FOX Poll: Most Oppose Port Deal; Republicans Lose Ground

Fox News Website ^ | 3/02/2006 | Dana Blanton

[Dave S]

03/02/06 FOX Poll: Most Oppose Port Deal; Republicans Lose Ground Thursday, March 02, 2006 By Dana Blanton PHOTOS

Most Americans oppose allowing a Dubai company to run some U.S. ports, even as a majority understands the U.S. would continue to control port security, according to a new FOX News poll. One in four sees the United Arab Emirates as a strong ally, but most either disagree or are unsure.

In addition, the poll shows Republicans have lost ground on the issue of terrorism, and by a wide margin voters now think it would be better for the country if Democrats win control of Congress in this year’s midterm election.

For only the second time of his presidency, the poll finds that President Bush’s overall job approval rating has fallen below 40 percent — today 39 percent of Americans say they approve and a 54 percent majority disapproves. Late last year the president’s approval hit a record-low of 36 percent (8-9 November 2005).

[TheLion]

I agree with you to some extent, but we can't hide from reality. Also, how could one know when, where, and what would be twisted by the enemies of America.

Better to plow ahead with what is right. Of course you know Bush doesn't lead by polls.

Maybe this will wake up America to our exposures from all fronts and the ramifications. It has certainly been educational.

BTW....the Best article I have read yet on this issue:

Ports & Politics - the UAE/P&O Deal

At top Left when you get to the site.

http://www.globalpiracy.com/

[larryw408]

US firms aren't checking the cargo before it is placed on the ships and sails into our harbors, because none operate overseas. Why the sudden paranoia over the name of the company who's logo is on the manifest for the unloading portion of the journey? Woulnd't a nuke loaded overseas have as catastrophic effect if it went off in the port as if it went off in the neighboring city? Sure, some myopic individuals may disagree with that statement, but I doubt they've given it much thought.

UAE is an allie. Some, myself included may disagree with some of their positions, past and present. But then, I also disagree with some elements in the Iraq Constitution. That doesn't diminish the value of UAE in the GWOT or the value of the Iraq Constitution on the spread of freedom in the world.

The UAE port deal will go through, and those Rats opposed to it (Reid, et al) will again be exposed as the ignorant bigots they are.

[FreedomNeocon]

Don't bother... half of the people in here only see turbins and prayer rugs when you try to educate them with facts on the deal.

[EternalVigilance]

As I said before... you have a personal problem with a-rabs, or you just don't understand what this whole deal is about.

I do have a problem with Arabs generally, but again, it has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with the political ideology of the vast majority in their culture.

Your charges of racism remain untrue and smack of 'Rat tactics.

I understand 'what this whole deal is about'. It is about the triumph of money, cronyism and political correctness over national security and political common sense.

[Flux Capacitor]

----Well then, most people are stupid.----

Good work. That's exactly the kind of thoughtful, persuasive argument that's going to turn these numbers around. :)

-Dan

[sinkspur]

The poll numbers show that your despicable tactics aren't working with the American people, notwithstanding whatever success you might have had using it here on FR.

The poll numbers show that 70% of the American people harbor at least "some bias" toward Arabs.

That's code for "racism". Seventy percent is a big number. A shameful number.

[Doe Eyes]

Well then, most people are stupid. They will run a terminal - not a port. And, why not?

"We are running a container port business which has nothing to do with the operation of the Panama Canal." —Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. owner Li Ka-shing.

[Mamzelle]

My belief--this issue is connected in the minds of Americans with the border situation. I know my first thought, "first the borders, now the shores?" Bush is becoming associated with not taking US sovereignty very seriously.

I support the sale, albeit reluctantly, only because I chose to educate myself about it. Not because the admin has been particularly persuasive.

I think he could turn it around if he made visible a solid assistance to enforcing our immigration laws.

[EternalVigilance]

The poll numbers show that 70% of the American people harbor at least "some bias" toward Arabs. That's code for "racism". Seventy percent is a big number. A shameful number.

Perhaps if they would reign in their fellows who keep blowing innocents to bits Americans would be a bit more forgiving, eh?

[Borax Queen]

I swear MONEY is the only thing these people worship like a god and woe to them that stand in their way of making a buck. Country, the lives of fellow Americans and the security of us all come in a very distant second with these...people.

Bump.

[sinkspur]

For the record, I wonder why the sheik wants to spend billions on a business with such low profitability that the English company is dumping it.

It's called "a business decision." P&O sold Princess Cruise Lines six years ago to Royal Caribbean. And that is a profitable business.

[sinkspur]

The new poll finds widespread agreement that at least some opposition to the deal is based on bias against Arabs: 38 percent say "a lot" and another 32 percent say "some" of the opposition is based on bias.

There you go. "Bias" is a nice way of saying "bigotry."

[Howlin]

Actually they do:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583009/posts

[Dominic Harr]

A new Congress.

I don't see it, personally -- if you mean a D takeover.

This is a short-term gain (shock-n-awe PR), long-term pain (even greater loss of credibility) for the D's. Much like the last 50 D political offensives. Remember the good press they got on the filibuster try recently? And the bigger the early bounce, the harder the eventual fall.

Good poll #'s today, sure. And when in 45 days if no one has come up with a single credible real objection to this company . . . all the opponents of this will look like knee-jerk untrustworthy fools.

[FreedomNeocon]

Progress though... racism is just the general term. Just because I didn't say nationalityism or relgiousism or whatever, doesn't change the fact that you are judging over a billion people, all inside your mind, and treating them as one.

I call that racism, but whatever.

Anyway... talking of Rat tactics and then following up with "crony-ism" charge, not sure what that is about? A secret handshake among infiltrators? Sorry pal, I'm real.

Regardless there is no big money maker at all in the deal, there are no 'cronies' getting jobs.

Though it may be 'politically correct' to not be racist, that is not why I have this position, I again have to say you are just ignorant of what the deal is about because you totally miss the point.

UAE will not even be running security any part of port security (THEY ARE RENTING A TERMINAL)

HOWEVER, STIFFING them when they have bent over backwards (more than many European allies) JUST BECAUSE they are a-rabs, and small minded people can't get beyond it... MAY affect how they help us in the future. It will also show other arab nations that there is no point to help us out, because they get shit on because they are arabs and too many ameriancs are racist.

Thats ok though... as long as they think "Yeah I'm racist.. but my racism is right.. its justified... so not that bad"... just like you and so many others in this thread seem to do.

[processing please hold]

A FReeper was commenting on stevedoring the other day. He said not to worry about it because we would have control over that aspect of it. Well, surprise...we don't.

A major part of the story, however, has been mostly overlooked. The company, Dubai Ports World, would also control the movement of military equipment on behalf of the U.S. Army through two other ports. From today’s edition of the British paper Lloyd’s List:

[P&O] has just renewed a contract with the United States Surface Deployment and Distribution Command to provide stevedoring [loading and unloading] of military equipment at the Texan ports of Beaumont and Corpus Christi through 2010.

According to the journal Army Logistician “Almost 40 percent of the Army cargo deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom flows through these two ports.”

Thus, the sale would give a country that has been “a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia” direct control over substantial quantities U.S. military equipment.

[sinkspur]

Perhaps if they would reign in their fellows who keep blowing innocents to bits Americans would be a bit more forgiving, eh?

Maybe they'll do that when you get your ass out into the community and find all those pasty-faced white boys who are making meth in their garages. The death and destruction they're wielding to Americans is ten times worse than what terrorists have done.

[Howlin]

HOWEVER, STIFFING them when they have bent over backwards (more than many European allies) JUST BECAUSE they are a-rabs, and small minded people can't get beyond it... MAY affect how they help us in the future. It will also show other arab nations that there is no point to help us out, because they get shit on because they are arabs and too many ameriancs are racist.

Amen.

[EternalVigilance]

And when in 45 days if no one has come up with a single credible real objection to this company . . .

Fears that transnational money interests may trump American national security and sovereignty interests are hardly 'in'credible.

In fact, this deal is just the latest thing to highlight this perfectly legitimate concern.

[Owen]

Rasmussen's methodology is superior to the others. Watch only him.