Bush, Ports, Cartoons, and Ennui

[Annie]

The last is my own take. I refused to work the primaries, my guess I'll still be pissed by the general election. Seeing 'conservatives' bashing others for lies, dissemination, being 'liberals', 'disloyalty' and a host of other negatives, not only has taken the fun out of being 'here' but makes zippo reason to 'fight' on ideals. There. is. no. point. :

http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/091508.asp

TKS [ jim geraghty reporting ]

AFTER THE PORT DEAL, HOW ELSE DOES THE TIPPING POINT AFFECT OUR POLITICS?

I’ll be traveling for a couple of days, so here’s some food for thought until we get back.

More polls showing strong, strong opposition to the DPW ports deal – 66 percent opposed in the USA Today poll (45 percent strongly opposed!) and 69 percent in the Fox poll.

We’re in an election year. Heading into these, each party wants issues that energize their side and depress the other guys. As someone on the GOP side recently lamented, right now the voters who can’t wait for November are the Bush-hating Democratic base. They can’t wait to vote for their guys. They went through PEST (Post Election Stress Disorder) in 2004, and now they feel they have a chance to really stick it to Bush, and even dream of retaking the House and Senate.

Right now, Republicans are pretty p.o.ed, but mostly at their own party leaders. The good news is Bush has delivered two really good Supreme Court justices. But they’re appalled at Congress’ spending habits and pork barrel like the “Bridge to Nowhere,” embarrassed by the Abramoff scandal, frustrated at the slow progress in Iraq, can’t understand why nothing is being done about illegal immigration, see the size of government getting bigger and bigger, and so on.

The cantankerous and insightful anti-Pajamas media blogger Dennis the Peasant has been ripping some deal critics on the right for what he sees as blatant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim baiting. But today he observed that few bloggers on the left are willing to stand up for the deal or criticize the fearmongering. No, like the disingenuous lawmakers I referred to a few days earlier, these folks see a winning political issue and are jumping on the bandwagon.

So, we have a new political issue explode on the scene - er, maybe bad choice of words there – a new issue emerges on the nation’s agenda, and the public opinion is running overwhelmingly one way. Regular readers of this blog are familiar with my perspective that there’s probably a significant unmentioned upside to the deal, and that any security concerns can be worked out. The facts say go with the deal (or at least some revised version of it); the poll numbers say tear up this deal immediately.

The deal will not go forward. There are too many political benefits to attacking it, and not enough political risks to opposing it. I’m sure you can imagine the campaign commercials this fall if the deal passes:

(Grainy, unflattering, black and white photo of Senator Jones.)This is Senator Jones.

(Grainy, unflattering, black and white photo of Bush, with Jones) He supported the President’s plan…

…to put Arabs in charge of our ports. (footage of embassy-burning maniacs, and/or Osama bin Laden)

Despite concerns, Jones and Bush trusted the United Arab Emirates…

(file footage of port containers being loaded off a ship)

…even though they’ve worked with terrorists.

(show something that looks like a bomb, with a digital clock ticking down from ten seconds…)

When it comes to your family’s safety, can you really trust Senator Jones?

You get the idea.

The USA Today poll can’t entirely be dismissed as the comments of an uninformed public; 36 percent of respondents claim they’ve followed the issue very closely, 37 percent claim somewhat closely.

In the USA Today poll, when asked, “Which comes closer to your view about Arab and Muslim countries that are allies of the United States?” 45 percent of respondents said, “trust the same as any other ally”; 51 percent said they trust these countries “less than other allies.”

That’s a remarkably honest poll result. Let’s face it, Americans have been told since kindergarten not to judge ethnic and religious groups differently from one another; now slightly more than half are willing to come out and say, “you know, I just don’t trust those guys as much as I trust others.”

Welcome to Post-Tipping Point politics. There is no upside to doing the right thing – which is to emphasize, as one blogger put it, that there is a difference between Dubai and Damascus. There is tremendous political upside to doing the wrong thing, boldly declaring, “I don’t care what the Muslim world thinks, I’m not allowing any Arab country running ports here in America! I don’t care how much President Bush claims these guys are our allies, I don’t trust them, and I’m not going to hand them the keys to the vital entries to our country!”

And more and more, I think Glenn Reynolds had it right; the entire Tipping Point phenomenon can be summed up as action and reaction. The Bush Administration’s reaction to the cartoon riots was comparably milquetoast. The violence and threats committed over the cartoons shocked, frightened and really, really angered Americans. They want somebody to smack the Muslim world back onto its heels and set them straight: “It doesn’t matter how offensive a cartoon is, you’re not allowed to riot, burn down embassies and kill people over it.”

They’re ashamed that Denmark is leading the fight over this.

When the Bush administration’s reaction was mostly equivocating statements and a failure to confront the Muslim world over its insistence of the worldwide applicability of its blasphemy laws, I suspect a lot of folks whose top issue is the war on terror concluded that Bush was going wobbly.

We’ve already seen endless negotiations with Iran, when most Americans who follow the issue are ready to declare Ahmedinijad as a millennial fruitcake aiming to bring about the apocalypse. Most who follow the Iraq war closely suspect Tehran is stirring things up there.

The interesting thing is the post-Tipping Point view on the Muslim world is alien to Bush; I suspect he would find it abhorrent. Unfortunately, that puts him out of step with a large chunk of the public — a vocal, angry chunk that is likely to have plenty of politicians courting it.

Courting these voters will mean supporting proposals that are supported by wide swaths of the American people, but are largely considered nonstarters in Washington circles: much tougher immigration restrictions, including patrolling the Mexican border; racial profiling of airline passengers instead of confiscating grandma’s tweezers; drastically reducing or eliminating entry visas to residents of Muslim or Arab countries; and taking a much tougher line with Saudi Arabia and coping with the consequences of that stance. Since 9/11, the Bush administration, and most leaders on Capitol Hill in both parties have dismissed those ideas as unrealistic, counterproductive, or not in accordance to American values.

Could the Democrats court this chunk? Peter Beinart offers his thoughts. They’ve got to be sorely tempted, even though it would mean abandoning their kumbayah multicultural we’re-all-the-same-at-heart worldview.

Could the Republicans court this chunk? Bush never will, but other Republicans will certainly be interested.

Or the third option… suppose both the Democrats and the Republicans reject these options as just too unthinkable, racist, Islamophobic, nativist, xenophobic, etc. Think some sort of tough-talking Perot-type could use them for a third party bid in 2008?

It would be ugly. Picture Ann Coulter’s “ragheads” commentary, Michael Savage’s trademark hyperbole, Lou Dobbs’ “the corporate fatcats are selling us all out in the name of profits!” table-pounding rhetoric rolled into one campaign aimed at playing to those worst instincts – “we’re tired of sorting out the good Muslims from the bad Muslims and the good Arabs from the bad. From now on, we’re treating ‘em all as potential threats.”

[Posted 03/02 06:53 PM]

 

[rtwngAvngr]

"The facts" do not say go ahead with the deal . The fact is that UAE is your typical Arab League muslim totalitarian state. So they do a lot of business, big deal. This guy is spinning too.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kathianne, I don't see how it's not worth debating just because both parties are split on the issue. That doesn't make sense. Ennui isn't cool after the age of 16.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I know what it is. You're on my side, but you'll be damned if you support me publicly. Right?

 

[Annie]

"The facts" do not say go ahead with the deal . The fact is that UAE is your typical Arab League muslim totalitarian state. So they do a lot of business, big deal. This guy is spinning too.

I'm more than tired of this, which so many 'conservatives' think is 'great.' More heading their way. I've posted my opinions at least 10 times. US should maintain control of strategic areas. :

http://www.news4jax.com/news4georgia/7624072/detail.html

While Lawmakers Debate Port Security, Dubai Firm With S.E. Ga. Plant Under Review

POSTED: 4:54 pm EST March 2, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A second Dubai-owned company confirmed Thursday that the President George W. Bush administration has launched an investigation over potential security risks of its business moves in the United States.

Dubai International Capital says it is confident the U.S. will approve its plans to buy a British precision-engineering company with plants in Georgia and Connecticut that make parts used in engines for military aircraft and tanks.

The disclosure of a rare, second U.S. review involving an investment by a Dubai-owned company came on the same day lawmakers convened new hearings into the security implications of the first Dubai company's plans to buy a British business that helps operate six major U.S. ports.

The port deal has caused an outcry among congressional Democrats as well as many Republicans. President Bush has defended the deal as safe and said the United Arab Emirates is an ally against terror.

The second U.A.E. company, Dubai International Capital has offered $1.2 billion to buy Doncasters Group Ltd.

Among its plants is Doncaster Effingham in Rincon, Ga. According to Doncasters Web site, the southeast Georgia plant is engaged in precision machining of engine-ready airfoils, which are used in industrial gas turbines as well as aircraft and tanks.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I knew it. I knew it. You're on my side!

 

[Annie]

I knew it. I knew it. You're on my side!

I'm on the US side, with some very strange bedfellows.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm on the US side, with some very strange bedfellows.

Why do you hate me so much?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why do you hate me so much?

why?

 

[Annie]

Why do you hate me so much?

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

What in the world are you talking about?

Your inablity to say "yes rwa, Im on your side". Your recent attempts to say the most hurtful things possible. Im thinking of the nationalism debate.

 

[Annie]

Your inablity to say "yes rwa, Im on your side". Your recent attempts to say the most hurtful things possible. Im thinking of the nationalism debate.

I don't think I've ever said to anyone, well maybe MM once, 'I'm on your side...'

It's a messageboard and we're all spouting off our own pov. Sheesh.

As far as the 'nationalism debate' I was just sticking with my position, which I still hold. I cannot help how you feel about that. I disagree with you, but life goes on.

BTW, I like you fine, I'm just not into the 'thumping chest thing', but that's me. Oh I've thrown up a few 'owned' lately, but that's cause I'm a bit stressed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't think I've ever said to anyone, well maybe MM once, 'I'm on your side...'

It's a messageboard and we're all spouting off our own pov. Sheesh.

As far as the 'nationalism debate' I was just sticking with my position, which I still hold. I cannot help how you feel about that. I disagree with you, but life goes on.

BTW, I like you fine, I'm just not into the 'thumping chest thing', but that's me. Oh I've thrown up a few 'owned' lately, but that's cause I'm a bit stressed.

Your opinion is fine. Your reprehensible personal attacks were different. You could just apologize, or your could keep denying you did anything wrong. It's up to you. But we all know what we saw. And everyone is watching now, to see your true character.

 

[Annie]

Your opinion is fine. Your reprehensible personal attacks were different. You could just apologize, or your could keep denying you did anything wrong. It's up to you. But we all know what we saw. And everyone is watching now, to see your true character.

Whatever. Personal attacks seem to be the norm around here from you and others, so 'can't beat them, join them.'

Want to go into repeating lies, lies, lies? Maybe racist, racist, racist? There's the favorite ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack. Oh yeah, bunch of them.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Whatever. Personal attacks seem to be the norm around here from you and others, so 'can't beat them, join them.'

Want to go into repeating lies, lies, lies? Maybe racist, racist, racist? There's the favorite ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack, ad hominem attack. Oh yeah, bunch of them.

It's one thing to call someone an idiot or whatever during the heat of battle. That's one thing. But to seek out details of their personal lives and bring them forward publicly in a derisive manner, because you're losing an argument is different.

Pointing at bad behavior to justify their own bad behavior is what children do, and besides, as the board goes, your comments were much worse than the typical "you moron" type stuff.

SO i guess you chose denial and deflection. Would it kill you to say Im sorry for all stuff you said?

 

[Annie]

It's one thing to call someone an idiot or whatever during the heat of battle. That's one thing. But to seek out details of their personal lives and bring them forward publicly in a derisive manner, because you're losing an argument is different.

Pointing at bad behavior to justify their own bad behavior is what children do, and besids, as the board goes, your comments were much worse than the typical "you moron" type stuff.

SO i guess you chose denial and deflection. Would it kill you to say Im sorry for all stuff you said?

If I did so, I apologize. Let it go, really.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If I did so, I apologize. Let it go, really.

You did. And thanks. I love you, Kathianne.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kat, do you at least like me a little bit?

 

[Annie]

Kat, do you at least like me a little bit?

Good lord! I've already said so.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Good lord! I've already said so.

I need you to type "RWA, I like you at least a little bit". I'm having a bad self image day.