Dubai Ports -- Inept Dem politics AGAIN

[JamRock]

Dubai Ports is not a security issue (The security issue is the lack of funding for screening and tracking technology)

Dubai Ports is a Political Issue and once again the Democrats have bungled an incredible opportunity by premature demagoguery.

All the democrats had to do was to let the issue simmer for a few months -- and then they would have had a fantastic boogey man to use against Bush in Fall.

But no, self-interested folks had to make such a stink that now the Republican congress is coming out against the deal and soon Bush will declare the sale a hold-over from the Clinton era, make a public spectable of banning it, and call for a commission to investigate Port Security.

Democrats lose another opportunity. When will we learn to give Buch enough rope to hang himself.

[NanceGreggs]

1. Dems just don't seem to know ...

... how to make political hay out of ANYTHING the other side does.

Maybe we should advertize:

POSITION: Professional haymaker.
REQUIRED SKILLS: Ability to recognize the f*cking obvious.
SALARY: Name your price - we're desperate!

[iconoclastNYC]

11. It's the media that makes hay of things.

We'll never get a break in the corporate media. Until we build our own media we'll never be able to beat up the Republicans.

[Supersedeas]

23. it is the Corporate Neo Conservative Media that is upset with the ports

[iconocrastic]

31. At least we have Air America. n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. actually, your post is premature expectoration.

Frist, Gingrich, Santorum and others have objected, as well as several red state governors. We haven't screwed the pooch yet, although I worry that our DLC will find a way.

[gordianot]

3. One name Joe Biden, the scourge of pooches everywhere.

When he hits CNN and MSNBC you know the pooches have been had.

[canichelouis]

6. Good ol' Joe Leiberman has been there already

[gordianot]

8. No kidding, is Holy Joe going against *?

It's kinda hard to figure Holy Joe on this issue especially if he wants another kiss from Bush. I heard Jimmy Carter had no objections.

[Tellurian]

54. UH, Joe veneers over cooked at the tanning salon n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Your analysis is simplistic and devoid of any data to

support your own personal opinion.

My opinion is that some self-interested folks are more concerned with catapulting the meme of bungled Democratic opportunity than with offering constructive criticism or solutions.


Are you positing that had each and every Demo said nothing at the time, then later claimed it was bush's fault, that would be seen as great?



(edit for spelling)

[JamRock]

7. I happen to have a little knowledge about Port Facilities Operators

I know that most ports in the world contract with one of a small handfull of operators.

I know that the "Security" aspect of this deal is ambiguous, but the Political usefullness
in fall campaign would have been tremendous expecially in red states if the issue had not been hyped so early.

The solution is a complex one of party organization, leadership and strategy that Dems are struggling with and will not be resolved here.

[gordianot]

13. One thing to remember about ports. Favorite target of spies.

Before the days of terrorists, spies everywhere in every age have watched ports and harbors. The security of ports has not been ambiguous any time in the past of course the people who operate our government have their own unique standard.

[radio4progressives]

17. that's an interesting point to observe...

that's what this issue is all about, after all.

[JamRock]

30. Dubai run opperations is the worst cover for any spy in anti-arab environ

[John Q. Citizen]

21. So I am correct that you are positing that keeping quiet now and

then bringing it up in 8 months would make the Democrats look good to the voters?

Well, I disagree. If I were a Republican running against a Demo incumbant who tried that, I'd have a field day.

If I were a Repo incumbant running against a Demo challenger I'd say, what's the problem, the ports are running just fine, your own party didn't say squat about it at the time, this is political BS.

The only way I think your scenario would work is if a major event of national significance were to occur at a port, and that there was a way to tie in the Port Operations Company to the event in some way (even at the negligence level) This is a long shot.

Although the question of whether contracting US port opperations out to a company with ties both to the White House and the Royal Family of the UAE makes good political sense or not was not part of my post, I will give you my opinion.

The freepers hate it. The freepers are the most rabid segment of the Republican base. The strong ties of the Royal Family of the UAE to Osama and the Taliban makes people wonder why give them that kind of access.

As too the possibility that it creates a security problem, I don't know.

[JamRock]

25. Not as true Security issue. So oppose but don't demagogue until the

time for demagoguing comes 4 months from now. Please don't force Bush to
do the politically smart thing. He is torpedoing his party. Don't intercept the torpedo.

[RazzleDazzle]

28. And real damn dangerous

I don't think this one is totally sincere, if you know what I mean.

[iconocrastic]

32. Bingo. n/t

[John Barrett]

5. Agreed

There are so many issues with Bush and his lapdog GOP Congress that the Democrats could make major political hay on but instead they fall by the wayside or are neutered by conflicting statements of Party leaders.

The Democrats are not going to win any elections until they take votes away from the Republicans. It's that simple. We aren't going to win by appeasing only to the left wing base.

That means we need to take mainstream issues that guys like Lou Dobbs bring up nightly that really pisses many Americans off and then run with these issues. If the Democrats can win in 2006 it won't be because of their political savy, it will be because the GOP self destructed on its own. Although some might say that just sitting on the sidelines offering something better might be more effective that what could become the public perception that all the Democrats offer is a constant negative shrill.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. The Democrats won the last two elections. Where have you been?

Or do you mean the Democrats are going to have to steal votes from the votes the Repuiblicans are already stealing from the Democrats?

What are your personal credentials for judging political saavy? Ever run for public office or been elected to public office? I'm just wondering how you arrive at your opinions.

What is one issue of the "many issues" you mention that you belive the Democrats could make political hay on? And how do you belive they should go about making political hay on it?

My opinion is that the current state of media consolidation where 80% of all TV, radio, and press is in the hands 5 corporations makes it extremely iffy to make political hay on any issue - unless the powers-that-be decide it's in thier corporate interest to do so.

[John Barrett]

59. Comments

JQC my reply.
Or do you mean the Democrats are going to have to steal votes from the votes the Repuiblicans are already stealing from the Democrats?

I hope not steal but agree that the Democrats may have won the last two Pres. elections. The Democrats need to pull votes from moderate Republicans and independents and develop issues that will allow that to happen.

What are your personal credentials for judging political saavy? Ever run for public office or been elected to public office? I'm just wondering how you arrive at your opinions.

We all have opinions. None are 100% correct 100% of the time. I'm happy with my internal track record. I don't have the temperament to run for office but I would enjoy being an advisor.

What is one issue of the "many issues" you mention that you belive the Democrats could make political hay on? And how do you belive they should go about making political hay on it?

One key overriding area is the blatant corporatization of America and its corrupting influence. This covers everything from outsourcing, use of illegal immigrants to squeeze US workers, CEOs with absurd and compensation packages entirely unrelated to risk and return to investors, removing pension plans, privatization of services and facilities and now federal land, lobbyists, privatization of military with administration buddies, corporate welfare from everything such as Wal-Mart receiving tax money for development to very profitiable oil companies that receive taxpayer subsidies. The list is endless yet the Democrat Party continues to let the far left define the party with issues that tend to divide.


My opinion is that the current state of media consolidation where 80% of all TV, radio, and press is in the hands 5 corporations makes it extremely iffy to make political hay on any issue - unless the powers-that-be decide it's in thier corporate interest to do so.

I agree 100% with you that consolidation of the media has been bad for America and good for politicians and those with influence. The media has been corporatized and could be placed into that over issue above of "Corporatization of America". Small business is good, big business is bad should be a core philosophy of the Democrat party which is in fact the opposite of the GOP.

[JamRock]

15. Whoa!! I am frankly staggered by the sanity of your remarks here.

[radio4progressives]

18. As a Leftist, very Intent in Having the Left Be Heard, Please Demonstrate

How the Left has ever been "appeased" to by the Democratic Party?

I find that rather odd, considering the Left has been completely SHUT OUT of the Democratic Party, in terms of power and voice for decades.

[John Barrett]

60. Defined The Party

radio4progressives

To respond. My belief is that the far left has defined the public perception of the Democratic Party for the last 30 years. The party has given the far right a plethora of sound bites to use against it some of them justified. The latest the other night on Hannity when the San Francisco councilman said that the USA should just do away with the military. They were discussing the Idaho ship being museumed at San Francisco. If you remember the mayor of San Francisco made a big deal about gay marriage during the 2004 Pres election. That was another opportunity that the Republicans used to their advantage. I consider myself socially liberal but I don't consider those issues as what should be the crucial front burner Democrat Party issues. There are many others that need to be discussed. Let individual politicians decide but keep the Party out of it.

The best thing that could happen to the Democratic Party is for the GOP to be seen as taking abortion choice out of women's hands. I don't believe it will happen because the GOP likes to use it as a big wedge offensive issue and to rouse their base, but they don't ever want to be placed on the defense on it, because they know they'll lose politically.

[NativeTexan]

9. The Republicans HAVE to disagree, if they are smart.....

.....because security is their ONLY hold card. Dems need to hit this and hit it HARD!! And it is the BEST TIME EVER to hit on the LACK OF SECURITY TO START WITH. 95% of all port cargo goes unchecked!!!

[ChiciB1]

10. Did Anyone See Pres. Jimmy Carter's Remarks With Wolfie B. Yesterday?

I only caught a little of it, but from what I heard He didn't seem that upset about it.

Now, don't jump on me I asked the question earlier... but I think I did hear him say that he thought the administration had looked at it closely before they made their decision.

I COULD be wrong!

[radio4progressives]

19. Apparently the Ports have been Owned and Controlled by Multi-Nationals

and the EU for decades? that would be under both administrations presumably, must be dating back to Carter days or before.

Anyone with facts about this history?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Actually, this was an issue that enraged Conservative pieces of

shit like Michael Savage first.

[radio4progressives]

16. I'm no Defender of stupid politics but Bush has been given so much

rope to hang himself from the highest gallows, a hundred times over.

he should have been REMOVED FROM OFFICE ALONG WITH DICK CHENEY AND THE REST OF THE THIEVES THUGS AND DESPOTS - A LONG LONG TIME AGO.

The Dems don't know how because it isn't in their interest to do anything about the full panoply of crimes this administration has committed against this nation.

By the way, I didn't know that the Clinton administration allowed the EU to own our ports. that's fucking weird on it's face, but it fits right in with the DLC policy.

[Dawgs]

20. Whatever!!!

Bush's approval number are in the thirties.
Delay has been indicted.
Most people think Bush is doing a poor job on the economy, SS, healthcare, Iraq, and pretty much everything else.
Abramoff is bringing down the rest.

I don't think this is the time to be pessimistic about Bush going down.

[radio4progressives]

22. I don't agree with the premise of this post - what i want to know :

does anyone have information on the history of foreign ownership of our ports? I've just tried to research this, and i'm not really finding this specific information in google, at least not at glance.

i'd be very interested in knowing the history on this, if anyone has links sources or just general information.

[gordianot]

24. Check this post.

Sounds reasonable:

link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=481615&mesg_id=481615

[dubya_dubya_III]

27. Not only this, but aren't they running the British Ports too?

I really think this is rather silly, The NSA can monitor both sides of all conversations, any day, all day long, going on in Dubai LOL

[iconocrastic]

33. Clever screen name. n/t

[dubya_dubya_III]

37. But seriously tho

Thanks, wish it was funny..


But the real issue seems to be the problem of corporate infiltration by those who might do us harm. Since for the most part, most of our port non-security rests upon the inane "Known Shippers" philosophy, that sort of data is particularly sensitive.

As Bush continues his quest for ever expanding and escalating confrontation, grandstanding and violence, rather than any reasoned effort to disenfranchise our "theft of Jerusalem/al Aqsa" opponents, those who are still friends today may simply not be able to remain that way for much longer.

Only a Three State Solution will solve the Israel/Jerusalem/Palestine problem

[karynnj]

26. No! You do not put the country at risk just to have

a political bogeyman. I know that this is an iternational company. That it was owned out of London and is now owned out of Dubai. The UAE is one of the very few governments that regnized the taliban as legitimate. Dubae was one of the key branches of BCCI - and many there were it's shareholders. The problem is that there was a likelihood of a high level UAE person infiltrating a port, learning how it operates and it's viability.

Th closest human example would be, if a very nice woman ran a private day care out of her house, but her son was a known drug dealer. Would you place your child there? Even if he didn't live with her?

[JamRock]

29. This Port Conglomerate Deal -- Not a real Port Security problem.

The two other Maritime conglomerates in a position to bail out the Brittish Peninsula and Oriental were Hutchison Wampoa -- backed by the Hong Kong government, and PSA -- based in Singapore. Ceres which is based in NJ did not bid for P&O.

With regards to port security, the situation of U.S. ports has been abysmal to say the least and has nothing to do with Dubai Ports. Managers of U.S. ports were roundly criticized by recent federal reports as grossly under-funding their security mandates.

We can make it a Security issue -- but this is principally usefull for political campaign
purposes and should be handled in that way at the right time by the right people after
the Repubs are trapped.

[RogueTrooper]

34. You are saying that

the best way for the Democrats to capitalize on this politicaly is to do nothing? Otherwise we are demogogues? When has that play ever worked for the Democrats?

[Azathoth]

35. Guess how the GOP would respond?

"You were there months ago when the deal went through and you didn't say anything. Just like with the Iraq war, you tacitly endorsed the sale, and then later, after it was a done deal, you flip-flopped and started attacking it for obvious partisan political gain."

[JamRock]

43. This was not subject to Congressional oversight, but Admin review

I would just show how Bush passes deals to his friends and that the whole "Arab Terrorist" scare
the Repubs have used to get votes does not stand in their way.

In the meantime -- it is really not a security from terrorism issue.
There are real issues of life and death and the economy that our reps should be solving -- Iraq,
health-care, taxes ... while they prepare ads for the fall showing Bush "weak of terror"

[Azathoth]

50. I agree -- there are far more serious issues the Dems should be addressing

But I think there is a limited opportunity to capitalize on this port sale fiasco. Either the Dems ignore it (and end up getting criticized down the road because they chose to ignore it), or they seize on the issue now and score whatever points they can. I doubt this issue will be particularly helpful for the Dems come November, but right now I think they need to seize any opportunity that arises to sew dissension among Dubya's supporters.

[seabeyond]

36. another bush fuck up..... another attack dem thread. n/t

[QC]

62. Yep. Interesting how that works, isn't it? n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[napi21]

39. Not true! This issue couldn't be let to simmer. Deadline for the deal

is early March...the 2nd I believe. If it's not stopped by then, it's a done deal!

This is a security issue, but it is also a political and financial issue. Because of Shrub hammering the "Arab terrorist" scare tactic for 4 years, security is the first thing that comes to everyone's mind!

[Acebass]

40. first of all...

You don't sound to much like a Democrat... Second, this is just the tip of the iceburg...

Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration


Why are Bush and Chertoff pushing this? See the ties to the Administration, particularly John Snow:

http://politicalswitchboard.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=7894&view=findpost&p=46484

[Acebass]

41. But we're not blind...

Dubai, 24 January 2006: - Global ports operator DP World today welcomed news that one of its senior executives, Dave Sanborn, has been nominated by US President George W. Bush to serve as Maritime Administrator a key transportation appointment reporting directly to Norman Mineta the Secretary of Transportation and Cabinet Member.

The

[submerged99]

42. The time is now to undermine Bush's "tough on terror" campaign-not in Oct

Why wait until October to deflate Bush's "tough on terror" image? That would only help Chimp Co.

The strategy is to keep him on the defensive because this terror card is the only one he has left and the one he plays over and over and over.

It's better to point out his hypocrisy now instead of hoping the Media will treat it as an October Surprise by the Dems. The MSM is pissed at the admin becaue of the Cheney nonsense and they are much more likely to cover Dem positions now then after they've been beaten into submission by the Rove 9/11 changed everything Talking Points.

[Acebass]

44. The irony is...

If it weren't for him the terror wouldn't be as wide spread...

[JamRock]

45. My point is that some Dems are jumping the gun without strategy

We are giving Bush a chance to back out while there is not REAL security threat, just an
opening for Repub political disaster.

[submerged99]

46. Why would he back out?

His response has been to dismiss the criticism and to threaten a veto. He equates reversing a decision with weakness and I believe he'll stick to his position.

[JamRock]

47. Just watch! We have given Repub enough warning of the price

at the polls if the deal goes through. Bush will do an Alito.

[OzarkDem]

58. Agree, a sustained pressure campaign

will work longer and give Dems more opportunities to counter spin than try to spring it on the public at the last minute and watch Rove spin, then bury it.

[AtomicKitten]

48. Or you could look at it another way.

This scenario seems to closely mirror Katrina. In both, the administration put elevating a crony/installing a good 'ol boy corporation vis a vis John Snow, in both instances culminating in an incompetent, not well-thought-out choice.

IMO it would have been detrimental to the Dems and the country to allow it to simmer for a few months as you have suggested.

It is more than a security issue as you have pointed out, however, the security aspect of this particular blunder has teeth. It is an issue that crosses party lines.

We can't prevent the Republicans from joining the outrage. That's just the way this particular issue is playing out. However, they will not explore the cheesy ties to Snow nor the abject failure of this administration to secure the ports.

I just would like to see Dems out there with a louder voice, which is tough since they aren't in power.

Some seem so anxious to stick it to the Dems at every turn, but I don't think they have earned your disappointment in this particular instance, at least not yet. But, as always, watch this space. I am not hopeful anything will impugn this administration, the difference is I don't think that's entirely the Democrats' fault.

[JamRock]

49. Good Points. I do think SOME Dems are demagoguing for Short-term advantage

rather than being thoughtful and strategic.

If the deal goes through, the repubs are screwed come November. In the meantime there is no
real security issue that emerges on careful analysis that could not be addressed along with
the other massive security problems when the Dems take over the house and the senate.

[Tellurian]

51. It doesn't matter what the repuglicans do..

they, as always, are one step ahead of the Dems.

How pray tell can you win elections when the opposition

maintains ownership and total control of the outcomes of (their) voting machines?

[AtomicKitten]

52. you don't - it's as simple as that.

To think the Rs are just going to stop cheating is absurd.

[Tellurian]

53. I'll drink to that, AcomicKitten! n/t

[Bridget Burke]

55. This is your Fifth Thread telling Dems to make political hay...

Out of the Port security mess. But "we" must do it Later!

I get your message. Although it may not be the message you intend to broadcast.

[Coexist]

56. LOL! Yeah, there's a strategy - just lie low and don't criticize

*snort*

[OzarkDem]

57. Welcome to DU - I disagree

You have a lot of insight into GOP strategy.

That said, there's no benefit to sitting on this. Rove and the GOP will come up with any number of ways to spin the problem. Dems waiting to say anything would have been used against them in some way by Rove, too. Better to deal with the issues as they come up rather than try to overstrategize and "triangulate".

Its wrong, its dumb, its corrupt, its dangerous, Dems should just say so.

[Beelzebud]

61. Inept Republican politics - AGAIN

But thanks for trying, Freeper...

[Sparkly]

63. So Democrats should shut up, do nothing, let BushCo do whatever it wants

and that'll provide political advantage in November. Gee, thanks for the free advice!! :rofl: