The Ports issue is no-win situation for Republicans.

[Clarkie1]

The Republican-controlled congress has two options:

A. Defy Bush and override his veto of pending legislation to block the Port deal.

B. After some "hearings" on the issue, waffle and say they now see Bush's wisdom.


Option A will ensure an earlier lame-duck presidency.

Option B will ensure a Democratic congress this year.


These are obvious facts, in my opinion. Just felt like pointing out the obvious tonight...

[Bozita]

1. imho, it's a watershed moment.

Bush has confidently painted himself into a corner.

[Patsy Stone]

2. Now, what's wrong with that?

:thumbsup: I love it when they break ranks. It's like a little sneak peek into the Imperial Throne Room. Sad that I have to look so hard through the cracks to see what my government's doing, though.

[Hello_Kitty]

I like your thinking

It sounds good. I've been worried about the GOP Congress possibly benefitting from the appearance of defying Bush and being able to thereby distance themselves from him. But yeah, it might hasten the lame-duckness and they'd be tarred by that.

[FreedomAngel82]

3. I hope you're right!

[tcfrogs]

4. No-win for either party

Such a minor issue will not resonate with voters in November.

[Clarkie1]

6. National Security is the #1 issue.

This will resonate big time, and we need to make it resonate particularly if the congress does not override Bush's veto of the pending legislation, or (less likely) fails to pass legislation to block the deal in the first place.

[tcfrogs]

11. Let's see if anyone remembers the issue in April

Sorry, my cynical self checking in. No offense.

[Erika]

14. A side note

Most of us know what it is like to make a call for clarification of a product, only to reach a ME person and total frustration. Yes, we will remember.

[tcfrogs]

15. Not saying WE won't remember

Just one in a long line of Bush administration blunders.

[Clarkie1]

16. No offense taken...

In most cases, I would agree with you. Historically speaking, a specific issue like this doesn't remain long in the minds of voters or the next news cycle.

That's why Democrats need to keep bringing this issue up again and again and link it to other issues involving true "homeland security." Bush has dropped the ball on security in many ways, but this will become a kind of poster-child issue for the cause. I believe it will continue to resonate, particulary since there will be in all likelihood a very public, very intense veto/override fight....the first one of the Bush presidency.

The media hounds will be all over this one for awhile.

[Erika]

9. This is a national security issue

W is going to turn over our ports to Muslims?

[MADem]

20. It's not muslims that are the problem, nor is it Arabs--it is DICTATORS

See these guys? They are the Supreme Council of the UAE. Seven guys. They OWN the country. They OWN this company...and unless this deal is stopped, they OWN our ports, for all intents and purposes. These clowns got their jobs through heredity, and hang on to them through a combination of intimidation, fear, a ruthless approach to dissenters, and provision of social services. There is no discussion, there is no dissent. There are no elections. Their little end of the world produces some 8 or 9 % of the world's oil. They are dead serious about finding other sources of income, and extending their reach across the globe. They aren't stupid--they know the oil ain't gonna last forever. They want to continue to live comfortably--working for a living ain't an option.

Once close with the Taliban, they still, to this day, do a shitload of business with Iran. These guys are a national security nightmare, because they'll follow the money, and won't hesitate to shift alliances to benefit themselves. In short, they aren't dependable. If someone with a better offer comes along, it's bye-bye love. You could find a worse bunch to own this business, but you probably would find that they couldn't afford to buy it. These guys have the cash. They see the potential, here--on a number of levels.

We just don't need this shit--we are better off doing it ourselves, through a state-federal oversight board, with local subcontractors, or some other arrangement that considers the national security aspects. At least that way, if anything screws up, we have some accountability.

[KingFlorez]

17. It's not a minor issue

It's about security and that's important. Plus, the Republicans whole platform is security and this pulls the rug from under that.

[AtomicKitten]

5. I'm not too sure about that.

The vehement opposition by the Repubs in Congress might make them look tough on terror around election time.

The Dems need to coapt this, but that's hard to do since they aren't in power.

[Clarkie1]

10. That would be option A.

Ensuring an earlier lame-duck presidency.

As far as looking tough on terror in regards to this issue, there is no reason why Democrats can't BE and look tougher than the Republicans. In the best-case scenario for them on this issue, the Republican Party is split against a united Democratic front.

So, it's still a losing proposition for the Republicans.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Too late! * already is a lame duck.

What you are saying true enough, however, I'm only seeing the Republican congressfolk on the tee-vee, and it seems those that support Junior's port deal are outside Congress.

I'd like to see more Dems out their on the yak-fest on tee-vee on this issue.

It's all perception.

[Erika]

12. Tough on terror?

The Bushbots stuck with him for five years. No control on the Mexican border and letting Muslims control major east coast ports? And you say they look tough on terror? They elected and carried W. What are you talking about?

[AtomicKitten]

22. I'm just talking about sound bites.

Of course I agree with you, but the nutjobs are easily fooled by rhetoric. I'm just saying in their individual races they could say the broke with the idiot boy king to ensure safer ports. It's all BS as is all Republican rhetoric. But Karl Rove has caused me to try to see the spin he'll put on this.

[Erika]

7. W has cast fear into all of our hearts about the Muslims

Islamopigfascists, etc. Rush, Coulter, and all the rest have told us how evil these people are. Malkin says they should be interned. Now W OK's their running major ports including those shipping out our military equipment?

[oasis]

8. The arrogant airhead's approval numbers will tumble to the low 30's.

Guaranteed.

[cyclezealot]

13. Today, even my Repug friends who i normally ignore politics

are mad as hell. They will not forget this. They are nominally anti trade. Now report to them connections to the port deal and free trade status ( a thread now being circulate on DU) and their gooses will be cooked.

[Bozita]

18. ...and the Muslim world is watching very closely

Rove must be into Pickles' prescription drugs.

[LSK]

19. Option B will happen - you can bet on it

Just like EVERYTHING ELSE, the Republican Congress will cave to Bush.

[B Calm]

21. Bush spends 5 years telling everybody to be very afraid and fear

those people from the middle east.. Now he wants to give our ports to them. Talk about a flip flopper...