Why the port issue will run out of steam as an election issue

[bluestateguy]

Because Bush is going to crap out and flip flop on the issue. His party is deserting him in droves on this matter, and it is early enough in the year that he and his party will recover from this embarassing episode.

Having said that, it seems likely that the Republicans will lose seats this November. Possibly a lot of seats.

[salin]

1. Yes, and No

The issue of this deal will probably disappear (unless he is stubborn and believes he can do what he wants to do and picks this as one of those issues to prove it.) However the impression left, when combined with growing skepticism per the reasons of going to war in Iraq, along with the lack of progress per the War On Terror per Bin Laden (more and more folks are putting those two issues together, btw), will put a serious crimp on the one issue that in the public's mind gives and edge to the GOP - "Security". In the end, many people do not vote on a single issue, but on an overall gut level impression.

[0007]

16. There are big bucks waiting to be made on this deal!

A lobbyist works hard. Ask James A. Baker III

[annabanana]

2. We have to keep our eyes on this...

This kind of sticks his Big Money people in the eye... B*sh's true "base". He will appear to back down and then try to find some back channel way to make it happen de facto, if not de jure...

And it will not get the coverage it's getting right now. (You know.. like that "it's ok for me to torture, anyway" signing statement.)

[Swamp Rat]

5. I bet there are twice as many republicans pissed at Bushler today

over the selling of the port security to the UAE. He can flip-flop, but the damage is done. He sold out to the islamo-fascist-terrists. His supporters are gonna leave him en masse. O8)

watch this: ;)

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/PortSecurityHumptyDumpty.asx

[salin]

7. the issue that resonates most with my repub brother

is in answer to the question (that he is asking more regularly)... why would they do that? Answer: Greed over the interests of the country or its citizens. It rings true to him and makes him more uneasy.

[tecelote]

14. You're right. This is the key.

This proves that the war on terrorism is really about war profiteering.

It's about the rich getting richer. It's not about our safety.

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS.

EXPOSE THE BASTARDS!

PLEASE!!!

[salin]

15. another point that gets under their skin...

why, even after millions upon millions of fraud on taxpayers has been proven, does Halliburton keep getting multi million and billion dollar contracts?

The answer, of course, doesn't even have to be given - it is understood.

[Swamp Rat]

3. No way José! ... it's gonna get worse and worse and worse for Bushler!

:grr: Republicans are screaming from the rooftops already yet IT IS A DONE DEAL. Bushler DID IT already. He can try to undo it - flip-flop- but the damage is done. Much of his base will NEVER trust him again.

It is too late. He fucked up BIG TIME.

Watch this CSPAN video and tell me what you think:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/PortSecurityHumptyDumpty.asx



I've been meeting quite a few republicans lately that are chomping at the bit pissed at Bushler. :) OH HAPPY DAY!!! :D

[BuyingThyme]

4. I like that optimism.

(Hmm. Pessimism is now optimism. Who woulda thunk?)

[Swamp Rat]

6. Dat's what I'm talkin' 'bout!

:D

Watch Russ Feingold KICK ASS! :D

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Real-Time-Russ-F.mov

[Justice Is Comin]

8. Roger that Swamp Rat

His dick is in his zipper either way he goes. This is already a Miers but mega tons bigger. If he tries to undo the deal, he's still branded much more untrustworthy now by his base.

And if he DOES cancel the deal, watch out because the UAE is going to have a few surprises for him that is going to make him want to eat another pretzel.

[Swamp Rat]

10. Your screen name is so apt... sooo prescient.

[mwb970]

18. It's hard to imagine anyone outside the WH gates supporting this move.

Of course I'm sure Alberta Gonzales will chime in with a prissy defense soon, if she hasn't already.

[MADem]

19. Imus is screaming about it, he had Lou Dobbs on this morning

and Lou took the gloves off, yet again.

Bo Deitl, who is normally an obnoxious ass, had an amusing remark: he noted that there are many "family owned" concerns right here in the good old USA who could do all that port work for at a better price!!

I do not think this issue is gonna slip away. I think this is the tipping point. Lou pointed out that BushCo is trying to claim that this decision was made by "lower level functionaries" but those functionaries, in essence, were the friken Bush cabinet. It's ugly, and getting uglier.

[long_green]

21. Oh, they'll forgive him

The reason they're pissed is because if this deal goes through, they can't bash Democrats with being soft on terror.

[liberal N proud]

9. But - just the fact they tried to do such an act should be enough to use

as proof against any claim on national security.

Any one who agrees with bu$h at this point or at any point in this attempt to sell of American security should be slammed to the wall on it come election time.

[Skidmore]

11. As an election issue, it is an excellent and unassailable example of the

hubris of the administration and the blind unquestioning following of the cult of * among many of the Republican legislators. You know the ones--the ones like Sessions, Hatch, McConnell, Cornyn, Hastert, and many others who would find a way to justify any act of this administration. It is an example of the pursuit of party ideology over what is good for the nation as a whole. There are many other such examples. Allowing corporations to take business overseas and eroding our manufacturing base. Exploiting illegal immigrants over good labor practices.

Use it.

[salin]

12. The issue can also raise to light the question per Privatization

is it *always* a good thing? Another thread points out that whichever corp runs this function (be it the British co. that has run it vs the DP that is taking it over) - will get advanced notice of military shipments - and that most shipments of equipment to the Gulf War - runs through these ports. Should this really be a private function? Also - if $ is to be made (which must be the case if several co.s were bidding, as was the case) - why shoulod foreign corps gain - wouldn't it be fiscally prudent for the US govt, now ridden in debt, to run them both for security and financial reasons? It is really time to revisit the *faux* far right economic claim that privatization is *always* a net good.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Yes, yes, yes. Dems can use this as a base, and build on it.

It leads to all of the old-school conservative issues which are now Democratic territory.

[CJCRANE]

17. Respectfully disagree.

Just like Katrina lost the Republicans any remaining African American voters, the port sell-off is gonna lose them a lot of "patriots". Even yesterday there was a post here on DU that tried to prove that FreeRepublic isn't connected to the Republican Party...seems like conservatives are already distancing themselves from that party...

[Inland]

20. It's a "what were you thinking" moment for republicans.

Even if he flips, and he will flip or be forced, you can always say "remember Bush's plan for port security was to put it in the hands of a corporation owned by a little Gulf Arab Nation? What's his PROBLEM?"

Besides, Bush is doing it for as part of a complicated, out of sight scheme of rewards and deals. If the ports deal unravels, some Bush contributor doesn't get its payoff. I'm sure of it.