Way to go, Jay!

Hey, where’s “Mr. Boeing” aka GOP Rep. Todd Akin? Guess he’s out to lunch, eh?

Jay Nixon is an economist now?

What grandstanding tard.

It doesn’t take an economist to figure out that contract awarding was not good for America and American workers.

Of course he supports it! He got a memo yesterday from Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. What obvious posturing …and rather than examining his possible motivation (however apparent) the P-D yet again serves as the partisan mouthpiece for special interest groups who want to use this as a presidential campaign issue. Utterly pathetic! Hey Jake! Check with Howie Nancy and Harry (if he’s awake) and see if ti is OK to respond to this comment.

Actually, I’ve heard that the assembly on this contract would be done in the United States. Where does Nixon get his figure that this would result in thousands of jobs going overseas?

Nick….you mean Fox News never reported it? Wow….amazing!

This isn’t about politics despite what some seem to be attempting to do here. It is about what is good for America. The initial prediction given by EADS was a net gain of 1,500 in Alabama with the final assembly of the EADS tanker being worked in that state. There was an indication there “maybe” another 25,000 jobs by suppliers selected in the U. S. if we used our tax dollars to beef up the European economy by awarding EADS the contract. Boeing’s predictions were always around 44,000 jobs across the U. S.
When Northrop saw the negative publicity to our tax dollars going to Europe when our own economy is in shambles, they used some “new Dept of Labor calculator” to produce an estimated 48,000 jobs. Interesting isn’t it? Another interesting point (since some want to play politics with our economic future) to ponder is why John McCain reportedly hired two staffers who spent last year lobbying on behalf of EADS winning the tanker deal.
What is NOT interesting is wondering what will happen to our ability to deliver tankers to the USAF to supply fuel to OUR military jets if we are engaged in a war France doesn’t support (which is most any conflict we ever engage in) OR they go to war and decide supplying tankers to their own military is more important than fulfilling their contract with the USA. What do you tell our sons and daughters fighting on the front lines somewhere when they need air support that can’t be delivered because our ability to re-fuel our fighters is not there? Sorry, we can’t drop bombs on the people shooting at you because France quit supplying parts?
Our nation needs to wake up, stop allowing our defense work to be moved overseas, and ensure America can defend herself from all enemies, foreign or domestic, for generations to come. This isn’t about protectionism. It is about protection. Protect our military men and women, protect our nation, and protect our industrial defense base!

Thomas, what do you think is more important to our troops, an all-around better tanker as chosen by the folks from the Air Force or a souped up passenger plane that doesn’t fulfill the Air Forces needs?

Nixon has no idea if Missouri’s economy is lagging. His paycheck is stable and his nice house on his snooty street in Jeff City is safe.

this is really not a partisan issue. Most politicians from Missouri dont agree with Boeing not being award the tanker deal. Its purely motivated by the politics of the region. I’m sure you could ask any congressman, senator, or statewide officer and they are all in agreement that outsourcing jobs from Missouri isnt something they are going to support, especially when the jobs may be going overseas.