2/22: Split Second Impressions
24 hours ago, the proposed sale of 6 U.S. ports to UAE-based Dubai Ports World was well along the way to becoming a genuine bipartisan issue across the blogosphere -- Pres. Bush's continued support for the plan stood in stark contrast to the outcry from members of Congress and bloggers of all leanings. Everyone took it up as a matter of security, and liberal bloggers added to the list of complaints Bush's secrecy, corporate ties and oil connections. But now things started to change, as new facts come to light, and many are having second thoughts. This is primarily true on the right, albeit not exclusively. Also in today's edition -- reax to news that the SCOTUS will take up abortion again soon, to Harvard pres. Larry Summers' announced resignation, the David Irving sentence, and more.
The more some bloggers think about it, the more they're leaning toward Bush's position. While it may not be the majority position now, it is the one gaining momentum:
Right-leaning Hei Lun from Begging to Differ is sure the sale is bad politics, but not sure it's actually bad policy: "Some have pointed out that two of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, but I don't think that's dispositive of much. If one of the hijackers had been a British Muslim, does that mean we can no longer trust British companies? The owners are foremost businessmen, and does anyone think that they'd spend billions just to launch a terrorist attack that will lead to all their assets in the world getting frozen? ... If terrorists were going to infiltrate the company, it makes no difference whether they're owned by a British company or an Arab one." 
GOP Bloggers makes a similar argument, and uses it to hit the Dems: "Obviously, there's a big difference and those who are raising objections to this deal but drone on about 'profiling' at airports and other such locations ought to explain why treating Arabs differently is acceptable in this case." Ironic header at conservative Brothers Judd: "Where Are All The Loony Righties Decrying Protectionism?" In a widely-quoted post, Squiggler explains her changed mind, from initial opposition to reconsideration.
Liberal Kevin Drum from The Washington Monthly winces at his own apostasy: "I hate to say it, but I can't help but think that Bush may be right about the whole thing." So does The American Prospect's Michael Tomasky, who titles his comment the "Semi-Annual 'Bush May Be Right' Post."
Left-leaning Sean-Paul Kelley argues that one cause for concern is that the UAE "still has ties to al Qaeda," but Glenn Greenwald questions whether this is really so: "Is this really the case, and if so, why haven't we taken action against the UAE in the past? Why hasn't anyone demanded that we do so?" Liberal Martini Republic cites many instances of UAE connections to terrorists by the 9/11 Commission. Conservative Dafydd Ab Hugh is sure the UAE is a friend, but still sees the potential for trouble: "The UAE has been America's most reliable Arab partner in the war against Islamist jihadi terrorism. Nobody is worried that the current Emir of Dubai will suddenly link up with al-Qaeda, just as we're not worried that General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan will cut a deal with Osama bin Laden. But both countries have many Islamists and many supporters of terrorism and of al-Qaeda... and they cannot always ensure that their companies have not been infiltrated by sleeper agents." AJ Strata criticizes fellow conservatives concerned about "ethnic" make-up of the UAE "but this is the kind of ugly response that makes our enemies cheer and toast their good luck. This is so damn sad."
At The Corner, John Podhoretz responds to a question about "why an American company can't run the ports": "Ah, but there is one. And only one. And it's called Halliburton..." John Hawkins imagines the possibilities: "Can you just imagine the reaction from the left if Bush scuttled the UAE port deal and then Halliburton took over? Bwahahahaha! Talk about hilarious!"
Ex-Reason editor Virginia Postrel gives "kudos to President Bush for standing up for commercial freedom and sound foreign policy. Dubai is a U.S. ally and a rare island of semi-freedom in the Gulf."
PORT SECURITY II: Pride In Their Port, Defiance In Their Eye, We See The Blogs Of Security Pass By
Despite the reconsiderations noted above, there are still many concerns about the whole thing:
At The Corner, Podhoretz sees no good coming from this fight: "This is gonna be bad. He's going to lose this fight if he goes to the mattresses on it, because nobody in Congress will ever defend it publicly and a veto override is a distinct possibility. Second terms. Second terms." GOP consultant Rich Galen: "This port deal is not a national security issue. It is an issue of this administration having a continuing problem with understanding how these things will play in the public's mind and not taking steps to set the stage so these things don't come as a shock and are presented in their worst possible light. ... The Administration has no demonstrated capacity to brief allies on its activities so, when a public announcement is made, they have friends ready to explain to the public, either through or in spite of, the news media, what is really going on." Conservative James Lileks, at his Screedblog: "[I]f I had to make a prediction, I'd say this: the Dubai-ports fracas will become a flap, quickly swell into a firestorm, then become a debacle before settling into the history books as a 'historic miscalculation' -- providing the Republicans only lose the Congress. If they lose a city, it will be a 'critical turning point.'"
Michelle Malkin posts an e-mail from a tipster claiming to be a corporate atty specializing in "Islamic finance." He explains the deal is part of a "sukuk" -- a finance vehicle used "to work around the Muslim prohibition on interest" -- that's important to making a success out of Dubai's stock exchange. Responding to critics of her unflinching position on border and security issues, she adds: "If demanding that our government put American security interests above foreign business interests makes me an 'Islamophobe,' and if wanting to know the full details of the who, what, when, where, and why of this UAE government deal, secretly approved by the Treasury Dept.-led Committee on Foreign Investments in the US, makes me an 'Islamophobe,' I plead guilty." Liberal The Talking Dog: "Most peculiar, in that the simple sound-bite of 'The President is selling our ports to an Arab government' could undermine years of drum-beat mind control lying that 'this President is protecting us from terrrrrrrrorists.' ... This is a double disaster for the President." The Glittering Eye asks: "How many airport terminal operations are operated by foreign companies? Companies wholly or in part owned by foreign governments? Are those a security risk, too?"
Right-leaning Instapundit doesn't understand what it's all about: "Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something ...) or Bush is an idiot. Your call. ... There must be something important here to get Bush to threaten a veto -- had he done more vetoing, of course, that wouldn't be quite so obvious." Ex-spook In From the Cold tries to guess: "Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight -- even with political allies."
Shakespeare's Sister notes that Defense Sec. Donald Rumsfeld "claimed in a press briefing today that he hadn't even heard about the decision to sell oversight of 6 American ports to Dubai Ports World until this past weekend. If that's true, then I knew about a fairly significant national security issue almost a week before the Secretary of Defense, on the day the deal was approved, February 13. Maybe Rummy should try reading the paper. Or some blogs." On the "blog" section of his VOLPAC site, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist writes: "As of today, I'm requesting briefings on this deal. If the Administration does not put the deal on hold, I will introduce legislation doing so ... to ensure that this decision gets a more thorough review." Since going up just before noon, the post has collected 950+ comments, which is a lot by any blog's standards (though this was Frist's 1st post since 2/15). TX-based liberal Pink Dome: "To see a firestorm of criticism from politicians and the people and to simply brush it off because you have ties to the company and couldn't give a rat's ass what Congress thinks is unbelievable." While the phrase "King George" is generally one only used on the left (and by Andrew Sullivan), conservative La Shawn Barber sums up Bush's defiance as: "King George says get a life!"
For MoxieGrrrl, it's about oil: "You can't convince me that he's not closely connected to the Arab world. If you watched Fahrenheit 9/11, even with the most critical eye, you cannot deny that there are ties between the Bush family to very wealthy Arab families." For Scott Shields at MyDD, it's about security: "Like the publication of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle or the accident at Three Mile Island, this port deal is a wake up call. Did most people know that the foreign powers could run the show at American ports? I'd doubt it. And I doubt if they knew, that they would have supported it. Sometimes, it takes something blatantly obvious to highlight an existing problem. Selling off port operations to a government that refused to recognize Israel while it did recognize the Taliban would qualify as one of those times." At The Nation's The Beat, David Corn ties the 2 together: "The problem is that Dubai Ports World is a corporation. ... Like most American firms, Arab-owned firms are more concerned about satisfying shareholders than anything else. As such, they are poor stewards of ports and other vital pieces of the national infrastructure that still require the constant investment of public funds, as well as responsible oversight by authorities that can see more than a bottom line, in order to maintain public safety -- not to mention the public good of modern, efficient transportation services." David Sirota is on the same wavelength. Conservative QandO is not far off it: "There are some times when free trade may not be the best policy when it comes to national security. Quite apart from the fact that DPW is a state-owned company, and not a private sector firm, which raises some separate questions, are we really sure that, at this point in time, having a firm based in the Mideast running major port operations on the east coast is the wisest idea from a security standpoint? Just asking." Header at AFL-CIO's just launched blog: "Port Security? What Port Security?"
Conservative Debbie Schlussel is suspicious based in part on who's in favor of the deal: "You know the DP World deal to take over our ports is a bad idea when a group that openly supports terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah thinks it's a splendid idea. In this case, that group is ADC (the misnomered American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee). We note that ADC, which refuses to publicly disclose all of its funding, gets a lot of money from the Mid-East. That discredits the group's position on this from the get-go." Cold Fury is "uncertain" about the deal, but the fact that ex-Pres. Carter is supporting Bush makes them wary: "If the single worst President in the last century ... thinks everything is hunky-dunky with this deal, there simply has to be a very serious problem with it. What the hell is Bush thinking these days, anyway?"
ROE VS. WADE: Here We Go Again
When Samuel Alito was confirmed on 1/31, we noted frustration on the left with groups such as Planned Parenthood that counted a vote against Alito as enough opposition; liberal bloggers had been pushing for a filibuster instead, and were displeased that these groups didn't focus on the cloture vote. Now that late-term/partial-birth abortion is headed to the SCOTUS, it's coming up again at blogs such as Firedoglake, where Jane Hamsher quotes Planned Parenthood as being alarmed about this development on 2/21, adding: "Well, you might have f---ing thought of that when you were encouraging people to thank Joe Lieberman for his cloture vote on Alito, sister." Conservative Mark Coffey amused by Hamsher's response, adding: "It's more than a little ironic that the very same people who whined about Alito being 'out of the mainstream' ... are so incredibly out of tune with public sentiment themselves. When Americans approve of a ban on partial-birth abortions by 3-1, only a fool would argue otherwise -- for that is the textbook definition of a mainstream view." Atrios hopes that Planned Parenthood will at least sit out the CT SEN race: "Planned Parenthood and NARAL aren't staffed by idiots -- they know how these things work -- so they'd better not endorse the man who helped lead us to the end of Roe."
At liberal TPM Cafe, DLCer Ed Kilgore sees little to look forward to: "Samuel Alito will have an early opportunity to change the constitutional law governing abortion, and probably will.
MIDTERMS: That's Some Joementum!
California Yankee notices a report that CT businessman Ned Lamont (D) will likely declare a primary challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) next month, and observes: "Regarding Lamont's primary challenge the poll results can be summarized as Ned who? ... The left side of the blogosphere in Connecticut has been all abuzz about Lamont for the last couple of months. But that support isn't nearly enough to overcome the advantages of an incumbent Senator who is still backed by the Democratic establishment." Also CA-based Daily Kos points out that, in recent months, Lieberman's approval rating has fallen while his disapproval rating is up: "And as we've seen in the past, the more people see of Lieberman, the lower his numbers sink. And the more people realize an alternative exists, it'll be that much worse for him."
SUMMERS: Larry Summers, Happened So Fast ...
Hugh Hewitt is disappointed: "No matter who gets the nod there will always be the sense that Harvard's elite drove off the sort of leader who could have helped the university build on its many past successes in dramatic ways. Expect a weak successor." Profs Kieran Healy and Bitch Ph.D. chalk it up to Summers' "dictatorial" style. Liberal TX law prof Brian Leiter agrees, but nonetheless figures that his departure is "probably a loss for Harvard: he forced the Harvard Law School to have actual tenure standards, and he had rather sensible instincts about academic merit." At his personal blog, Harvard grad Matthew Yglesias cautions: "The temptation will be to view this primarily through the lens of Summers' occassionally controversial political statements, but I would emphasize that there's probably a lot of institutional politics in play" -- and he highlights a section of Summers' resignation letter noting disagreements over the Allston expansion.
Header at TMFTML: "Insert Your Own 'Maybe They Can Find A Qualified Chick' Joke Here"
LOBBYING REFORM: The Root Of The Problem
At RedState, ex-FEC commish Brad Smith writes that "virtually every proposal" made in the wake of Jack Abramoff would not reform Congress itself, but instead would place "limits on efforts by citizens groups to appeal directly to the public to put pressure on Congress -- you know, 'call your congressman' stuff." More: "The problem is not the contact Congress has with ordinary citizens. It's the role of lobbyists meeting with Congressmen and Senators outside the public eye that creates the appearance of corruption. Congress should be trying to promote more grassroots lobbying, which severs the links between inside the beltway lobbyists and legislators, and enhances the power of average citizens." Townhall's Tim Chapman agrees: "The old adage that Congress only does two things well: nothing, and overreact -- may prove all too true when all is said and done on the lobby reform issue."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: The 5 W's And The 3 C's
Hugh Hewitt argues for one reason why the Dubai deal caught everyone by surprise: "I follow the news pretty closely, and the first I have ever heard of this deal was last week's column by and interview with Frank Gaffney. It was Gaffney's reporting that took a story off the financial pages and made the broader public aware of the proposed sale. While the White House Press Corps was speculating on whether Dick Cheney's hunting accident would have been more serious if Mr. Whittington had died, a major story was reported on by Gaffney and the Washington Times -- and ignored by the MSM.
At Transterrestial Musings, Rand Simberg notes an op-ed on a conservative website criticizing NBC's David Gregory for describing the WH press corps as a "proxy for the American people." "And they don't represent me. I didn't know that David Gregory was my proxy (or even that he fantasized that he was), but if so, I revoke it too. In fact, let's start a Google campaign. David Gregory, I revoke my proxy." Among those joining so far: Small Town Veteran, The Bernoulli Effect, RedState, Instapundit.
This previous weekend on "FNS" ex-Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) defended WH figures -- against the MSM, saying: "I worked with President Clinton, enjoyed him, President Bush, President Carter, good people doing good things. But let me tell you, you'll never find it if you just follow the Washington media. You'll never know the good -- all you'll get is controversy, crap, and confusion." The line was a hit at Captain's Quarters, and Ed Morrissey asked readers to submit logos. The 1st couple are here, and the latest are here.
MISCELLANY: Dishonorable Mentions
- We didn't cover the Austrian court's 3-year prison sentence for British historian/Holocaust denier David Irving in our last edition, although it was a big topic of discussion. It remains one today, but alas falls outside our usual coverage, and so here's a few bloggers talking about it -- Tiger Hawk: "Austria, which has seen fit to elect Nazis to its presidency, apparently thinks the best way to expiate its guilt is to toss a deeply misguided historian into the klink for writing a book. This is appalling, and the Western world needs to say so." Right Wing News: "Although Holocaust denial is a particularly odious, ignorant, and malignant belief, making it into a 'thought crime' is even worse. That's why Austria made a mistake." The RCP Blog: "It is a very slippery slope when governments start deciding what is hateful and who they are going to throw in jail. Not to mention, all this will do is turn Irving into a martyr and hero for fascist whack jobs and Hitler idolaters everywhere."
- Atty Glenn Greenwald's debate with conservative bloggers -- see 2/14 and 2/17 Blogometers -- about whether they constitute a "cult of Bush" continues, with Greenwald responding to a series of posts by Tom Maguire. Greenwald explains that he didn't respond to critics such as James Taranto and Marshall Wittmann because they added nothing new, but Maguire had been "jumping up and down" and crying for attention. Taranto had found Greenwald's citations of GOPer Bush critics being called liberal wanting, so Greenwald provides more -- Rush Limbaugh in an 11/05 broadcast, and NRO's Podhoretz defending himself from e-mailers calling him liberal for criticizing Cheney. He also notes that Bill Kristol has made the same critique, and citing a post at liberal Hullabaloo, revises/appends his own analysis: "[A]s Bush becomes more unpopular and his Presidency is recognized more and more as a failure, 'conservatives' will disclaim him altogether as one of their own on the grounds that he was the antithesis of real conservatism."
- Last year's controversial Kelo ruling (see 6/24 Blogometer) has now led to a number of states to tighten laws on eminent domain, as the New York Times reports. Centrist Justin Gardner is philosophical: "Even though I strongly oppose these eminent domain rulings and think they're contemptible, context is important. In essence, the court was ruling given current law, and this certainly goes against the whole 'activist judges' meme that is pinned on the left so often." The Anonymous Liberal argues: "Ironically, however, the current push by state legislatures to impose restrictions on their own eminent domain powers is unquestionably a vindication of the Supreme Court's decision, not a repudiation of it. It is exactly what the Court hoped would happen." Conservative JustOneMinute revisits the Kelo case, scrutinizing New York Times' coverage.
- Arianna Huffington went on "Hannity & Colmes" last p.m., where she squared off with Ann Coulter; Crooks and Liars has video. She recounts the experience at Huffington Post, and offers a theory about Coulter's continued popularity: "Coulter is the right wing punditry's equivalent of crack or crystal meth. She's highly addictive -- giving users the delirious, giddy high of outrageousness. But then the buzz wears off and they come crashing down, their spirits shriveled, their souls poisoned. Her brand of way, way over-the-top rhetoric, trading on hatred, demonizing, and caricature is doing to the American body politic what a three-month meth bender does to crank junkies." She even provides a before and after picture for Sean Hannity.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Wasn't This The Idea Behind Gore TV?
Blogger Ed Driscoll for TCS Daily, on video-blogging, aka vlogging or v-blogging: "Sooner or later, a vblog will be picked up by a cable TV channel, along the same lines as Fox News offering a TV show to blogging predecessor Matt Drudge in the late 1990s. Radio talkers such as Don Imus and Howard Stern have shows on cable TV that are little more than video rebroadcasts or simulcasts of their radio shows; why can't cable channels do the same for vbloggers?"
LEST WE FORGET: Shot And Chaser
The inimitable Harry Hutton from Chase me ladies, I'm in the cavalry weighs in on the Irving sentence: "Seriously, have you ever met a Holocaust denier? Can you, off the top of your head, name three Holocaust deniers? They don't scare me. In the UK I would say they are about 900th on the list of dangers, behind escaped zoo animals and clumsy people with hot drinks." And on the Cheney accident: "They're still going on about that Cheney thing. Jesus, you shoot one lawyer... This week he hasn't shot anyone, though you'd never learn that from the Mainstream Media."
