From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
In last night’s debate, Governor Romney accurately pointed out that our Navy now has fewer ships than it has since 1916. President Obama incorrectly implied that Governor Romney was not aware of what a modern military force looks like. In his response, President Obama stated that, “You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916 well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.”
“When I was commissioned in the U.S. Navy in 1988 we had 565 ships – and today we are down to 287,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “As a retired naval officer, President Obama’s denigration of the U.S. Navy by comparing warships to horses is offensive. It is clear that as China rapidly develops a blue water navy, President Obama’s lack of foreign policy leadership has placed Americans in a position of weakness – an always dangerous position. With our enemies looking for any sign that American resolve is faltering, to suggest that the world is safer today than in 1988 demonstrates an extremely naive worldview that places all Americans at risk. We can no longer afford President Obama’s failed foreign policies and economic ideas that keep us from affording the Navy we need to compete in the modern world.”
In addition to not understanding the role of the Navy, it seems that the President does not understand what weapons our military actually uses. As Chuck Todd of MSNBC pointed out today, “a quick search of the Marine Corps website shows bayonets among the weapons actively used in combat.”
Find the money to build more ships Andy. Go ahead, I’m sure you can gut all the entitlement programs you want to achieve that goal. I know you won’t raise taxes to pay for your spending. And just what do you want to do with those new ships? Iran is vastly outnumbered from a Naval perspective so you are going to need ground troops if you want an elective war with them – and you haven’t even paid down the last elective war you wanted. Romney is much worse than Reagan when he touted a 600 ship Navy. If you recall, bringing back the Iowa Class Battleships created a problem with crew retention. They were designed at a time when you had scads of labor available to load those bags of propellant into their 16 inch guns. The same is not true now and it has become obvious that trained crew members are becoming a seriously expensive commodity in today’s armed forces. So populating surface ships with more crews is a cost multiplier that really does not increase the effectiveness of a surface combatant. That was the President’s point. And that is why if you want to increase the number of horses and bayonets we use, it is only a waste of money. Something I thought you would be opposed to – except for the necessary self esteem you derive by having an unnecessarily large military.
Not a self-esteem issue. You could at least call that patriotic perhaps.
It’s a lobby issue. Defense contractors, the whole military industrial complex got fat on our dime because we had to be a constant state of world war readiness for 50 years, then we conducted regional skirmishes for the last 20 years which helped keep them going, and now they basically have China, and possibly Russia to use as a scare tactic to maintain our uneccesarily large standing force.
No country in the world maintains such a large proportion of their spending for military capability on the scale that we do. Just like on the eve of World War 2, if needed, we could mobilize the industry and people to make ourselves ready for a large scale conflict WHEN the time comes.
We don’t have to maintain that readiness on a daily basis. I know this sounds scary to anyone who lived through 1960-1990, but it’s the plain truth of the matter now.
They just don’t want us to believe it because it will mean the end of the good times for the military industrial complex. There are many Republicans who see this spending as wasteful, but the party leadership won’t listen to them because they are listening to the lobby, to the campaign contributors.
Harris is a stooge of this leadership because he’s one of the new boys and he has to cut his teeth playign parrot if he wants to stay in office and get anywhere.
Thank you for serving then, and thank you for your service now.
Respectfully.
Gut entitlement programs to save the nation? Sounds like a winner to me.
Save us from what, exactly?
HELLO, HELLO READ ALL ABOUT IT, REMONEY DID IT AGAIN.
Mitt Romney has an amazing ability to make a profit on anything. He can make millions when a company goes bankrupt, reap huge returns off the 9/11 tragedies and profit from getting high schoolers hooked on tobacco. But his greatest trick off all was raking in millions from the auto rescue he opposed.
In a stunning exposé published Thursday in the The Nation – with support from The Investigative Fund — reporter Greg Palast reveals how key donors to Romney’s campaign made more than a billion dollars off the restructuring of General Motors by holding a key player in the supply chain hostage to their demands during the heart of America’s worst jobs crisis in 50 years.
Delphi Automotive is an auto parts maker that used to be part of General Motors and remains essential for auto production. Without Delphi, there would be no American automotive industry. And unfortunately for America, it ended up being controlled by Elliott Management.
Elliott Management is run by ?Paul Singer, a massive Republican donor and “defender of the 1 percent.” Ann Romney’s so-called blind trust invested at least a million dollars in Elliott before the fund began buying Delphi at vulture prices—about 20 cents on the dollar—during the worst of the Great Recession. When the hedge fund managers were told that they should save as many American jobs as they should, they refused and forced a judge to hold an auction for the company’s stock. Elliott eventually took over the entire company for 67 cents a share.
Two years later Delphi shares were selling at $22 each, an astounding profit even for Mitt Romney.
How did Delphi undergo such a remarkable turnaround? They took federal bailout funds, slashed worker pensions, fired union workers and sent American jobs overseas.
Greg Palast explains, “The bottom line: the hedge funds’ paydays were made possible by a generous donation of $12.9 billion from US taxpayers.”
We have no idea how much the Romneys made from the auto bailout, but knowing that he was the only national figure who opposed the rescue, saying that it would destroy the industry, it’s safe to say that even one cent would be too much.
Very disingenuous on your part. Mr. Romney opposed the manner in which the bailout was conducted; not the idea of saving the industry itself – Obama’s auto bailout was framed around throwing pretty much anybody with any interest in the the companies under the financial bus while maintaining the status quo with zero pain from union members. The fact that Governor Romney has a pretty decent business sense is being increasingly viewed as what we need. After all, in a sinking economy would you rather have a left-wing attorney or a private sector businessman at the helm. The answer is pretty obvious and your guy loses.
Romney wanted private equity to come to the aid of the automobile corporation bailout at a time when private equity was not lending to anyone because of the economic catastrophe we were in. He was for government guarantees on private loans and so was the Obama Administration – but with no one lending at that time, the government borrowed the monies and GM and Chrysler have paid them back and are now returned to profitability. Additionally, the failure of GM and Chrysler would have had a ripple effect on auto parts suppliers which would have forced them out of business and ultimately led to the failure of Ford when they couldn’t get the parts they needed to build the cars they could sell.
You need a lesson on exactly what bankruptcy is and isn’t. It isn’t a tool to punish; it’s a tool to enable a reasonable and processed series of steps towards solvency. GM and Crysler wouldn’t have failed; but they would have rid themselves of overly generous union salaries and pensions. Without that the structure that brought them to their knees in the first place will surely only bring them to their knees again. Bankruptcy could have avoided the need for another bail out in the future. It isn’t the right of any american president to use our taxpayer dollars like a king – he’s picked his winners and losers and left those of us not “chosen” holding the bag. It’ll take us years to get out from under the mess this egocentric maniac has created. No matter, after this latest fiasco; one in which we see an american president do nothing to save the lives of two americans on a rooftop in Benghazi. He chose to let them die rather than take any action that might suggest a failure of inaction and action or a wildly mistaken foreign policy. After he was informed of the deaths of the americans he went to bed, slept peacefully and flew off the next day to raise money for his reelection. What sort of pathology creates a person like that?
I’ll wear the “thumbs down” as a badge of honor. Honestly we have two candidates here and to compare the two in crisis – Mitt finds out the daughter of one of his Bain colleagues is missing; he shuts down the company, sends everyone out on foot, over the phone and using any means necessary – they find the girl and bring her home. Contrast that with Obama who becomes aware of a terrorist attack on our consulate; personnel are missing but we have continued communications from the two seals on the roof who are still alive and alone; fighting off dozens of extremists with weapons including shells and mortars for 4-5 hours before they’re hit – he orders no attack; no air cover…a single drone is called in to record the deaths of the two americans and after that he falls fast asleep, then follows with a fundraiser in Vegas the next day. It’s a stunning contrast in morality and justice.
you are no doubt unaware of his delighted remarks about the Chinese Factory that employs young women to make products behind a barbed wire fence for their own protection from eager people who want the jobs on the outside. It was the same video where he denigrated the 47% of Americans receiving any form of government aid that will not vote for him that he could not depend upon. He was excited at the profit he could obtain from using Chinese labor. I think I would use the word “Giddy”. So while it’s nice he did that for one little girl, he has stated he really does not care for a whole lot more than that one little girl. The ones that you and I can see if we choose to look and care.
Do you shop at Walmart? If you do you’re hands aren’t clean on Chinese labor by any means. Besides we’re talking about issues whereby either Obama or Romney could have had an impact…in Romney’s case he took action and in Obamas he took none; and that inaction meant the certain death of the two seals who were not killed until hours into the attack. At minimum the american public; the families of all those killed deserve to know what justified the lack of action.
What exactly did the 25 billion bailout get us that going directly through bankruptcy wouldn’t have?
An opportunity for you to bitch about something that helped others. Oh wait… that isn’t your thing is it?
And David adds to the debate yet again with his sparkling personality and charming wit.
Who exactly did it help David, other then the unions? Salaried employees lost out as well as many others who worked in dealerships forced closed. Not to mention investors who were passed over in order to give the union its payoff. Tax payers certainly didn’t make out since we will not recover that money invested. Plants opened in China and more in Canada, so the US autoworker didn’t get the best deal either. 25 billion to “save” an estimated 1.5 million jobs. A structured bankruptcy from the start would have had the same effect, and saved us a lot of money. Ford made it all by their selves.
And I believe in helping others Dave, but I get my hands dirty to do it. Try it, if you can get your nose out of the clouds long enough.
GM and Chrysler did go through bankruptcy.
How is it so many people do not understand this fact?
The taxpayer did not have to step in and orderly bankruptcy
could have been accomplished for less money and more efficiently.
Bankruptcy protects the company that is in it.
It does not mean liquidation is the result.
More importantly, avoiding bankruptcy protected the unions.
Since Congressman Harris posted about the readiness of our military, I feel as though I should point out something that was observed by (now Senator) Al Franken in his 2003 book “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” On page 232, Franken points out a defense budget comparison where President Abraham Lincoln commissioned 188,718 horses in the year 1864. One hundred and twenty years later, one of his successors, Ronald Reagan commissioned only 3. That would leave a question as to why the Great Communicator would want to be labelled the Great Military Gutter.
So Congressman Harris, if you are going to talk smack about the Republican Party’s standard bearer and suggest that he “does not understand what weapons our military actually uses,” then I am going to have to ask you to step outside.
Tom Myers
President, Young Democrats of Harford County
Step outside and do what? Counsel Wendy Rosen on being law abiding?
Quoting Franken? Are you out of your mind? What next quotes from Che and Lenin?
straight from MSNBC this morning
At leaast be original..
“Attack on the Navy”? Too funny. Get a grip people. We have more battleships than any other country in the world.
While I agree with your intent, the Navy no longer has Battleships.
Ah, yes, but let’s not let facts get in the way of Harford Lassie voicing her opinion. We would hardly ever hear from her if she were limited to just saying stuff that was true.
Mr. Myers, with all due respect, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Bayonets are standard issue for today’s Marines. I have several Army friends who recently served bravely in Afghanistan, on horseback.
In case you hadn’t noticed, technology in Lincoln’s era versus Reagan’s era, versus now, is dramatically different. Of course Lincoln’s army used a lot of horses; they didn’t have tanks and jeeps and helicoptors then.
The point to be made is that Romney recognizes that a defunded and gutted military has the potential to be devastating to America should the need ever arise. At the same time, Obama is wholly unaware of how our military operates and what tools and weapons it utilizes, while displaying his true condescending character at the debate.
Just this past summer, it was reported that Russian nuclear subs went undetected in US waters for over a month. Yes, the Russians. Oh, but they’re not a threat. Right. And China’s not a communist state. OK.
It’s time to face the music. Obama and his policies have failed. They don’t mirror the Constitution nor do they reflect the views of the Founders.
That’s what subs are for. To go undetected.
Do you think that didn’t happen previously?
I know a sonar operator who would tell you otherwise.
pointless argumentative statement
The point was that our military is behind the times, and that Romney was right to identify Russia as a potential threat. now that Russia knows what their subs are capable of, they are building more.
Meanwhile, Obama is campaigning.
They have always known what the subs are capable of. They did not build them yesterday.
Russia is a threat.
Iran is a threat.
North Korea is a threat.
China is a threat.
Pakistan is a threat.
Afghanistan is a threat.
Most of the ‘stans’ are a threat. They have soviet era tech and a few loose nukes.
Indonesia is a threat.
Cuba was but still could be a threat.
Libya is a threat.
Egypt is a threat.
Somalia is a threat.
How far do you want to go with this?
How can you stand to leave your house when the whole world is out to get you?
I have a feeling that if President Obama said that we need more defense spending, the Romney campaign would have said that we need less. It seems like the main thrust of this campaign for both parties (and frankly, for the past 3 elections) has been “whatever you say, I think the opposite because Dems/Repubs can’t be correct.”
I wish that we had a government that realized that it is okay to work together for a common goal rather than just opposing the opposite party to give your party the appearance of looking better.
For this specific story, it’s a pretty common scare tactic that Harris is employing by saying that we are weak. The fact is that we can project significant force anywhere in the world right now, and there is no reason to be afraid of China or any other world power.
And for the record, Obama said “FEWER horses and bayonets.” If Harris is going to get nit-picky about the president’s wording, at least get it right. It’s right there in your release, so I don’t know how Harris can get that wrong.
They get it wrong because the current leadership of the Republican party wants to get it wrong. They are not concerned with facts and details or being right, they are only concerned with message and perception.
It’s disgraceful and I am ashamed for my party at how out of control it has gotten in recent years.
There are always lunatics on the fringe that behave this way, but when the core leadership does it the party and the traditional ideals it stands for are weakened and forgotten.
The mentality now is win at all costs, right or wrong or truthful be damned.
Obama is good at attacking when he thinks he can get away with it. Ask the Cambridge Police Department. Oh, wait, that didn’t go so well for him. He stills owes them an apology and they would rather have had the apology than a lousy beer bought and paid for by taxpayers.
I bet he could win the Nobel Peace Prize and you would still find something negative to say about that…. oh wait… never mind. Golly there must be something other people see about him that just plain escapes you.
Its good that you said “win” the prize, not “earn” the prize Dave.
Isn’t his crowning achievement killing someone? Ironic.
People are seeing him pretty clearly lately, check out the polls.
Do you have one?
romney has closed the gap among women and has pulled even or ahead in almost all swing states.
Now if you could only believe what comes from his mouth for more than half an hour…
ahh yes, he has not closed the credibility gap.
As I recall, you posted a disparaging comment relating to the Sheriff’s Office participating in breaking up a Prescription Drug Ring a couple years ago. B, is there anything you find favor with? Or is negativity or hopping on the negative bandwagon your legacy that you will anonymously leave for us? No one ever erected a statute to a critic.
You are speaking of another who posts every now and then as B. I have said nothing bad about the sheriffs department nor the sheriff, whom i have voted for. The deputies do a great job and should be commended.
My principals have not wavered. Nor has my belief that this president has failed. If you track my posts, the only thing i criticize are liberals like you and their reckless policies.
Your point above is right on… Frying Romney for changing a position is much more important then a president the lies to you, and covers it up for weeks until he cant wiggle out of it. Three times requests for help are turned down. Wonder where that came from. Our guys deserve better. Not the first he left out to hang either… See Dr. Shakil Afridi.
Obama has shifted many positions too…. Gay marriage, closing Guantanamo, public financing in elections, many others.
You can keep your statue
That’s fine… rationalize while you can. Romney is self serving and only seeks to enrich those of his kind. He really does not give a damn about anyone else. And like many conservatives today, they have lost sight of the greater good and only seek to dominate and create an environment that benefits them and excludes others. Enjoy your twisted view of me and my views, I share more values with you than you are courageous enough to acknowledge. While I would be interested in meeting you in compromise your solution is division, derision, denigration and dissolution. Have fun in your own private fetid little world. The rest of us will prosper with or without your cooperation.
Self Serving? Why would he ever take on the presidency, a governorship, and the olympics if he was all about himself? He could make more in a month then all of those positions pay. The presidency is not self serving for Romney, which I can’t say about the career politician with no experience whom currently resides in the white house.
My “twisted” views of liberals are not off base. Conservatives are concerned about greater good, and helping others, but you can’t accomplish those goals when buried in debt. “compromise” to you means keeping something of the status quo, which frankly we can’t afford.
Liberalism is selfish. You say that the rest of us will prosper, yet there is no way for that to occur with the spend wildly path we are currently on. The government is now printing billions every month in QE3. What will the results of that policy be? There may be a temporary up tick, but the dollar has to be devalued from added supply, therefore making it worth less. This is a defacto tax on all of us, more damaging then anything else the government and Obama have done to date. The presidents monetary policies have failed, and are creating more damage every day, yet you still support him. Why? he makes you feel good. Supporting Romney means acting responsibly and being strong enough to take the steps to right the ship instead of taking a hand out.
You say we have similar values, but you are more concerned with your own prosperity then the country. Look at the groups that make up the Democratic party. They are voting tax dollars for themselves. Ask not what your country can do for you is dead in the Democratic party.
When your side atually proposes a budget, then we can talk.
B. What part of he is enriching the people in his part of the wealth spectrum, through his attempt at the Presidency, escapes your attention? I know you can’t be that dull.
And Obama isn’t doing the same? His administration is loaded with people from those same companies that were at the center of our troubles. His administration hasn’t prosecuted anyone. Obama was supported with more wall street money then any candidate in history. It is not the rich that are hurting right now. You should pay more attention to what Obamas policies are doing to jobs, the cost of living and the cost of energy then worrying about what someone else has.
Do you have any thoughts of your own, or do you just cut and paste from Obama talking points?
And your point is that Romney is selfish, but wants to take a position that pays nothing to make other rich people richer? Even you can’t believe that nonsense.
Very simply stated: Romney is not likely to help you in the least with his policies. Obama will likely help you with his policies – including a reduction in military spending which will help reduce the deficit. You and I will continue to disagree. It doesn’t really matter what either of us think since the outcome of the election will be decided by other people in other states. Sit back and enjoy the ride… or if you can’t manage that – welcome to my eight years experience under the stupidest President this country has ever had. I’m sure your memory may be vastly different. We all have to manage to live with our own limitations, but introspection can go a long way to mitigating them.
I’m sure you meant “most stupid,”
If the help he offers is the same he gave to John Stevens, then no thanks.
This is the main difference between you and I, I don’t want help from the government. Again, Ask not what your country can do for you is dead with your generation of liberal.
Fervently supporting either party is an exercise in futility as well as stupidity.
How about you make them earn it for once?
Since I am a good Democrat, I thought I would share why:
12 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT
1. ?
2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the Government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe the Government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
5. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
7. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.
10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal Judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
11. I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.
12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.
I voted Republican because Rush told me to.
I don’t fervently support either party. I support conservative/ libertarian/ anti-federalist views. I believe Romney is the lesser of two evils, and if elected, his feet need to be help to the fire to make sure he does what he says. 12 years of bad presidents is enough.