The attack on the UAE deal lets Congressional Republicans off the hook

[Wordie]

The approach contains a strategic error, when we think of it in a purely partisan way. The argument has been made that the security aspects of the UAE deal should be pressed, because it will help win elections for the Dems, by making us seem better on security issues, but the opposite may be true.

Why choose an issue that just slams Bush??? The Republican-led Congress has neglected port security. It's the Republican Senators and Representatives we need to win against this fall. If we win big then, '08 may take care of itself. Bush isn't going to be running again.

By focusing the attack on BUSH, rather than overall port security, we allow the Republicans a chance to distance themselves from Bush, thus throwing away an issue for this fall's elections.

If, instead, we focus on WHY didn't we put more money into port security (and it turns out the Republicans have nixed several efforts, and have reduced requested funding), then we are in a better strategic position in for the fall. The fanning-xenophobic-flames approach many have been advocating is focused only on Bush. It gives the Congressional Republicans a chance to look good for their constituents by coming out against the deal. Very short-sighted, imho.

Why let the Republicans off the hook by running with the RW bait?

[jsamuel]

1. stop overthinking this one

it is what it is

[underpants]

11. Exactly-this story has already been written in Joe Public's mind

there is nothing left to do for the Republicans but try to hold back the water...ooh bad choice of analogy there sorry about that.

[stepnw1f]

2. You Really Need to Let GO of this Neo-Con Baiting

[Wordie]

3. OK...no matter who is involved. It gives an advantage to the Republicans,

don't you agree? Why let them off the hook? It's them the Dems need to beat in the fall, not Bush. Why give them a chance to distance themselves from Bush???

[converted_democrat]

6. Nope.. The pukes have control and it's happening on their watch.. They

aren't distancing themselves from anything..

[Wordie]

16. It's RW radio that's pushing the UAE thing the hardest...and Republicans

ARE distancing themselves from Bush on this issue.

WE know it was done on their watch, but do their constituents, if they hear about this "bi-partisan" effort against the UAE deal???

That's one of the things I've been hearing, that it's "bi-partisan."

[converted_democrat]

17. Isn't Rush for the deal? Isn't Frist and Hassert for the deal? The pukes

aren't getting out from underneath this one.. They are in charge and it happened on their watch..

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. How 'bout it gives the advantage to America

This is not a partisan thing, IMO. To suggest that we shouldn't touch it because it will give an advantage to Republicans? Ridiculous! We should shout from the rooftops about this (which, in the case of the ports the Dems have been doing for quite some time now.)

[Wordie]

18. If we make it about port security overall, rather than just about the UAE,

then we can make partisan hay out of it, and STILL have it be what it really is, an American issue. I say, YES, shout from the rooftops, but make it about what is really the serious issue, that the Congress, along with Bush, hasn't devoted enough time and attention to making sure our ports are safe.

You need to understand that some of my posting on this has to do with wishing to discourage those who are saying that we should exploit the xenophobia of the American people, in order to win a political advantage on this. ...which horrifies me.

[converted_democrat]

4. I'll second that.. n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Then it's up to US to turn it back to the GOP Culture of Corruption.

16+5=2006

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

9. You know, it really hacks me off when people post these...

..."oh dear, they pulled the wool over our eyes" threads, as if to say we're screwed and that's it. Hell, I say peel the wool off your eyes and shove it down their hateful, small-minded RW throats.

But only in the most loving, peaceful way, that is.

16+5=2006

NGU.

[Wordie]

10. YES!!!! WHY haven't we devoted enough money/attention to port security???

Did we sacrifice port security in order to give tax cuts to wealthy millionaire Republicans???

Does anyone know how to get a history of all port security-related bills that have been proposed, or have come before Congress, and what the voting record on them is, or who stopped them???

[liveoaktx]

7. In fact, if you listen to Cspan, you'll hear Dems calling the Republicans

out for this. Repeatedly. Now we might argue that a lot of people are not hearing that because it's not replayed on corporate media. But, to me, that's why it's all the more important to record and share what we DO hear to pass on to refute baloney

[Wordie]

14. Well, I'm glad that Dems haven't fallen for what may have been a "frame

the debate" sort of strategy to give the Congressional Republicans an opportunity to distance themselves from Bush, all the better to win against Dems in the fall.

The UAE flap benefits Republicans, not Dems. We should shut up about it, imho.

Do you have any ideas on how the Dems can re-seize the security issue, and make it work for us, not the Republicans, liveoak?

[ClassWarrior]

19. The UAE flap benefits the corporatists, not the people.

You figure out where along ideological lines that falls.

16+5=2006

NGU.

[Strelnikov_]

20. Hear Hear!

The 'Party of Davos'.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/faux

Americans are of course prominent members of this "Party of Davos," which relies on the financial and military might of the US superpower to support its agenda. In exchange, the American members of the Party of Davos get a privileged place for their projects--and themselves. Whether it's at Davos, at NATO headquarters or in the boardroom of the International Monetary Fund, heads turn and people listen more carefully when the American speaks.

. . .

That the global economy is developing a global ruling class should come as no shock. All markets generate economic class differences. In stable, self-contained national economies, where capital and labor need each other, political bargaining produces a social contract that allows enough wealth to trickle down from the top to keep the majority loyal. "What's good for General Motors is good for America," Dwight Eisenhower's Defense Secretary famously said in the 1950s. The United Auto Workers agreed, which at the time seemed to toss the notion of class warfare into the dustbin of history. But as domestic markets become global, investors increasingly find workers, customers and business partners almost anywhere. Not surprisingly, they have come to share more economic interests with their peers in other countries than with people who simply have the same nationality. They also share a common interest in escaping the restrictions of their domestic social contracts.

The class politics of this new world economic order is obscured by the confused language that filters the globalization debate from talk radio to Congressional hearings to university seminars. On the one hand, we are told that the flow of money and goods across borders is making nation-states obsolete. On the other, global economic competition is almost always defined as conflict among national interests. Thus, for example, the US press warns us of a dire economic threat from China. Yet much of the "Chinese" menace is a business partnership between China's commissars, who supply the cheap labor, and America's (and Japan's and Europe's) capitalists, who supply the technology and capital. "World poverty" is likewise framed as an issue of the distribution of wealth between rich and poor countries, ignoring the existence of rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries.

. . .

The conventional wisdom makes globalization synonymous with "free trade" among autonomous nations. Yet as Renato Ruggiero, the first director-general of the World Trade Organization, noted in a rare moment of candor, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy."

[Sensitivity]

21. We must focus on the abysmal national security situation -- Iraq

has magnified dangers and fears and destroyed our ability to do anything about it
because we are bankrupt.