Replies

Many would like to hear more of the other side of a globalists outsourcing debate in a rational manner, such as what are the advantages to the average middle class citizen if foreign governments owns and operates infrastructure on the US soil? Do we receive more jobs, do we get to invest in more stock in the companies involved in outsourcing deals, will it lower prices for the consumer in the long run? These are things that the average person cares about above and beyond the rhetoric.

While the explanation we hear is that we don’t want to offend such a government that aids us on the war on terror. But it would seem the only reason we are waging a war on terror is to prevent foreign governments from taking control of US infrastructure in the first place! So this whole line of reasoning appears circular and irrational.

A rational explanation seems to be lacking. Until the port deal is explained to the public they will not buy any of this. Given the house elections are coming up and the only thing the republicans have scored well on with the public is security (even spending the democrats are viewed more favorable) this whole thing is a debacle. If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasn’t already.

Your points are well stated and without name-calling, which is a minor miracle for this subject.:)

Seriously, this is how a real discussion should be done. IMHO, your comments cut closer to home than "any trust Bush on this" arguments I've read so far. I'll watch and keep reading.

Best regards

"If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasn’t already."

About as much as the VP Cheney's Texas field massacre.

I think a more logical thought is that the president treats the press with the contempt they deserve, tosses in some food to their "fish bowl" and lets them go into a frenzy feeding on it.

In the meanwhile (in this particular case) the Dims and Rino's, along with the MSM, started frothing at the mouth.

As blurring as the MSM and others are trying to keep it, it is becoming clear that this DP World hysteria has little basis in fact.

"Hurt the Party badly"? What ... your not going?

A rational explanation seems to be lacking. Until the port deal is explained to the public they will not buy any of this. Given the house elections are coming up and the only thing the republicans have scored well on with the public is security (even spending the democrats are viewed more favorable) this whole thing is a debacle. If the pubic has perceived that the port deal explanation reasoning is circular and irrational by the President and in his own words he says he never reviewed the issue, even if it is a good rational sale, politically it will hurt the party badly, if it hasn’t already.

Very good point. This is a very bad move politically, as it gives the Dems a chance to look "tough" on security. The fact that Bush has threatened to find his veto pen over this also raises a lot more eyebrows. The feeling seems to be that the President is not really that concerned about security. I don't agree with that, but that is the feeling out here in the trenches.