Wait, I Thought Norman Lear Liked the French!

Matt Welch | March 21, 2008

Well, if the Democrats win the White House back in November, at least we'll know for sure that the days of infantile French-bashing are over! Oh wait.

 

The ad's progenitor, the lefty-Dem Campaign for America's Future, accuses McCain of costing the U.S. and A. "40,000 jobs," because Airbus beat Boeing on that one contract. As Isaiah J. Poole explains, in a piece entitled "Merci, John McCain, for French-Frying American Jobs,"

McCain has repeatedly voted against bills that encourage defense contracts to be awarded to American companies. In 1996, McCain voted to table an amendment that required defense contractors to indicate on contracts what percentage of the contract would be manufactured in the United States. The amendment would have also required the Department of Defense to treat this as an important factor when awarding contracts.

Moreover, in 2004, McCain proposed and voted for an amendment to allow the Defense Department to waive "Buy American" requirements, opening defense contracts to firms in seven countries that have a "declaration of principles" with the United States.

I swear to Dieu, these people are trying to make me vote for John McCain.

Comments

Ali|3.21.08 @ 4:05PM|#

Well, if the Democrats win the White House back in November, at least we'll know...

huh? back?

Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Look, Matt, just because you don't like French-bashing because your wife is French (or so I have heard) doesn't mean the rest of us have to give up our dirty little habit.

But it's always fun watching the Dems and GOP acting like the carbon-copies of each other that they actually are.

|3.21.08 @ 4:12PM|#

You know, back. Like Clinton used to have it.

|3.21.08 @ 4:13PM|#

Boo my film at Cannes will ya, ya damn frogs...I...oh, nevermind.

Matt Welch|3.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#

Episiarch -- I hear you. But seriously, a beret and Hercule Poirot mustache, for failing to be adequately protectionist? At some point it becomes like Woody Allen telling jokes about California: Kinda funny in the 1970s, maybe, but a little outdated. There's fresher material out there.

|3.21.08 @ 4:15PM|#

I don't understand the mr. furley referance in the title.

some guy|3.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Well, if the Democrats win the White House back

"Take" it back would have been a better choice.

Ali|3.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#

Art, some guy,

I got confused because "back" is so far away from "win". Or may be because I had forgotten that one day there was a democrat in office. It was a long while back.

And it is the end of the week.

Taktix®|3.21.08 @ 4:28PM|#

A href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUVagbFcSUU">J'aurai un croissant.

Taktix®|3.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#

J'aurai un croissant.

|3.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#

So are these geniuses coming out for the old no-bid-contracts or something? I am voting for McCain, but come on, there's plenty to criticize other than the fact that he's fiscally semi-intelligent on this particular subject. Wow, I think the country would be served much better if both sides were at least somewhat capable competitors.

Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 4:32PM|#

There's fresher material out there.

Not when it comes to the Frogs. That's some seriously long-lived stereotyping there. Next up: "we saved your asses in WWII" and "French tanks have one speed for forward and 5 for reverse".

Oh, gratuitously: why are there trees along the Champs-Élysées?

Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

ZING

|3.21.08 @ 4:40PM|#

Let me point out the fuckin' cheese eating surrender monkeys have a robust defense industry and design and build quality stuff. Isaiah J. Poole is obviously completely ignorant of that salient fact.

Oh well, it's the left.

|3.21.08 @ 4:44PM|#

I have a big problem giving any business to AirBus.If not for massive European government 'loans' this company would have went the way of the dodo.Although I do like brie and French wine.

Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 4:53PM|#

If not for massive European government 'loans' this company would have went the way of the dodo.

Boeing gets "subsidies" too, in the form of (traditionally) the government always buying its planes from them, and other government contracts.

Airbus is a pretty good company, as partially state-owned companies go.

|3.21.08 @ 4:56PM|#

I have a big problem giving any business to AirBus.If not for massive European government 'loans' this company would have went the way of the dodo.Although I do like brie and French wine.

The French (and English I believe) taxpayers support Airbus, allowing Airbus to sell planes to DoD for les than Boeing. Doesn't that mean that French taxpayers are footing some of the US military costs? How is that bad for America?

|3.21.08 @ 5:00PM|#

Now that I actually watched the clip, it is so lame.

|3.21.08 @ 5:01PM|#

But my Boeing shares went down goddammit!

DannyK|3.21.08 @ 5:01PM|#

I'm happy to see the Dems closing the "stupid nationalism" gap in this election. Maybe when both sides are doing it to excess, it will finally become embarassing.

|3.21.08 @ 5:39PM|#

I swear to Dieu, these people are trying to make me vote for John McCain.

That was my reaction, too. That Boeing lease contract he scotched was a freaking boondoggle. It was a set-up job to funnel tax dollars into corrupt officials' and businessmen's pockets. Killing that might have been the best thing McCain's done in his entire career.

I can't believe this union is going after him for that.

|3.21.08 @ 5:46PM|#

But you see, the McCain thing is different, because...because...

...well, he has an "R" next to his name, that's why...

(What the hell, it works for Limbaugh, Hannity, et al...)

SxCx|3.21.08 @ 5:52PM|#

Even laughter can be translated?

|3.21.08 @ 5:52PM|#

COME ON PEOPLE! Make an effort! If you're going to use the French as pawns for your ideological politico-games the LEAST you could do is to properly research the language. There were too many grammar and pronounciation mistakes in that clip to make it credible or effective. Of course for americans it probably sounded french enough...For comparison purposes, imagine speaking like speedy gonzales, but less articulate, and trying to make a point about NAFTA. Ridicule!

MattXIV|3.21.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Let me point out the fuckin' cheese eating surrender monkeys have a robust defense industry and design and build quality stuff. Isaiah J. Poole is obviously completely ignorant of that salient fact.

Yep - 3rd biggest exporter in absolute terms, behind Russia and the US (and the US is lower as a % of GDP).

|3.21.08 @ 6:25PM|#

France is an ally. Doesn't seem that way, but I think they'd kill somebody for us, if push came to shove. I rather expect we'd do it again for them, too.

cfpete|3.21.08 @ 6:39PM|#

Two things:

We throw this deal to Airbus and then use it against them at the WTO.

Are we going to lockout Airbus and basically give Boeing a monopoly on all military contracts? I'm sure Boeing will take pity on us taxpayers and give us some great prices.
Or should I say transfer taxpayer money to politically important Dem districts.

I thought the Dems were against monopolies?

|3.21.08 @ 6:48PM|#

The modern French Republic and the United States are practically fraternal twins.

We are WAY too tied at the roots to cause major harm to one another. We're just squabbling siblings.

Now that the French and the British don't attempt to kill each other anymore, the Brits are like the slightly older brother to both. The only reason we're closer to the Brits is that we speak the same language and share a common love of sneering at the Frogs.

Anyway, Airbus makes a damn fine passenger airplane.

|3.21.08 @ 6:59PM|#

cfpete,

Boeing isn't even the largest military contractor in the US. The reason this was such a huge deal is that it was going to use one of their civilian airframes (the only thing that really makes sense for a tanker unless you get into existing military cargo airframes - but most of those aren't well-suited to this task).

Lockheed (the biggest contractor) doesn't make civilian airframes anymore. Northrup surely doesn't. That's why Northrup decided to team with EADS if they were going to make a bid. I don't even think Lockheed bid on this.

Since McDonnell-Douglas IS Boeing now, there ain't a whole lot of US aircraft manufacturers that could compete with Boeing for airframe use. Hell, I think the only major North American builder of civilian aircraft of any size is Bombardier, and I don't think CRJs are quite adequate for military tankers, and they're Canadian anyway.

So had they demanded a US-only supplier for airframe, it would have HAD to be Boeing and Boeing alone.

economist|3.21.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Is it really that surprising? Why, I saw a political commercial where somebody was criticized for cutting spending. Needless to say, I had to vote for that person.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.22.08 @ 2:52AM|#

cfpete,

Are we going to lockout Airbus and basically give Boeing a monopoly on all military contracts?

Over at Cato they've suggested that yes, we should pare our military contractors for big ticket items to just one. Yes, a monopoly.

Theory being that we can't afford to support two companies making huge airplanes, air craft carriers, etc.

Not sure yet if I agree or disagree with that. But the whole business of defense contracting is a funny universe to begin with.

Because, even in a free market it's not a free market. If Government A (say it's free market) pays to develop a high end weapon system, is Government A then going to let the contractor sell that same weapon system to everybody else on the planet who wants one? I think not, and I think in this case Government A has the right (and some good reasons) for keeping a lid on the contractor.

But then the contractor is not a free market contractor. So you end up with the mess we have. Or you could invent some other kind of mess if you want, but it will still be a mess.

Defense contracting is one of those sticky little corners of the free market universe.

VM|3.22.08 @ 9:54AM|#

"Defense contracting is one of those sticky little corners of the free market universe."

one of quite a few!