A couple months ago, I took a lot of flack in the comments for making the wild claim that, somehow, members of the majority party would have an easier time protecting military bases in their constituency from closure than those in the minority party. As evidence, my detractors pointed out that John Thune, freshman Senator from South Dakota and a hero in the GOP for having defeated Tom Daschle, was unable to keep Ellsworth Air Force base in South Dakota from closing.
Today, I present clear evidence in favor of my assertion: Thune has saved Ellsworth. Apparently being represented by the party in the majority has some advantages.
Michael Barone points out other instances. Of particular note is the case of the New London Naval Submarine base in Connecticut's 2nd District, also pulled off the chopping block. The district is represented by Republican Bob Simmons, and is among the two most pro-Kerry districts to be represented by a Republican congressman.
As I pointed out two months ago, a similar situation would be faced by Doug Roulstone should he defeat incumbent Democrat Rick Larsen in Washington's 2nd District race next fall. The 2nd District, which voted for Kerry, includes both the Everett Naval Station and the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, and should either of them end up on aclosure list, Roulstone, as a member of the majority party--and as a highly decorated Navy pilot and aircraft carrier captain--will be much better situated to keep them open.
This isn't an issue that is going to convince most people one way or the other--but for those trying to tell the difference between the two (something Larsen has worked hard to make difficult), it's a pretty key difference.
(Of course, a Republican senator wouldn't hurt things, either.)
Cross posted at The Flag of the World.
Posted by Timothy Goddard at August 26, 2005 11:12 PM | Email ThisThe Base Realignment and Closure Commitee reviews the desires of the Pentagon and has the power to make changes, as they did on this one.
It is a bipartisan commitee (I could be wrong on that...I'll research it) and was created to rise above the heavy political/lobbying fray that results from the list that is handed down from the Pentagon on closures/consolidation.
No legislator wants to lose jobs on their watch. But sometimes it has to happen, and the BRAC supposedly applies its final recommendations in as fairly a manner as possible (for DC).
I think it is a stretch to associate the recent BRAC decisions to the party affiliation of the local legislators. Not impossible, but a stretch. Thune lucked out on this one.
Posted by: Shaun on August 27, 2005 07:38 AMTwo Republican Senators might have gotten a big dig tunnel for Seattle put in the Transportation bill, but alas, Washington is represented by two nut cases Democratic Senators!
Posted by: sgmmac on August 27, 2005 07:48 AMHowever, Cannon AFB in Clovis, NM survived the chopping block (temporarily)...Democrat for Governor, as well as the House (split in the Senate).
Posted by: Shaun on August 27, 2005 08:11 AMGeeze thanks a lot for NOTHING Cashwell and Pattycakes.
Posted by: Andy on August 27, 2005 08:15 AMAs for Tom Foley, Spokane did away with him at exactly the right moment--even if he had been reelected, he would have lost his post as speaker and the influence that came with it in '94 anyway.
Posted by: Timothy on August 27, 2005 09:10 AMMaybe it's more a function of how much effort the majority party feels they need to exert to retain / gain your vote.
Posted by: F451 on August 27, 2005 09:37 AMBase-closing plan angers Republicans
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20050826/pl_usatoday/baseclosingplanangersrepublicans
Fact is the shrub's favored strategy is p*ssing off everyone.
Posted by: Third Party Voter on August 27, 2005 10:02 AMBut that does not explain Clovis or Georgia. I assert that if the BRAC felt it was truly necessary, Ellsworth would have been TOAST no matter who was lobbying against its closure.
That the BRAC saw it Thune's way, I think, is largely coincidental. Look up the BRAC's history of findings (now ten years worth or so). There are plenty of examples one could find that back up both of our arguments. Interesting debate.
Posted by: Shaun on August 27, 2005 10:04 AMThat is a ridiculous assertion.
The DoD makes the closure "wish list", the BRAC rules on it (memebership determined by congress with the President's chop), and then sends the recommendations for approval from the President and congress.
It's not "shrub's" favored strategy, whatever you mean by that. It's the DoD's.
Posted by: Shaun on August 27, 2005 10:09 AMAnd similarly might many when they choose to vote for Roulstone.
Calling John McCain "honest" and "Republican" puts you wrong on both counts.
Posted by: ERNurse on August 27, 2005 09:22 PMIt also seems obvious that the reason Seattle can't get much in the way of federal transportation funding is because Seattle thumbs it nose at Bush.
You aren't going to make any friends among those in power in Washington if you kick military recruiters out of high schools, have a silly council that wont make a simple statement supporting our troops, and a mayor that is running around trying to get other mayors to defacto sign the Kyoto treaty.
Of course, the idiots in Seattle actually want to show their mindless defiance. But, there is a price to be paid and that price is that this area is starved of federal funds and will loose military bases.
That will be legacy of this generation of idiots in political power in Seattle and Washington State.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on August 28, 2005 01:26 AMAnyone stupid enough to suggest with their moniker to proudly squander their elective
franchise as you do is not qualified to comment about politics--or anything else for that matter.
By the way, your mother may not be popular, but that's no way to talk.
Posted by: Amused by liberal morons on August 28, 2005 09:47 AMAnd if being in the majority is the theory for bases being saved, then is it not a corrolary that the minority states would lose bases? I am not aware of any Washington bases being lost (other than Ft Lawton in Magnolia).
Of course, once the list of possible closures has been screened acording to national security concerns, the secondary political concerns kick into high gear.
Honestly though, if they wanted to deal a Democrat a blow, they could close down NS Bremerton and Norm Dicks would be history.
Posted by: pbj on August 28, 2005 12:07 PMYeah, I know, only the military budget can be subjected to fudiciary oversight. Social spending must never be questioned.
Posted by: V the K on August 29, 2005 07:50 AMThankfully, despite what the conspiracy nitwits (including the third party nutbags) believe about trilateral commissions, secret ruling cabals, and single/split issue advocacy, and what liberal democrats believe by studying under Al Gore and Michael Moore, we have ONLY two political parties and they are distinctly different from eachother.
The Republican Party is far and away more likely to recognize the necessity to defend our country, and whatever they are doing now regarding base closures is more likely to help America than hurt us. I trust them because there is no sane alternative, and because most of them demonstrate that they will continue to do the right things despite pathetic crazies like Sheehan. Like it or not, that's our system, and it is the best there is, unless one likes the comfort of security without liberty.
Pork spending is the essence of politics. It has gone on since the inception of the confederacy and it will always exist. Responsible leaders make decisions for many reasons; let’s hope they have our security foremost in mind.
I did NOT want to have to wait an hour for fighter cover in the event that Al Qaeda makes good on it's threat to attack Seattle.
Then the politicking begins. Am sure that Gregoire, Cantwell, Drago, Nickels, Dicks, McDermott and a host of others will attempt to claim credit for it. Majority power or not, at least something resembling the correct thing was done. (A better answer, of course, would have been to move the unit to McChord and reactivate the alert hangars there, allowing Portland to use the ORANG space to grow business to tax out of existence.)
Bones in Ellsworth isn't any more stupid than B-2s in Missouri, and F-16s in New Mexico, I guess.
Posted by: potshot on August 29, 2005 06:03 PMFirst off, politics will always come into play in these things because we are a representative democracy. That's just the way it is, for good or ill. Those in congress will always attempt to get the best deal for their constituents, often at the expense of everyone else. After all, "everyone else" doesn't vote them into office. This is a fact of life, like hurricanes. You're not for or against a hurricane, you just deal with it.
Second, when did I say that this was a good thing? Or for that matter, when did I say there were political considerations in the Ellsworth decision, or any other? I never did. Instead, I pointed out that members of the majority are ipso facto more influential, and therefore more likely to convince people of their points of view. In Thune's case, his point of view was that Ellsworth was a vital base that should not be closed.
Personally, I'd like some more influential members of Congress representing me. Greg, would you prefer that our congressional delegation be uninfluential?
Posted by: Timothy on August 29, 2005 06:30 PMWhat needs to be abolished is the process of bribing the electorate with their own money. "Pork" should be distributed in a less political and more objective and rational manner.
If that were to happen, elections would be increasingly decided on the "issues." Or, put another way, our political system would be a more efficient democracy since self-government, and not pork, would be the focus of elections.
We should strive to point out that the system is corrupt, and not cynically try to argue that "our" candidate is better suited to the corrupt system.
Posted by: Bob on August 29, 2005 06:41 PMYou say, "Do we really want decisions about national defense to be based on which party is in office?"
When your balloon lands, go audit some middle school civics and American history classes.
You are almost certainly a liberal and totally clueless. There are lots of people out there who "think" just like you. Scary.
Thanks for the object lesson.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on August 29, 2005 08:12 PMWhen I hear of Congress coming to a standstill, I immediately think of McSwain, and consider it a relatively good thing. I think of how much damage he's done with his "consistency and integrity" (think CFR), and recognize that America is better off when he spouts his BS, we all nod & say "That's great there JM", and then we go on to more important matters.
All of us have egos, and all of us want to be thought highly of. Many temper that with a sense of selflessness. Not McSwain. I believe that he got knocked in the head too many times. He's a nice guy, but one sandwich shy of a picnic, if you know what I mean.
I will agree with you Bartlebub (to this extent) McSwain is head & shoulders above any democraps I can think of...
How's that for "impugning"?
Posted by: alphabet soup on August 29, 2005 08:36 PM