Which candidate is friendliest toward CAP?

Started by ELTHunter, May 28, 2007, 02:29:59 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SamFranklin

I met Sen. McCain at an event about ten years ago and asked him one-on-one what his position on CAP was. He said it's an excellent organization, but he wanted to see it placed in DOT (this is before 9-11 and DHS) so as not to compete with DoD resources.

Keep in mind this was 10 years ago, and to my knowledge, he has since halted his effort to move CAP. As president, I'm sure he'd have a zillion other challenges higher up in his priorities.

Regardless, it was my impression that he admires CAP.







Gunner C

Quote from: RiverAux on January 20, 2008, 11:57:07 PM
Since McCain is actually becoming a front-runner... Maj. Carrales, did you ever get a response?

I would actually disagree with that (I'm a news junkie).  The actual front runner at the moment is Romney.  He's won three states (Wyoming, Michigan, and Nevada) and has the highest delegate count.

Nevertheless, I wonder if any of the guys/gals on the board from Massachusetts know what the wing's relationship with the state was when Mitt was the gov.

GC

Gunner C

Quote from: PhoenixCadet on January 21, 2008, 02:10:06 AM
[Despite me not being able to vote...] McCain's off my friendly list...

And too bad Duncan Hunter just dropped out of the race last night... He would've been great!  (Not just because he's from San Diego...  ;D)

Whoever mentioned Hunter was in the CAP... do you have a source for that?  I'd love to see that!

I have a lot of respect for cadets who aren't old enough to vote who follow these things.  It will serve you well later in life.

GC

tjaxe

Quote from: capchiro on May 28, 2007, 02:53:56 AM
Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

As a democrat I readily agree, in general, Republicans are "friendlier" towards the military.  :-\  However, CAP is a volunteer organization -- albeit, military-oriented -- and as such I would question not necessarily a candidate's view of military organizations but rather, their view, and understanding of volunteer organizations in general, and the CAP in particular.

- Tracey, Captain
Public Affairs Officer, Professional Development, Logistics: NER-PA-160

JohnKachenmeister

We hashed out the possibility of a CAP move to DHS in another thread.  I con't remember which one, but it was back when He Who Shall Not Be Named was still named.

I started out in near-violent opposition to such a plan, since I'm basically a military guy and I like being a part of the Air Force family (even if we are the crazy cousins who live in a trailer at the edge of town).  Since then, however, I have moderated my views considerably.  Dang that pesky open mind of mine!

I think it is ENTIRELY possible to create CAP as the 8th uniformed branch of service.  Whether it would be in our interest, or in the nation's interest, is another question.

A few facts:  DHS is creating and staffing "Air Wings" and posting them at military bases.  Right now, these guys are federal civil servants, but they COULD very quickly be put in uniform and form the CAP's active component.  If that were to happen, the volunteer staff would form the reserve component, and there you are.  Issue 50,000 or so ID cards, and we're in business.  See you at the Class 6 store.

The cadet program, since 1964, has NOT been a strictly-military training program as it was during World War II.  Our stated goal is to provide a military structure to train leaders to serve in both the military and the civilian aviation communities.  I see no reason why the cadet program would need any essential change from its current configuration.  Heck, a few years ago the Air Force was complaining that so many former cadets were joining the Army and Marines.  (Big surprise, after we train them in fieldcraft to serve on Ground Teams)!

We also would no longer be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.  We would be relieved of having to do a balancing act in some of our operations.

The downside:  We would be given a bunch of new missions, including regulation of security at GA airports, that we may not be comfortable with and for which we would need additional training.  Remember the "Drop-in" program?  This would be a committment of time far above that which we already make, and might possibly change the character or our organization significantly.

My mind is still open.  I think I can live with whatever decision is made.

Somebody might want to tell Vanguard to not be too quick to throw out all those "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" tapes!
Another former CAP officer

Gunner C

Quote from: tjaxe on January 21, 2008, 03:41:01 PM
Quote from: capchiro on May 28, 2007, 02:53:56 AM
Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

As a democrat I readily agree, in general, Republicans are "friendlier" towards the military.  :-\  However, CAP is a volunteer organization -- albeit, military-oriented -- and as such I would question not necessarily a candidate's view of military organizations but rather, their view, and understanding of volunteer organizations in general, and the CAP in particular.

Actually, I think the question would be closer to a military question than a vanilla volunteer organization question.

With some, we could expect MAJOR deletions of our federal funding.  With other candidates, we could expect our funding to stay level or go up slightly.  We just don't have the connections (gravitas) to affect any major changes to the positive.  If the AF doesn't go to bat for us, which they don't - they have funding problems of their own, nothing will improve.  If the AF budget gets cut, which it already has and will again in a major way if some candidates get their way, we'll drop in funds disproportionately.  Frankly, the left will cut just about anything to by votes from the lazy and those who crank out babies out of wedlock. The least important is the last to get fed.  Remember, we're only about 30,000 votes.  Those who won't help themselves are in the millions. [/rant]

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: tjaxe on January 21, 2008, 03:41:01 PM
Quote from: capchiro on May 28, 2007, 02:53:56 AM
Although I don't think either party is aware of CAP or for or against us, I do think the Republican party is much more military friendly than the Democratic party in general.

As a democrat I readily agree, in general, Republicans are "friendlier" towards the military.  :-\  However, CAP is a volunteer organization -- albeit, military-oriented -- and as such I would question not necessarily a candidate's view of military organizations but rather, their view, and understanding of volunteer organizations in general, and the CAP in particular.

And Nancy pelosi has already been extremely critical of our organization, telling a San Francisco antiwar group that we "Indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I don't think that any Democrats can be counted on for support.
Another former CAP officer

mikeylikey

^ Wow...

Some nerve she has.  I am glad to see that she entered office on a platform of lies and has carried out NONE of what she said she would. 

Isn't she the one that violated US law and met with middle-eastern countries without letting the State Department know what she was doing??
What's up monkeys?

RiverAux

QuoteI don't think that any Democrats can be counted on for support.
Such as Sen Tom Harkin, who was featured on the Volunteer cover a while back? 

John Bryan

Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

CASH172

I would really like someone to show the speaker some statistics about how many cadets actually do join the RM.  Of course she might have just been saying that to please the SF audience. 

JC004

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 21, 2008, 06:04:32 PM
And Nancy pelosi has already been extremely critical of our organization, telling a San Francisco antiwar group that we "Indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I don't think that any Democrats can be counted on for support.

I thought San Francisco as a whole was an anti-war group?   ???  You're telling me this is a city?

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: John Bryan on January 22, 2008, 03:12:45 AM
Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.
Another former CAP officer

SJFedor

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 23, 2008, 12:57:50 AM
Quote from: John Bryan on January 22, 2008, 03:12:45 AM
Great point.....Sen Harkin is one of the biggest supporters of CAP in Congress.

I was wondering if there is a speech or documented source of the Speaker of the House saying those things about CAP?

It was in a Sunday AM talk show, and she was defending the San Francisco decision to ban JROTC from the schools.  She did not name CAP specifically, but said "Both the Army and the Air Force have programs to indoctrinate children as young as 12 into the military."  I got the message.

Eh, she could be just talking about AJROTC and AFJROTC, not CAP in particular. CAP has more scope then just the cadet program, which, at least somewhat, exempts us from that statement.

I'm waiting for the day San Francisco tries to cecede.

Steven Fedor, NREMT-P
Master Ambulance Driver
Former Capt, MP, MCPE, MO, MS, GTL, and various other 3-and-4 letter combinations
NESA MAS Instructor, 2008-2010 (#479)

Flying Pig

I would be surprised if 3/4's of those people have any idea what CAP is.  When CAP did an article on Joe Biden he stated he supports Civil Air Patrol but isnt active because he isn't a pilot.  That right there told me he didnt have the slightest clue what we are about.  I imagine there are a few, but its probably pretty small.

Most politicians, especially at that level, are given honorary memberships to just about any lagit organization out there.

I imagine any candidate is probably pretty indifferent to CAP.

DNall

I got a little experience in the field.  ;) What do you wanna know?

I've been out of the loop for a couple years, but to my knowledge none of the current presidential candidates has any kind of current or past position about CAP - ie they don't know much about it & don't care.

I'll explain about McCain... Be advised, I'm working form memory here though so the details might be fuzzy in places, but this is the gist of what happened.

He's obviously a huge supporter of the military. His position was that military resources are scarce & need to be protected. He did & does believe in CAP.

At the time, FAA & USCG were both under DoT. CG of course was recallable to support Navy operations under defined conditions. The Sen's plan was to move ADCON of CAP from AF (AETC) to DoT, with OPCON for AFAM remaining w/ AF. Basically, CAP would always be a govt agency, but would not be the AF Aux except when on AFAMs. We would retain grade/uniforms, govt funding, assistance, supervision, & oversight.

It was all about a shell game. The govt would not have saved a penny, however, those dollars would show up under DoT's budget rather than DoD's. It's easier to get congress to vote for a DoT budget that might mean highways in their district versus the military, be that during the then cold-war/Clinton draw down or now when it's a proxy approval of continuing the war.

There are pros & cons to that proposal. It would have lifted posse commitatus restrictions, theyby allowing CAP to actively participate in direct assistance to law enforcement. When on AFAMs, it would have bound members to UCMJ.

I personally did not support it at the time because I'm a cadet programs officer & part of CAP in order to lend my support to the AF. I did/do ES in order to support the AF, not to save lives or anything like that.

The proposal was not well understood by most members & evoked a lot of fear. AF didn't like it either. CAP leadership asked members to express their opinion to their reps, & that happened enmass. So, it got shot down in cmte before it got very far.

If you look at where we are now, with the altered Aux status, & rise of DHS, are we worse off or not? That's real hard to say regardless of where you think CAP should be going.


AF responded to this. Understand, that proposal getting shot down was congressional guidance to AF clearing them in to reassert control of CAP & integrate into the AF command structure.

A paper came out of AWC written by a former CAP cadet & another officer. It advised AF should use then developing total force concept to integrate the Aux as an equal partner with the other components. That doesn't mean you'd be in the military, or that CAP folks would be deploying. It meant primarily that CAP would become an AF reporting unit & the corporate aspect would fade to the background. CAP leadership was to be appointed or at least approved by AF. We were going to be properly resourced/trained & then expected to perform on par with any other AF unit. In essence, it'd be like serving in the AF w/o pay or benefits.

Gen Fogleman was CoS at the time, and he was a big supporter of that concept, while not exactly the plan as originally written - more that it was the direction that we need to move in, but that it needed more development & a better implementation stratgey. He made many many inclusive comments about CAP at the time.

Congress halted that as well under protest from CAP - AF got warned about interfering too much w/ CAP outside the real needs of the AF. The main deal in Congress was to preserve the volunteer motivations & aspect of CAP. One side in Congress (the side that won the debate), believed CAP needed to be protected from an overly controlling AF that, they believed, would cause members to quit volunteering; and, that as AF leadership & needs changed over time that they might look to cut CAP in favor of funding some new toy & that CAP needed to be preserved for the long term.

That same clique carried the vote that pulled back our aux status, which was about protecting AF & CAP.

I agree with them on that, and I agree with Gen Fogleman's position as well. A balanced approach was & is needed, but fear of going too far has kept the debate at one extreme or the other, and left us in a stagnant indecisive spot during historically changing times.

However, AF was pissed when Congress said they had to take a hands off approach w/CAP. They repsponded by trying to show congress that CAP was in desperate need of greater oversight. Which by the way was & is completely true, moreso then than now, but obviously from current events that's still a huge issue. OSI built a case for AF. The expert on that investigation ain't me & is well known to a lot of people here. GAO responded with another version of the facts. CAP got slapped around a bit for the problem, AF got the limits of their power reasserted by Congress.

CAP members are pretty equally divided if we should be more like the AF or more of a civilian/corp/club/agency/however you want to describe it. There are about 30 people in congress that are strong supporters of CAP, and they are equally divided as well. Those folks are burning some of their political captial (call it roads in their district if you want) to get others to support their position on CAP, and that's what decides everything.

A terrible way to do business right? That's democracy for ya. The worst form of govt except for all the others.

Generally I'll advise you to keep politics far away from CAP. It's good to understand, and I do encourage you to be involved, but don't mix the two.

♠SARKID♠

The content of this post does not necessarily reflect views/opinions of the poster, and is the sole property of a different CAP member.
So for the love of God, don't shoot the messenger on this one.

Somebody brought up some interesting points about McCain moving us to the DoD.

1) We'd have our own funding
2) We'd have our own joint chief
3) We'd be in charge of ourselves, and wouldn't have to have everything approved by a restrictive governing body.

CASH172

^Considering who our previous national commander just was, would that plan really have had been a good idea?

♠SARKID♠

Quote from: CASH172 on January 28, 2008, 05:19:01 AM
^Considering who our previous national commander just was, would that plan really have had been a good idea?

We could still feasibly have the BoG, just with a changeup of board members and organizations involved.

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: ♠SARKID♠ on January 28, 2008, 05:05:09 AM
The content of this post does not necessarily reflect views/opinions of the poster, and is the sole property of a different CAP member.
So for the love of God, don't shoot the messenger on this one.

Somebody brought up some interesting points about McCain moving us to the DoD.

1) We'd have our own funding
2) We'd have our own joint chief
3) We'd be in charge of ourselves, and wouldn't have to have everything approved by a restrictive governing body.

Not shooting at you, SARKID, but...

I guess I don't understand what you're saying.  Could you give me some more detail?
Another former CAP officer