Skip to comments.Ratner's Anti-Globalization Rant: No Foreigners Should Own Ports
Posted on 02/25/2006 5:15:41 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
February 25, 2006
Look for Ellen Ratner on the barricades next time the World Trade Organization gets together for a coffee klatsch. On this morning's Fox & Friends Weekend, Ratner hurled the verbal equivalent of a paving brick through the window of a Mickey D's. Ratner escalated the flap over the UAE ports deal to an entirely new level, claiming no foreign companies, regardless of nationality, should control our ports, or for that matter other significant chunks of our economy.
Claimed Ratner, the real issue is "what kind of jobs, what kind of outsourcing are we going to do in this country?"
When fellow "Long & the Short of It" guest Jim Pinkerton said that foreign policy considerations [such as the potential relevance of the port deal to our ability to get intelligence and site bases in the Middle East] are more important than who gets port jobs, Ratner replied skeptically "is it?" Apparently for Ratner, the ability of the longshoremen's union to place a favored few of its own is more important than our country's national security objectives.
When host Page Hopkins suggested that the debate had become muddled because people didn't understand that the UAE company wouldn't have responsibility for port security, Ratner steered things back to her anti-globalization polemic:
"I don't think that is the issue: the issue is where do we outsource who owns airplanes, railroads, all those kind of things."
Hopkins: "Are we going to cherry pick and hold Arabs to different standards?"
"No, no, I would feel the same way, when I realized that Britain was running the ports I felt the same way. It has nothing to do with the Arab situation. It has to do with what are we outsourcing - who owns what in America?"
Hopkins: "But if we stop all foreign investment?, where will that leave us?"
Ratner: "We have outsourced everything [sic] and now our standard of living as statistics show this week has gone down."
Pinkerton, while expressing his own concerns about the ports deal and advocating a thorough vetting during the 45-day delay, scored this point: "It doesn't hurt our standard of living to allow foreigners to invest $8 billion in the US."
But Ratner couldn't be budged from her xenophobia:
"We don't allow our radio stations to be owned by foreign investment. There are certain things we don't allow. It has nothing to do with whether they're Arabs or Canadians or British. The fact is there are certain industries we're keep in America and we're not doing that and that's a big problem."
Continued the suddenly jingoistic Ratner: "Why don't we have American companies owning some ports in China or Dubai or anywhere else? Why has American business given up on this? We're a strong country. We ought to be owning ports."
Ellen Ratner and Patrick Buchanan - who knew?
Ratner rant ping to the Today show list.
And you're on the side of Jimmah
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
And your on the side of Hillary,Schumer, and Uncle Ted!
Did she mention Long Beach, CA?
Nah CC, I don't think GLGB or myself for that matter is on Jimmah's side.
I claim to NOT be on the side of the knee-jerkers and would think GLGB resides there as well.
If that be Jimmah's side, so be it.
What about foreigners owning the 7-11 down the street, Ellen? Those brown-skinned guys could slip a little ricin into every cigarette pack and no one would know until it was too late.
Why do you guys seem so determined for America to offshore, outsource and capitulate to foreign govts?
Anybody notice how the RATner got a huge makeover, like face lift, hair color and new teeth? She looks like she got Nanci Pelosi's Doctor.
The hypocrisy of this bunch knows no bounds.
Who cares who is on whose side? Jimmy Carter didn't come out on this issue until others had spoken up. For all we know, he chose to support the President just to spite the Clintons, whom he doesn't like. Or maybe he knew that if he supported it people like you would stampede to the anti-Dubai position. Jimmy Carter's peanut brain and weird motivations don't concern me. I DO pay attention to people like Tommy Franks, however.
Earth to Ratner - we're in the 21th century. Globalization is here to stay.
What I'd like to ask is these pin headed psuedo anti-globalists is:
Okay, so we ban foreign investment in the U.S. What happens when all the countries where U.S. companies have investments respond in kind and kick us out? Where will our standard of living be then?
Where's that picture of the man with his head in a dark place?
This "issue" and the mock concern over it is so transparent. You know the memos and talking points over this are flying around Dem central as they try to avoid another thrashing at the polls in 2006.
When are you guys going to point out hillary's/schumer's/ratner's hypocrisy.
Ratner had no problem with the chicomms in Long Beach.
Now is it all foreign governments or just the Arabs?
I'm still waiting for all the hyperbole to disappear and for someone with more intelligence than ALL of Bush's cabinet officers to tell me just why this is a bad idea.
It's not like this is the first deal like this in history. Jeez, this is the way business is conducted and most of the knee-jerkers seem to think Bush should have been at every meeting concerning this. Talk about micro-management.
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.