|
The Stupid Party Returns
I can't think of a better title than that so I'll just steal Dafydd's. Can you believe this shit?:
The Stupid Party Returns
Today, several prominent GOP congressmen tried their level best to lose the 2006 election -- an election they could have won by being less... well, stupid.
Fingers in the air, quivering bunny noses sensing a change in the wind, Republican Reps. Peter King (NY), Jerry Lewis (CA), Duncan Hunter (CA), Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (IL), and newly elected House Majority Leader John Boehner (OH) have decided to attach a rider to an appropriations bill funding the troops and Hurricane Katrina victims; the rider is intended to kill the Dubai Ports deal outright, even before the extended investigation completes. No sense wasting time by waiting for actual facts!
If they manage to get it passed -- and a small minority of them can do it, if they link up with all of the Democrats -- and if another small minority in the Senate join forces with Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, and their pals, then they will plop a must-veto, must-sign bill on Bush's desk long before the agreed-upon review of the deal is even completed.
[Read on here.]
As I write this, Fox and CNN are both reporting that The House Appropriations Committee has voted to attach a rider blocking the Dubai ports deal to an emergency supplemental funding bill for military actions in Iraq and Afghan-istan and additional disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. There's till hope, although apparently not much, that the full House or the Senate will have better sense.
I took my best shot at explaining why the DPW deal needs to be approved here. My thinking hasn't changed.
***
John Hinderaker writes:
Panic In the Ranks?
The House Appropriations Committee voted today, 62-2, to attach a provision to a "must-pass" appropriations bill that would bar DP World from taking over control of any port facilities. (I haven't seen the language, and press reports are vague, but I gather this is what it says.)
This is a mistake, I think, in both policy and political terms. I've seen no evidence that ownership of port terminals by DP World would create any security issues, or, for that matter, bring about any change in the manner in which the facilities are run, or the identity of the people running them. Politically, it appears that many Republicans are nervous about November's election and anxious to put some distance between themselves and President Bush. This strikes me as a foolish calculation; surely the Republicans will be better off if they stick together. The headlines generated by this kind of party split--the ports issue is almost entirely symbolic, and is all about headlines--will do more to hurt Republican Congressional candidates than help them, I think.
[Read on here.]
***
Ed Morrissey:
A Spoonful Of Panic Helps The Majority Go Down
[...]
All this hysteria does is make the Republicans look as foolish and uninformed as Democrats. Instead of focusing on the hypocrisy of the opposition party (under whose administration the Chinese and Saudis took over management of American ports, and whose last President has been advising the UAE on the deal) in pushing ethnic profiling for port operators but not for immigration and airport security, the GOP has abandoned its President and a reasonable offer to suspend the deal pending review and oversight by Congress at the end of it. They could have waited for that review and allowed all the facts to come to light, and then made an informed and rational decision to kill it. This measure is the equivalent of putting hands over ears and shouting nonsense to avoid hearing any debate.
[...]
Now what do we do with the ports under the control of Saudi, Chinese, and Singaporean operators? Do we kick them out -- and if we so, who then replaces them and in what kind of time frame? Do we bar any state-owned entity from port management, regardless of nationality? That's my main objection; a state-owned company represents the interests of the state before the interests of business and profit, and we will not have an opportunity to react quickly enough if their state interests suddenly change to hostility towards the US. That seems like a rational prerequisite to securing our ports, and DPW fails in that regard, unless they partner with outside investors to establish an American subsidiary that would find its motivation in ensuring safe and secure business transactions.
A rational debate could have answered these questions. Instead the House GOP has panicked, damaged the administration, and created a liability for their own party rolling into the midterm elections. This doesn't serve the country or the Congress well, even if I agree with the end result. They turned a controversy into an unnecessary debacle.
[Read the whole thing here.]
***
Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, is ecstatic: House Republicans Send A Message.
***
California Conservative: PortGate: Republicans Turn on President Bush — And What Will It Cost Us?
***
Rob at Say Anything:
This knee-jerk reaction isn't going to help anybody. The UAE has been a staunch and trusted ally both in the middle east and the global war on terror. They should have at least been afforded the courtesy of a full review allowing for all the facts to be put on the table. That wasn't done. Instead, loud-mouthed politicians took a look at the polls and decided to pander to voters rather than take the time to inform themselves on the situation and make the right decision.
***
A.J. Strata just may have the solution to the problem here.
***
The comedy of errors continues; see UAE firm to transfer port operations to "U.S. entity"
***
Don't miss Greyhawk's latest Open Post.
|
