We must not let the R's steal the opposition to the UAE port deal!

[BrainRants]

The Dems need to stand up NOW and be LOUD and vocal in their opposition to this or they will be framed (again) as weak on defense,

The R's who are squaking right now will use it in the 06 elections..."see, I stood up the Chimp, I'm not like him..I'm a different kind of Republican"

Rove is using this to strengthen the R's by giving them a way to distance themselves from the White House. We should not fall for the trick and hammer, hammer, hammer them ALL on it right now or we will lose the opportunity to frame it our way...i.e. Bush is the leader of the R's, my opponent is an R, therefore my opponent's party supports outsourcing our security to a nation with state sponsored terrorism.

Regardless of the politics or the likely tactical maneuvering, the Dem leadership should be jumping on tables and screaming to anyone and everyone about this. It's another winning issue, let's not screw it up.

[cantstandbush]

1. I think the Dems should just stick to lack of port security all around

and let the rethugs bitch about the UAE. Port security was Kerry's mantra during the 2004 campaign and it was an excellent issue to bring to the fore. It's the lack port security, PERIOD, and the money unwisely spent on Iraq invasion instead of truly beefing up our homeland security...as Katrina demonstrated. The UAE issue is not going buy the Dems much. It's an issue put out there for the Rethugs to use to distance themselves from Bush but they are going to have to give in and the UAE will still be managing the ports covered by this deal. We need to leave them with that egg on their faces and concentrate on making the public understand the real vulnerabilities of our port around the nation.

[slor]

2. We need to send them this...

to get their talking points together.

<http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007733.php>

[aquart]

3. We welcome their awakening awareness of port security issues.

We have been requesting better oversight since 9/11, but they were too busy lying us into war, selling photo ops with George, and failing to help Americans devastated by global warming disasters.

Still, better late than never. Yes, we welcome our brothers and sisters from across the aisle. That is how a DEMOCRACY functions. We're sure they'll like it once they get used to it.

Golly, this is sort of like the fall of the Iron Curtain.

[PBass]

4. People seem to be responding to this in a very emotional way... good!!!

So please, Dem leaders, now is NOT the time to try to "finesse" the issue or take "nuanced" views.

JUST OPPOSE THE DEAL, because there's not a single good reason to be FOR it, unless you're getting some kickbacks.

[aquart]

5. Bush doesn't care about national security.

We always knew it. Now they do.

[NVMojo]

6. Where are the loud and vocal Dems?

[PBass]

7. Clinton and Schumer were the first to pull the fire alarm, I think.

I may be mistaken, but that is my impression... the GOP lawmakers are the ones jumping on the bandwagon.

[BrainRants]

8. You are correct, but it's still too quiet.

Everyone needs to be speaking with one voice, no nuancing or hedging. This is a simple one.

[PBass]

9. I agree completely. Keep it simple and direct... Just Say No! (eom)

[meegbear]

10. With the head R supporting the deal ...

they can't.

[sendero]

11. Rove works for Bush..

.... and owes his career to Bush. Rove has jack to do with this. This is just a lame duck president who has shifted his focus from using his "political capital" to buttering his post-presidency skids.

[LynneSin]

12. 50% rights to the Ports of WIlmington are a part of that deal...

...and that port is 5 minutes from my home and 5 miles from a Nuclear Power Plant.

I don't give a flying fuck who is the opposition to these port deals.

We have better issues to go after republicans on, most notably all the ethics violations. We need every person in DC regardless of party to oppose this sale because Bush will veto so we need to override it