Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
There are currently more than 100,000 active duty military personnel in the southeastern part of Virginia; if you count retirees and dependents, the number grows to over 300,000. The sequestration issue is already a big topic of conversation, with many of the 300,000 listed above worried about cuts.
As this article from the Navy Times shows, smaller fleet sizes inevitably increase the tempo of operations. You simply can't put one ship in two different places simultaneously. If we ask too much of our service men and women, they will vote with their feet - we do, after all, have an all-volunteer military. Retention will suffer, as will our ability to project strength and keep shipping lanes open. This will impact trade and overseas shipping rates, and possibly lead to higher oil and gas prices.
President Obama's snappy rejoinder to Mitt Romney last night (in which he compared navy ships to horses and bayonets) may have scored some debate points, but it will cost him votes in areas heavily dependent on a Navy presence (such as Virginia and Connecticut). This will also have an effect in down-ticket races, as Democrat candidates scramble to distance themselves. Does he think he has enough voters locked up to be able to lose critical swing state areas just for a soundbite?
I'm pleased to see Governor Romney -- on the spot with a rapid response -- up with a new ad already:
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '11
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Obama has no real understanding or appreciation of the military.
Oct '11
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
My guess is that Romney pretty much had that vote sewed up anyway.
Nov '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
When Romney compared our fleet size to 1947 and Obama parried with "things are different. Today we have these things called 'aircraft carriers' ..." Romney should have countered "Mr. President, you need to read a bit more widely. We had aircraft carriers in 1947 too. What you're suggesting is that we need fewer of them today, or fewer support vessels and fewer smaller, specialized vessels, none of which is true."
Nov '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Also, I wonder why Romney said nothing to counter Obama's claim that the reductions are not due to him but "Come from the joint chiefs of staff" -- at one point he said "from Congress". For one I've no idea what he's referring to in both comments, but they are problematic, just left unchallenged on the table.
In the second debate when this came up Romney interjected that the Chiefs of Staff were under his command -- a lame rejoinder, but better than nothing. Why hasn't he got a better answer by now? And Congress? What's he referring to?
In any case there's a simple retort even if you haven't got an effective response: Mr. President, we've seen you take credit for other people's policies that you simply implemented or finished, such as the auto bailouts and the end of the war in Iraq. But now you're wanting credit to shift blame for your own policy to someone else. It seems to me that, as a rule, you always want the credit and never the blame.
Jun '11
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
I'm sure you're right. I should've been clearer in the implications - Military personnel will break for Romney, but let's cast the net wider. There are a lot of businesses (small and large) that rely on DoD dollars. They also understand what sequestration and a smaller fleet would mean to their lives, and will vote accordingly.
Feb '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
The "horses & bayonets" line probably played well to his base. And if he had delivered it with less snark and not followed up with the "game of battleship" line he might have pivoted into a serious discussion about the complexity of military budgets, equipment & technology. I thought Obama lost ground because he was just too condescending toward the military (Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy ship request) and Romney. Obama looked small and peevish.
Apr '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Might be surprised. Going off of my brother's friends-- he was babysitting SEALs last election-- there's a significant number that can't be bothered to follow politics, and believe their funding can never be threatened. So, some of the college-age guys vote like...um... college kids. Pretty sure my brother is going to go for Obama again, but mostly just because he enjoys being contrary and there are rational reasons not to do so.
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Also, if I may:
Jacksonville, FL
New London, CT
Norfolk, VA
Northern VA
Portsmouth, NH
Portland, ME
Bath, ME
Edited on October 23, 2012 at 9:57pmMay '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Who needs ships when you've got an aircraft carrier?
May '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
There are also plenty of shipyard workers counting on the Navy to want more ships. In areas like Hampton, VA and Newport News, VA that have an economy dependent on the Navy, but also has a high percentage of African-Americans that historically break Democrat, the debate might make them think twice about Obama. Who knows.
Oct '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Apparently, the number of ships is irrelevant, according to some.
Jan '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Don't worry us Brits will send you our 6 destroyers (there is one other but not worth a jot when things get hot) and 13 frigates when you need some help.
Apr '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Yes, we do seem to be following in your footsteps.
Dec '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
While I am sympathetic, a little, to this line of argument we simply have to stop nodding yes every time the Pentagon asks for something.
We harp on the education establishment because we keep shoveling more money in their direction yet student performance languishes. Similarly, we keep shoveling money to the Pentagon and-- near as I can tell-- we are worse at winning wars than we used to be.
Oct '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
KarlUB: While I am sympathetic, a little, to this line of argument we simply have to stop nodding yes every time the Pentagon asks for something.
We harp on the education establishment because we keep shoveling more money in their direction yet student performance languishes. Similarly, we keep shoveling money to the Pentagon and-- near as I can tell-- we are worseat winning wars than we used to be. · 9 minutes ago
Your first point is valid, to some extent.
Defense is one of the legitimate functions of our government as outlined in our Constitution.
The same cannot be said for the department of education or the myriad of entitlement and welfare programs which are subsidized via redistribution. If we had the military budget we have today, minus the spending of the aforementioned programs, there wouldn't be a deficit nor would our taxes be as high and our nation would be much more prosperous. Yet, we would still have a top notch military.
However, I don't have any illusions about there being no waste in the military budget. That being said, it is a pittance when compare to welfare fraud alone. Both should be eradicated.
Edited on October 23, 2012 at 11:13pmDec '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
KarlUB: While I am sympathetic, a little, to this line of argument we simply have to stop nodding yes every time the Pentagon asks for something.
We harp on the education establishment because we keep shoveling more money in their direction yet student performance languishes. Similarly, we keep shoveling money to the Pentagon and-- near as I can tell-- we are worseat winning wars than we used to be. · 13 minutes ago
ROE is the simple and complete explanation for this. It doesn't matter how many men, ships, or weapons you have if you refuse to kill your enemy with them.
Feb '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Have any active-duty Navy people opined about how their Commander-in-Chief views them as obsolete and antiquated?
Dec '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Another side effect of uptempo operations is less availability of ships for maintenance and refitting. That in turn results in more equipment failures and breakdowns, which reduce available ships in operation, which requires even more from the remaining ships and crews.
Oct '12
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
Apparently, the Obama campaign is coming to terms with the fall out of last nights naval discussion.
From Dan Reihl:
This below is a web report. However, for now, he has a Virginia event scheduled for Thursday. If the polling report is accurate, he’ll cancel that appearance I would think. He has much ground to cover as it is. I’d guess he’ll double up in Ohio, instead.
"BREAKING NEWS: In the first indication that the Obama campaign is abandoning Virginia, Virtucon has received information that the Obama campaign has ceased polling in the Commonwealth. (Such a move confirms the recent trend showing Romney taking the lead in Virginia over Obama.) This information comes to us from a high level Republican source with whom we have had long experience and reliability."
Edited on October 23, 2012 at 11:37pmJul '10
Re: Why Obama's Navy Comments Matter
What Obama says/thinks about the Navy - about pretty much anything - is fast becoming irrelevant. He is losing. It is obvious why - he has no grasp of America or what it means to be American. Heck, even the lefties are upset we are doing so poorly economically.