drawing a line in the sand

By analog | Published: February 23, 2006

What the Democratic Party should do is introduce legislation to turn over management of our major ports to a US government agency – either the Coast Guard, or Customs, or some other agency under the Department of Homeland Security. The GOP will, of course, oppose this. Why? Because the GOP will put the holy religion of privatization ahead of national security, always, whether they say so or not. And this should be the talking point of every single elected Democrat, and every Democratic talking head in the media. Hammer it home, get party unity.

Here’s why this is important. First, it IS a national security issue, and a national autonomy issue as well. It’s not just about an Arab country (whose ruling family is personal friends with Osama bin Laden) controlling our ports – we shouldn’t have England or China or Japan or anyone BUT the US controlling them anyway.

Second, it creates a clear distinction between Democrats and Republicans. Face it, Bush is a lame duck with no heir, and his popularity is near rock bottom – hovering not far from Nixon’s popularity during Watergate. But Democrats need to gain Congressional seats in 2006 (hopefully taking at least one house). The best way for them to do so is to tie their Republican opponents as tightly as possible to Bush’s disastrous rule. This means that sensible Republicans want to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible, without breaking ranks (party-line loyalty is what keeps the GOP in power, after all). When GOP leaders like Frist and Hastert denounced the UAE port deal, it gave every Republican in Congress a chance to take a step away from Bush – and to label the Democrats as me-toos, all without breaking party ranks. This is obviously counterproductive for Democrats.

Calling for government control of the ports is a win in multiple ways. It’s an easy rallying point for Democrats – there should be very little dissent over the issue within the party. And it’s easy to say, and easy to understand. And it puts Democrats on the “national security” side, while Republicans take the less-safe road on an easy-to-understand issue – because as I said, the GOP will choose privatization over security.

Draw a line in the sand.

Related posts:

  1. Democrats — Civil Rights? Wha…?
  2. The Definition of Insanity
  3. “Time for Change” Back Again
  4. A Common Complaint
  5. Hillary Clinton in ’08
This entry was posted in To Be Categorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • bhurt-aw

    Republicans are willing to sell the security of the United States off to the highest bidder. Every Democrat within shouting distance of a microphone should be shouting that. It’s short, it paints the Republicans as weak on national defense, and it’s true.

  • http://enfranchisedmind.com Candide

    I certainly agree that Democrats should be making a huge deal out of this, but they’re not. The fact that it’s already fading from the public consciousness before it really got hold leads me to believe that the Democrats still have the failing leadership that’s lead them to glorious defeats and lost them ground for basically the last decade.

    I’m not sure that the sale of the ports to the UAE is really a huge weak point in national security. I certainly think nationalizing them is a stupid, stupid idea: does the US government really want to be in the shipping and handling business? Does it have any business being in that business? Now, I certainly am in favor of having strict US government oversight of incoming and outgoing packages, whether it be Customs or Coast Guard or whatever, and I think implementing that program would be a more sensical and cost-effective.

    Now, Bush declaring that he’ll veto any ability to block this sale is just stupid. It’s making a mountain out of a molehill, which is something the Democrats should be doing. Strangely, they’ve chose to let this slide — guess they’re keeping their powder dry again.

  • bhurt-aw

    Note that Republicans think this deal is a bad idea. This isn’t just bad for the country, this is pissing off the base.

    The Democrats we have “in charge” right now are particularly adept at snatching defeat from the jaws of crushing victory. When I see someone constantly repeating a behavioral pattern that does not fullfill their stated goals, I tend to assume one of two things: 1) they’re insane, or 2) they’re lying about their stated goals. The Democratic leadership claims they want to win, but they keep acting in ways that have been historically proven to lead to losses. So: insane, or lying about wanting to win? Either way, I’m saying it’s time for some new leadership.

  • Categories