George W. Bush is about to fritter away his party's last advantage.

Washington Times ^ | February 24, 2006 | Wes Pruden

[When_Penguins_Attack]

George W. Bush is about to fritter away his party's last advantage. What Republicans have had going for them is that they aren't Democrats. Over the past few days we've seen the men at the top of the Grumpy Old Party drifting toward something that looks suspiciously like an Old Boys' Party. When he hears applause only from Jimmy Carter, who gave away the Panama Canal (now controlled by the Chinese), and Bill Clinton, his newly adopted little brother, George W. should be looking for the panic button. Once they're no longer regarded as the toughest party on national security the Republicans will be burnt toast.

[LS]

This is the equivalent of a "push poll" that will just as quickly turn back against the Dems double after people start thinking about this.

BTW, what were we all discussing last week? Remember? It was the "Cheney shooting." Now, if you are the "wascawwy wove," what better way to get that out of the news?

[LS]

My blind trust isn't behind him either, but our discussion DID NOT begin that way---it is about whether this hurts Bush/the GOP politically, and it does not. Perversely, it only HELPS them, because ONLY the Republicans can be criticized for failing to address national security---the public has already concluded that the Dems are completely incapable of dealing with this. So this in essence reinforces Bush's/the GOP's strenghts. Watch the next election: +1 net in the Senate, +2 or 3 in the House.

[mdwakeup]

OK, fair enough. GOP has no chance in MD, FL, or NE -- you can put a fork in those. They just haven't fielded credible candidates. MD was never in play. FL and NE could have been if the Repubs had been able to attract decent candidates, but for whatever reason they didn't. NJ is a possibility, but we'd be getting another Chafee/Snowe/Collins. MN looks like a true toss-up, and they could hardly do worse than the 2 they have there now!

[epow]

The notion that we should expect our public officials to ignore the letter of the law for the sake of political expediency is completely alien to even the most basic understanding of what the word "conservative" means.

Please explain which "letter of the law" requires our public officials to choose a certain corporation to manage ports?

[Paige]

Yeah yeah yeah and the people aren't responsible? Give me a break!

[Paige]

According to many in D.C who surround the president, he did not know about the issue until it came out. I am concerned that you do not know how government works.

As for answering me, you never once gave me all of the information on the port issue. See, I have a problem with anyone jumping the gun when the MSM starts howling about certain issues.

When exactly did the Liberals start racial profiling and discover we had an enemy? For years now, we were fighting the unknown and now all of a sudden we have an enemy? Moreover, who leaked this to the Media??

With all due respect, do keep up the good diatribe supporting the Liberal cause. I bet they are proud their plan worked.

[ladyinred]

The biggest enemy republicans seem to have, are other"republicans." I see as much bashing here as I do on DU. Sickening.

[Impeach98]

"I'm here to tell you that outside of FR and some of the talk shows, no one GIVES A DAMN about the ports. It ranks up there with the Winter Olympics in terms of interest. I know the die-hards just don't get that, but it's reality."

The only thing people I know have talked about MORE than the ports is the weather. Other than that it's been the dominant topic of conversation this week. It's something that everyone can understand, and it seems awfully disturbing to a great many people.

[LS]

Don't write off Santorum. He was at EXACTLY this same position in his last election, and pulled it out. Powers of incumbency. And don't write off Kath Harris in FL. Nelson there has a great propensity for sticking his foot in his mouth.

[Taxman]

So do I!

[seanmerc]

Hey CWO Jackson! Apparently the Coast Guard didn't get your memo. Seems they may have a few concerns about this deal after all. Still think it's a bad idea to slow down a bit and examine this deal more closely?

Here's the URL for the article:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060227/D8G1MIJ00.html

Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps

Feb 27, 4:03 PM (ET)

By LIZ SIDOTI

WASHINGTON (AP) - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of such a deal.

"In this case, the concerns that you're citing were addressed and resolved," Clay Lowry, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for international affairs, told lawmakers.

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

"Any time there's a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record," Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. "And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements," he added.