Posted on 02/22/2006 5:41:07 PM PST by quidnunc
Republicans, who usually have the good sense to avoid fratricide, are engaged in perhaps the most vicious intramural squabble of the Bush presidency over the deal allowing Dubai Ports World to control operations at several major U.S. seaports. The controversy ignited in an instant and has now involved virtually every prominent Republican in Washington and a bunch of Republican governors near the affected ports.
-snip-
Congressional leaders are feeling cranky and neglected. Bush is always doing stuff without telling them, and they're always grumbling he doesn't recognize that they're up for re-election this year. So, it probably feels very satisfying to push back at him for a change. And their opposition also seems like smart politics, at least superficially. …
Those political calculations may make sense for today, but in the long term, this fight will harm the GOP. Republicans can't distance themselves from Bush on security issues. He's not only the head of their party; he's the commander in chief. By pouncing on this issue so quickly and joining Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, Republican leaders send a global message: They don't trust Bush. They don't trust him enough to even wait to understand the facts of the deal. They don't trust him enough to even worry that they might have their facts wrong and wind up embarrassed.
-snip-
The squabble will also irritate the president. He's tired of congressional second-guessing—especially in a case like this where GOP leaders willfully refuse to acknowledge the complexity of global diplomacy and the value of global capitalism. You don't hear the deal's critics explaining who exactly will control port security if not Dubai Ports World. …
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public’s mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don’t come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light.
Who can possibly predict what tangent the mad-dog Democrats are liable to to start baying off on next?
There's no way congresscreatures can be thoroughly briefed on everything the federal government.
Excellent point!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congressional leaders are feeling cranky and neglected. Bush is always doing stuff without telling them, and they're always grumbling he doesn't recognize that they're up for re-election this year. So, it probably feels very satisfying to push back at him for a change......
Spoiled Children.
Republicans also pay no price for such flouting of the president, because Bush's approval ratings are so low. In fact, some believe that running from Bush may be the key to their 2006 electoral survival or 2008 presidential hopes.
Those political calculations may make sense for today, but in the long term, this fight will harm the GOP. Republicans can't distance themselves from Bush on security issues. He's not only the head of their party; he's the commander in chief. By pouncing on this issue so quickly and joining Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, Republican leaders send a global message: They don't trust Bush. They don't trust him enough to even wait to understand the facts of the deal. They don't trust him enough to even worry that they might have their facts wrong and wind up embarrassed.
Bingo.
Maybe Republicans have valid reasons for not trusting Bush, but it's foolish for them to think they can separate their fortunes from his on this issue. When Republican-leaning voters go to bed at night, they don't find comfort in the fact that Bill Frist is protecting them. They pin their hopes on George Bush. If Bush is weakened, they're not likely to be comforted by the fact that Bill Frist is still at the helm of the Senate defending the homeland.
Dead on.
Divorce Bush on national security and voters will vote Democrat. Why? Because they have faith in G.W.B. to protect them from the terrorists. At least far more faith then they do Democrats. They have no faith in the weak kneed other Republicans on the Hill. Substract the President from the equasion and this House of Majority falls. The Republican Party cannot credibly run on strength of national security when they write terrorist protection provisions, recomend withdrawal in '06, and bow down before the Democrats/MSm on daily basis.
The squabble will also irritate the president. He's tired of congressional second-guessing—especially in a case like this where GOP leaders willfully refuse to acknowledge the complexity of global diplomacy and the value of global capitalism. You don't hear the deal's critics explaining who exactly will control port security if not Dubai Ports World. (And why are there not more pro-market conservative commentators pointing out that in the global war on terror we must embrace countries like the United Arab Emirates in the interest of winning hearts and minds in the Middle East?)
Good points.
But that's what Republicans always accuse Democrats of doing—playing identity politics when they don't agree with your policies. Bush didn't like it very much when, after the administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, Democrats charged that he didn't like blacks. Why does he hint at the same kind of thing now?
Given Karl Rove's interview with hannity, it sounds as though some pols on the Hill are making prejudiced statements about arabs. I wager this is where the President became convinced it's all anti-Arabic sentiment behind this. he's wrong to suggest it's all because of that sentiment, much of the resistance is not arising from bigots. But apparently he's in close contact with some folks on the Hill distorting his opinion on this manner. I suppose in retrospect this is where he got the idea resistance to Miers was sexist in nature. My response is that the prez needs to get away from D.C. more. The pols aren't quite representatives of the characters of their districts. Well, some are but most aren't.
Sen. John McCain may be the only politician who might come out a winner from the port storm. He played the politics well, critiquing the deal but urging caution and prudence. That might help moderate his occasional reputation as a hothead.
As one that doesn't like McCain nor trust him, I'm forced to agree. He was among the only ones to while suggest further review, as well also slam folks for not having more faith in the President given his record on the WOT.
Oh, cease with this nonsense.
The difference between then and now is that conservatives had solid arguments against her confirmation while the administration was reliant on arguments that she was a woman and a friend as qualification for the job. In this instance, it is the opposite. Most folks arguing against the sale are not arguing fact and reason, only emotion. While arguments in favor seem to be winning converts as more facts emerge.
I opposed Miers and didn't do so to gain independence. I'm not sold on this port deal, but I'm leaning more to the administration's side currently. certainly I've done my fair share of denouncing the hysterics at least.
The one part of your post of any merit is that is is absurd to think the president is selling our security to terrorists intentionally. Folks advancing that lunacy have departed reality.
What? The Arabs are going to ship in rafts of people and be allowed to break the union contract?
Owners of unionized businesses in America are not in command of who gets to do the work. The unions are. Think the unions are just going to let Arabs come in, put them out of work, and start sabotaging the US?
Not going to happen.
Think anybody down in those ports is going to trust any Arab to do anything?
Again, not going to happen.
That is the single most important fact I've heard stated. The administration should advance this immediately. It would be hard for anyone to believe Israeli's are willfully turning their security interests over to folks that are plotting their massacre.
Thank you for printing some facts conveniently omitted by the MSM. One big fiasco after another and why oh why do the republicans panic BEFORE they know the facts!!!
Our borders have been a problem for a longtime. Some of the problem will subside when the Congress passes a guest-worker program.
Bush is a WSJ globalist at heart. And if the GOP fawningly goes along with this we could very well be out of power for a generation.
They called Reagan a free-trading globalist who cozied up to Gorbachev. Yet we are still a free nation.
The luddite conspiracy fringe is always certain the world will switch directions and start revolving their way tomorrow.
Anyone who wants a guest worker program really wants no border security at all. Anyone who wants a guest worker program is perfectly willing to turn America into one big Nuevo Laredo so they can have cheap labor.
The security of America is worth more than the corporate bottom line.
It's perfectly reasonable, but no American company wanted the business.
Is Bush supposed to force an American company to take the business?
Halliburton!
Seriously, calm down. The workers at the ports will be Americans./
"Anyone who wants a guest worker program is perfectly willing to turn America into one big Nuevo Laredo so they can have cheap labor.
The security of America is worth more than the corporate bottom line."
Worried about all those Latino suicide bombers who've plagued us all these long years?
A dollar to a day old doughnut says you haven't read any of the terms.
No its not.
Read 31 & 34.
I keep hearing that; it is obviously a talking point; but, where is the proof. Where is the evidence that this is a condition of the deal?
The physical security of America is more important than any free market libertarian considerations.
BULL!! maybe just maybe they are getting serious about our security.
Now if they would just fight as hard over the illegals already here and those still sneaking in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.