a staunch ally of theirs in the US Senate, or, potentially, the White House.

It's not about "Manchurian Candidate" stuff. Hanoi has dirt on the man, and if they want to, they can use it. He's made sure they never need to use it. Simple politics.

Posted by wallace | March 23, 2008 1:14 PM

But this ignorant and silly.

And that's what feeds the bulldog. Or haven't you been paying attention?

Posted by ed | March 23, 2008 1:18 PM

Isn't there a case to be made that our military hardware be made by Americans and not our potential enemies? France may not seem to be a potential enemy, but we were on opposite sides in the Suez Canal Crisis. And we shot at each other. Something like that could happen again, and if our enemy designed the planes we're using, maybe they'd know how to better defeat them. Normally, I'd have no problem with buying foreign products, but sophisticated military equipment should be kept as close to American soil as possible. We should not simply assume the Europe will always be our friend.

Posted by fostert | March 23, 2008 1:24 PM

He was on the side of the angels in helping to investigate some dirty dealings in the contracting process for this tanker back in 2004...

If you want to believe that McCain is on the side of the angels here, then I have a number of sizeable bridges I'd like to sell you. We're talking about military procurement, right?

The operating assumption should be that everyone's got their hands out. McCain's been awfully cozy with EADS of late - I suppose that's just a coincidence?

Here's another couple of questions to ponder - how much more per plane will the USAF be paying in 2008 than it was in 2004? Also, how much extra av gas is getting wasted because the delay to the tanker order meant that KC-135's would be in service for an extra 4 years at least?

Again, not saying that Boeing is on the side of the angels here either, but chances are this deal isn't any dirtier than literally hundreds of others. Why'd McCain pick this one?

Posted by BFR | March 23, 2008 1:30 PM

In addition, their main assertion (that MCain is "shipping jobs to France") is factually wrong. Airbus will assemble the planes at a brand-new plant in Alabama. That's in America, not France.

If Airbus makes better planes than Boeing, then we need to tell Boeing to improve their product.

More planes = more jobs, it's about as straight-forward as it gets.

If you want to believe there's a meaningful performance difference between planes made in Toulouse v. Seattle/Wichita, I have another bridge to sell you.

The USAF changed the requirements at the last moment to favor a larger design, thus guaranteeing a win for the A330 platform. Had that requirement been in the original RFP, Boeing could have submitted a proposal based around the 777.

I haven't the foggiest idea what the political calculus behind why the USAF rigged the 1st round for Boeing (in '04) and then rigged the 2nd round for Airbus.

Aircraft deals in general are major foreign trade negotiations, so I'm assuming there was a quid-pro-quo between the Bush administration and Sarkozy in some form or another.

Posted by BFR | March 23, 2008 1:36 PM

"We should not simply assume the Europe will always be our friend."

I guess I should add that if McCain becomes president, we will go to war against Iran and Europe will no longer be our friend (they are more susceptible to oil supply disruptions and won't be happy when the Straight of Hormuz is shut down). But they will have intimate knowledge of the capabilities and weaknesses of some of our planes. McCain wants to turn our friends into enemies and then give them an advantage in any potential battle.

Posted by fostert | March 23, 2008 1:41 PM

By the way, it's a silly jingoistic ad and really irritating to boot - I just don't think McCain deserves any kind of reverence on the tanker deal until someone digs into how EADS won this time around and what about the '04 deal piqued McCain's interest.

Posted by BFR | March 23, 2008 1:42 PM

"Or go after him for something real! But this ignorant and silly."

Gotta love how Matthew will defend John McCain's honor from intellectual dishonesty at the drop of a hat, but would never dream of doing the same for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Petey | March 23, 2008 1:44 PM

Petey, that's bullshit, I've defended Hillary Clinton any number of times during this campaign, including most notably on your pet issue of Obama's attacks on her health care plan.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 23, 2008 2:11 PM

"The campaign is Obama's to win, and Clinton can run as long as she wants to run in the hope of getting better policy from Obama."

Ha! That's the best laugh I've had on an Easter Sunday.

Posted by Woody Bombay | March 23, 2008 2:28 PM

"The deal does make more jobs in France and fewer in America than would be had under the Boeing contract."

Can you provide evidence that this is true, or even completely knowable at this point? Had Boeing won the contract, a lot of the work on its planes would have been done by overseas subcontractors, with the final assembly in the U.S.

Also, don't military procurement rules specifically prohibit contracts being awarded on the basis of the number of domestic jobs created?

Posted by Fred | March 23, 2008 2:28 PM

Gotta love how Matthew will defend John McCain's honor from intellectual dishonesty at the drop of a hat, but would never dream of doing the same for Hillary Clinton

Matthew Iglesias is simply pointing out that this ad is uncalled for and that Democrats should not be using this type of xenophobic, stereotypical, Republican-talking-points type of argument.

I have no clue what this ad or post has to do with Hillary Clinton. Democrats, be they Hillary Clinton supporters or Barack Obama supporters, should not be using this type of low-brow xenophobic ad.

Isn't there a case to be made that our military hardware be made by Americans and not our potential enemies?

Fine. But why bash the French and resort to putting forth some xenophobic, childish, low-level ad?

Posted by JoAnn | March 23, 2008 2:48 PM

I was wondering when someone would point out that Boeing tried to pull a fast one over on the American people and there are actually people who went to jail for the way they tried to bribe their way into the initial contract.
If it was up to me, companies that pulled crap like that trying to get government contracts would get blacklisted for good or ten years or something.

Posted by flounder | March 23, 2008 2:59 PM

I think Matt is showing much more judgement that the cynics here. How people imagine that they can behave like everything they profess to find contemptuous and not turn into it is beyond me.

I think it really is pathetic: if it was wittily made or had any redeeming features then it would be possible to muster up some sympathy. But this?

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 23, 2008 3:20 PM

A good article on the subject comes from the Kansas City Star.

http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/532219.html

"WASHINGTON | C’est la vie? Not in Wichita. Not among furious Kansas lawmakers. Not on your “vie.”

When French-based Airbus won a $35 billion Air Force contract to replace an aging fleet of aerial tankers, no Gallic shrugs were visible in Wichita or Everett, Wash., where Boeing Co. aircraft manufacturing plants can be found.

The reaction might instead be described as overwrought.

“We shouldn’t require our military personnel to learn to speak French to be able to operate our refueling tankers,” said Sen. Sam Brownback. Fortunately, those Americans eating cheese and drinking wine can afford translators.

“Subsidizing socialism,” complained Kansas’ other Republican senator, Pat Roberts, setting aside the fact that the entire U.S. economy seems to be subsidizing Chinese communism.

But leave it to liberal Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Seattle to evoke the Terror.

“The U.S. government is leading those jobs to the guillotine.”

Suddenly the taste of “Freedom Fries” is on the political palate."

- The stupidity and/or the desire to be self-serving knows no bounds among politicians.

In this case, the reporter has gotten it right. I applaud him.

Posted by bernarda | March 23, 2008 3:45 PM

I don't see what's so wrong about this ad. I mean, yes it's silly and kind of unfair, but so what? With Hillary and Obama locked in a titanic struggle to the death, somebody needs to throw a little poo at John McCain, if for no other reason than to make him duck a little.

I like this ad because it's aimed right at the xenophobic, "fredom fries"-lovin', GOP base. The hardcore Republicans already distrust McCain. What better way to convince a few to stay home in November than to put Johnny Maverick in a beret and imply that he's in bed with the French?

Posted by Chuchundra | March 23, 2008 3:54 PM

I agree that the ad is bad, but there is more to the story than McCain being on the side of the angels. He intervened twice in the requirements process for the contract by lobbying top DoD officials. Both interventions aided Airbus. Meanwhile he was taking campaign money and later took lobbyists on to his campaign from EADS, Airbus' parent.

I explain all this here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/03/13/airbus-alabama-boeing-and-mccain/

None of that is illegal, and he probably was right in his views on the requirements, but it warrants mentioning given his claims of virtue on lobbyists and whatnot.

Posted by Ben | March 23, 2008 4:54 PM

I like this ad because it's aimed right at the xenophobic, "fredom fries"-lovin', GOP base. The hardcore Republicans already distrust McCain. What better way to convince a few to stay home in November than to put Johnny Maverick in a beret and imply that he's in bed with the French?

So the ends justify the means no matter how disgusting the means?

How sad! How deep into to the depths of ignorance are we Americans willing to go?

Posted by JoAnn | March 23, 2008 4:59 PM

I agree that the ad is bad, but

What do you mean, "but"?

Are we as Democrats willing to do anything at all to win an election? Please tell me that this is not true..

sigh...

I thought that Democrats were better than that. Maybe I was wrong all along...

:(

Posted by JoAnn | March 23, 2008 5:31 PM

Or just hopelessly naive.

Good Lord - the GOP works on the "Obama is a secret Muslim, and Hillary had Vince Foster murdered" end of the field. This McCain video is fucking child's play.

Posted by Woody Bombay | March 23, 2008 5:55 PM

I think Matt is missing the point. First of all, almost all of the components used in the plane are being manufactured in the EU and then assembled here. That's a pretty huge difference from Boeing.

Secondly, part of the reason people tolerate our incredibly bloated military budget is because the money is going directly back into American pockets. Sending that money overseas is not the same as subsidizing (or call it what you want) tens of thousands of American jobs.

Thirdly, rebuilding the infrastructure to build military hardware after it has been lost is incredibly expensive. Boeing will likely have to shut down a line (or severely cut back) because of the lost contract. Restarting it will cost tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to restart. Keeping the American military infrastructure in order is far more important that most people think. It's our competitive edge. Far more than even our massive overspending

Posted by NM | March 23, 2008 7:41 PM

Woody, because the GOP uses dishonest or xenophobic attack adds, the left can? No way. Its not naive to hold your party to a higher standard. Yes, it would be naive to sit still and be swift-boated, but there are ways to counterpunch without being dishonest, crass, or offensive. Obama is trying out those strategies this year. The rest of the party should catch up with him.

And NM - I think I disagree with your point as well. The American military infrastructure will survive this bill. Defense spending will still be a massive portion of our budget, and asking Boeing to be competitive with France - an allied nation with high wages for workers - doesn't seem unfair. If Boeing has to shut down a line, that would be unfortunate, but industry can't hold the government hostage by threatening to lay off employes.

Posted by Steve in MA | March 23, 2008 9:48 PM

So the ends justify the means no matter how disgusting the means?

On the scale of "disgusting means", this rates pretty low. I wouldn't advocate killing anyone to defeat John McCain, nor advocate breaking the law. But whipping up some anxiety about lost jobs to a country that many Americans have an irrational dislike for? Eh, not such a big deal. I might not like it, but I certainly don't weep for my country over it.

Posted by Tyro | March 23, 2008 11:06 PM

"Secondly, part of the reason people tolerate our incredibly bloated military budget is because the money is going directly back into American pockets. Sending that money overseas is not the same as subsidizing (or call it what you want) tens of thousands of American jobs."

Or maybe if we don't get the pork benefits of military Keynesism, we should reconsider our military spending.

"Woody, because the GOP uses dishonest or xenophobic attack adds, the left can? No way. Its not naive to hold your party to a higher standard. Yes, it would be naive to sit still and be swift-boated, but there are ways to counterpunch without being dishonest, crass, or offensive. Obama is trying out those strategies this year. The rest of the party should catch up with him."

Very true. Evander Holyfield didn't bite Mike Tyson back, but continued hitting him in the face and, despite the biting, had a better fight. He would have won even if Mills Lane hadn't stopped the fight. You can fight back without shooting yourself in the foot. We can't out-xenophobe the right and we shouldn't anyway, so why play their game in the first place?

Boeing vs. Airbus is little more than Fanta vs. warm Orangina.

Posted by Reality Man | March 23, 2008 11:13 PM

"That's a pretty huge difference from Boeing."

Really? Boeing has components built overseas as well, and assembles them in the U.S. That's part of the reason why its Dreamliner keeps getting delayed.

Also, France and other European countries are potential defense customers of the U.S. If we want our companies to be able to compete fairly on European military contracts, we have to play fair with them too. Defense manufacturing is one industry I'm pretty sure we have a trade surplus in.

Posted by Fred | March 24, 2008 1:42 AM

There are dozens of reasons why the dreamliner has been delayed including parts shortages. But a huge majority of those parts are made inside the US, unlike Airbus. If you want to get really picky, you can argue that because the dreamliner is primarily made of composites then it is by nature going to be heavily manufactured outside the US because the Japanese make the most high performance composites. But I wouldn't

Anyways, the real dumb part of all this was the Airforce stirring up controversy. The last thing they need is for lawmakers to start seriously thinking about spending on them. They're far and away our least useful branch, and could be folded into the US army without much of a hassle. Hell, the Navy already has more planes than them anyways.

oh well.

Posted by NM | March 24, 2008 10:17 AM

I think a very relevant piece of this conversation that's barely been alluded to is: EADS has extensively lobbied McCain (more so than Airbus). Former lobbyists for them are on his campaign staff an among his bundlers. McCain isn't acting as an efficient procurer for military parts (which I approve of), but just as a defender of his particular interest groups. If slamming him on that relationship takes him down for the election, then good on it.

Posted by Shock Mouse | March 24, 2008 11:36 AM