March 10, 2006

3/10: This Ship Has Sailed

Dubai Ports World (DPW) has ended its bid to acquire rights to ports in 6 U.S. cities, and that unexpected announcement is far and away today's top story. We've got it covered from just about every angle -- where it was headed before the announcement, initial confusion about what it really meant, speculation about what it could mean for U.S. relations with Dubai, for Pres. Bush, for the Dems and GOPers in '06 -- and who might be picking up the port contract instead.

Otherwise, Bush's unpopularity is a popular subject itself, some GOP-leaning bloggers are closely following a bill termed the "blogger protection act," some Dem-leaning bloggers subject their cong. leaders to harsh criticism, and an MN SEN campaign tries to make the blogosphere itself an issue.

PORT SECURITY I: A Lose-Lose-Lose-Lose Situation?

Captain's Quarters hands out demerits to all parties involved: To the Treas. Dept., who "should have understood the political implications" and should have "prepared their superiors" for possible controversy; the media, who saw it as "boring bureaucratic transaction" until "radio blowhard Michael Savage grabbed onto the story" and "managed to fan the deal into a veritable blaze of hysteria -- and instead of informing the public of all the nuances of the story, the initial reporting followed Savage's lead"; the WH, "went into what can only be called Harriet Miers mode. They accused critics of being xenophobes and anti-Arab bigots, including a large number of conservatives upset at an apparent lack of focus on national security"; Congress, for "demonstrating an embarrassing level of ignorance of the ports deal" -- singling out Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) in particular; and to the blogosphere: "Too many of us jumped to the conclusion we saw when the media first reported this deal, myself included." At A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days, Pejman Yousefzadeh lists several downsides of this "Keystone Kops operation," and closes out: "Did I miss anything? Or are there even more reasons to be upset about the way in which this farce played itself out?"

Before the announcement, UCLA public policy prof Mark Kleiman and Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum both tried to predict what would happen; neither anticipated the DPW pullout. Kleiman thought it was most likely the port deal would be attached to an un-amendable conf. report perhaps including money for Katrina relief and money for troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. Drum leaned toward Bush backing down the emergence of "some kind of 'new information' that Bush claims to have been previously unaware of."

Also prior to the calling off, The Hill had reported that Dubai was "threatening retaliation against American strategic and commercial interests" if Congress blocked the deal. "A source close to the deal" said members of Dubai's royal family were "furious" at the hostility of Dems and GOPers toward the deal. Though this would seem to be a non-issue now, it still sparked a lot of discussion. Riehl World View: "I wouldn't blame them, though I suspect some of this is for pressure purposes and like all multi-nationals, they'll make decisions in their best economic interests above anything else. But be sure and read the full article to see how significant our business interests actually are." Jonathan R. at GOP Bloggers: "Unless the political hacks inside the Beltway begin to act like adults instead of pea-brained fear-mongers, we are in for very bad economic news as a trade war erupts." Steve Verdon at Outside The Beltway also notes a pending UAE deal with Boeing: "Well killing these deals only makes sense, after all we don't want to arm a rogue terrorist nation right? And who knows maybe the UAE will decide to move forward less vigorously now on reforms to reduce money laundering as well."

When DPW 1st announced its withdrawal, DPW said the port rights would be sold to a "US Entity" -- a phrase too vague for comfort. As Andrew Sullivan put it, "surely, we need to know what this entity is before being relieved. The idea that simply because an entity is American it is categorically likely to be more concerned about security is an almost clinical example of mindless nativism." For a time, NZM at the UAE community blog thought DPW was just transferring rights to a subsidiary: "They're still buying P&O, it's just that the US operations will be run by a 'US entity' -- whatever that means." Numerous other bloggers were confused on this point, but soon enough, as per Reuters, a "U.S. official" clarified the meaning. The Emirates Economist: "Engagement with a friend of the US is such a better course. This is a shameful hour for the US Congress."

Shakespeare's Sister: "Forgive me for being an apathetic lout, but I just don't even care about this anymore. If the Bush administration isn't serious about port security, starting with making sure that every container that comes into the US via our ports is safe, what difference does it make?" DLC's Ed Kilgore is in the same boat: "[M]y own hope is that none of us get so hung-up about the identity of port operators, or are so tempted to declare victory if a U.S. firm replaces Dubai Ports World, that we forget the underlying security issue this brouhaha exposed." CA-based Joe Scott agrees, the "real national security issue involves container inspection."

Jeff Goldstein: "Is this a national security question? My sense is that while it has been hyped as such ... it never really was. And from a free market perspective -- which, along with the promotion of liberal democracy, is part of the memetic message we are trying to sell abroad -- this is a set back. To win this war, we must insist that our way of life is worth defending. Congress has damaged our relationship with the Gulf states (and with the UAE, we have a very good working relationship), determined our economic policy, and shown us to be unwilling to practice what we preach." Decision '08: "A sorry day, and a victory for jingoism..."

PORT SECURITY II: Fall Out Boys

Rightwing Nuthouse writes, the UAE may feel "double crossed," but they "shouldn't blame the Congress or the American people. The blame is ultimately the President's to shoulder as are our other problems with border control and gaps in security at our airports." Conservative Xrlq disagrees: sure, Bush "should shoulder some blame for failing to anticipate Congress's opportunism or the American people's gullibility, but the principal blame lies with us, not with our President for failing to cure our collective idiocy, and not even with the opportunistic Congressmen who preyed upon it."

Liberal Barbara O'Brien: "Years ago I heard some Republican pundit say that the difference between presidents Carter and Reagan was that Carter got bogged down in the details of operating the ship, but Reagan stayed at the wheel and steered. Well, our Dubya acts as if he's just a passenger on a luxury cruise, and he spends most of his time rolling dice in the ship casino."

At Huffington Post, ex-Kerry '04 MI chair/ex-DNC chair candidate Donnie Fowler suggests Dems "try this approach, accomplishing two goals at once -- making the point that Bush has made our nation weaker and less safe while untangling ourselves from the mess the neocons have made in Iraq. The overarching theme is security. The sub-theme is effectiveness and accountability."

Expose the Left posts video of Senate Min. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "calling for one of those 'up or down' votes on the Dubai deal, even though it's basically been killed. Rush described it perfectly today, the Democrats are trying to make a race out of national security and say that they are the winners."

Middle Earth Journal: "While the Republican lawmakers can take some credit for halting the deal and standing up to Bush they are still hurt because a damaged Bush is bad for them in November." RedState's Leon H Wolf: "I'm also more than a little disappointed with the Republicans in Congress who didn't even make a very concerted effort to either (1) make an honest inquiry into the deal or (2) expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats who are going to try to pry this issue wide open in November."

PORT SECURITY III: Dubai, Where's My Cargo?

Centerfield: "There is not a strong relationship. When one's relationship depends on the actions of political leaders that have become so cloaked in partisanship and security hysteria, there is not a strong relationship. When your actions since September 11th are meaningless because of those you took before September 11th and you just happen to be the wrong skin color and from a part of the world that doesn't have the right faith, there is not a strong relationship."

NBC News' David Gregory, at The Daily Nightly: "No one here wanted the President to veto his own party, so leave it to DPW, the state-run company no one apparently trusts to manage U.S. ports, to be the great peace broker in Washington!"

More from the UAE community blog: "I'm just disappointed that this decision will most likely be seen as a victory by the opposers, and that DP World and the UAE seemingly did not stand up and vigorously and publicly defend themselves against the accusations that were being made."

PORT SECURITY IV: H_ll_b_rt_n

NV-based Taylor Marsh, guest-blogging at Firedoglake, on who might take over: "No one is saying yet, but could it be? Nah, that "U.S. entity" wouldn't be Halliburton, would it? Nah."

A reader writes in to Michelle Malkin: "Please, please, please let Halliburton get the ports contract. Sure, they have no experience at running ports -- I just want to see moonbat heads explode." Outside the Beltway concurs: "Now that would be sweet! And here you thought Rove and Cheney were losing their touch!" Instapundit: "If Halliburton gets the deal, will people think the whole thing was a sucker-punch?"

Liberal Why Now? has a somewhat different theory: "Whatever happens, it is sure to involve James Baker, the Bush family consigliere on all things Mideast, and don't be surprised if there are references to the Carlyle Group."

BUSH I: Low And Behold!

AP's new poll is the latest that puts Bush's approval ratings at their lowest level ever. The Strata-Sphere: "What is clear is the extreme ends of the spectrum are both fed up and frustrated. ... The damage is done and spreading. The conservative movement destroyed itself again with the far right going off the deep end, this time hand-in-hand with the liberal democrats!" State Of The Day: "While I am happy that everyday Republicans are sick of the incompetence, until their elected representatives stand up and fight BushCo on all fronts I will reserve my happy dancing* until November." Uggabugga: "It appears that Bush's handling of the Katrina hurricane made a deep and lasting impression on people, perhaps because it 'confirmed' the ineptitude of the management of the Iraq war"

BUSH II: Do They Dare To Say Impeach?

Over the last few years arguments for impeaching Bush have moved from the fringes of the left toward the mainstream of liberal online activism. Now the Board of Supvs. in SF and a number of VT towns have endorsed the idea. Perhaps it's now been successful enough to provoke a backlash from the left -- and if so, Harold Meyerson leads it with his 3/9 Washington Post column arguing that such a move would be a mistake. Although impeachment has indeed been a popular goal in some quarters of the left, most bloggers linking to it agree, if reluctantly.

At TPMCafe, Matt Yglesias concurs with Meyerson, adding: "To regain my progressive cred, let me offer links to ... articles that seem to indicate that the Iraq War is a huge fiasco." Josh Marshall drops in at TPMCafe to offer his agreement: "It's a bad idea on policy grounds. It's a bad idea on political grounds. And it's a bad idea on the most important ground of all, which is keeping your eye on the ball and doing what's necessary to create a political force to counter President Bush during his last two years in office and replace him with someone much better in 2009." Liberal Walrus: "Even though I understand the tactical merit of remaining focused on the elections, it is a tragedy that the laws of our nation have stopped applying to the President. The Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Their constituents should be ashamed of them. So ashamed that they do something about it. In November." Byzantium's Shores: "I agree, from the "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" perspective. George W. Bush is an albatross around the Republicans' necks, and I like him right where he is." Bartcop offers a parody movie poster promoting the impeachment meme. Conservative Greg Tinti scoffs: "Apparently Meyerson doesn't read his own paper, however, which just yesterday printed an A1 story on Democrats' inability to work together to create an agenda for 2006."

Meanwhile, a quote from Vanity Fair's Graydon Carter on HBO's "Real Time" last weekend is getting picked up around the left-blogosphere right now, explaining Bush's speaking style: "He speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him." Digby adds more thoughts: "The funny thing is that he sounds irritated too. It has always puzzled me why he seems so inappropriately impatient in his town meetings, as if his rapt audience needs some sort of time-wasting remedial education before he can get to the subject, which he never does." Atrios: "I'm with Digby. That's something I've never quite been sure of."

BLOGS VS. THE BELTWAY: Will Hill GOPers Love Blogs This Much When There's Another Trent Lott Situation?

As we noted here 3/9, Townhall's Tim Chapman attended the markup session for H.R. 1606, aka the Online Freedom of Speech Act, which Chapman also terms the "blogger protection act," and reports: "Only one member ... seemed to oppose (she left before the vote). When the committee called for a vote all members present voted to report the bill favorably out of committee. HR 1606 now moves to the House floor."

At Division of Labour, ex-FEC commish Brad Smith gives background info on the bill. At Beltway Blogroll, Danny Glover explains why we're here now: "Last November, the full House failed to garner the two-thirds majority necessary to pass the bill under expedited procedures. That 225-182 vote kicked the legislation back to committee."

As Chapman notes this a.m., and as can be found on the VOLPAC quasi-blog, Senate Maj. Leader Bill Frist delivered a speech to Congress on 3/9 comparing bloggers to "the Revolutionary-era pamphleteers": "And, today, it's bloggers whom we now have to protect. ... In an era where technology has made instant, unfiltered communication possible, I believe that the Congress has a fundamental responsibility to allow this new medium to flourish." Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) posts to RedState: "As I've said before, the Internet -- especially blogs -- has helped promote grassroots political involvement across the country by giving Joe or Jane Citizen their own bully pulpit to discuss and debate the topics of the day. Today your neighbor is more likely to ask you if you saw something on the web than whether you read it in a newspaper. We need to be encouraging, not discouraging, political involvement online and any FEC regulation could have a frightening effect on one of our most cherished rights - freedom of speech. It is important that RedState continue to educate Members of Congress on this important issue. We must ensure that free speech remains, well, free."

MIDTERMS: Trying To Create A Gilliard/Kaine Moment Out Of Thin Air?

Mid-p.m. on 3/9, the SEN campaign of Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-MN) sent out a release announcing: SEN candidate Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) "Pulls Ad from Hate Website" -- that an ad recently placed on Daily Kos had "mysteriously disappeared." Said Kennedy spokesperson Heidi Frederickson in the release, as quoted by some bloggers: "[Site founder Markos Moulitsas] has compared President Bush to Osama Bin Laden and has vocally called for the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman, Al Gore's running mate in 2000, because he isn't liberal enough." Ex-MN GOP operative Michael Brodkorb speculates at Minnesota Democrats Exposed: "Did Ms. Klobuchar pull her ad due to pressure after yesterday's release from the [NRSC]? Was Ms. Klobuchar's ad simply on rotation and that is why it isn't up today?" Kennedy v. Machine, which had previously noted the Klobuchar ad, thinks instead that the ad fulfilled its fundraising goals: "I do not find it likely for the ad to be pulled out of embarrassment due to the site's content and exposure by the Republicans, but rather, her mission was accomplished!" Worth noting: As of this a.m., a Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) ad was still running on dKos.

In 1/06 Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) pledged to cut off his regular Tuesday a.m. meetings with K Street lobbyists, but as Washington Post reported on 3/9, has in fact continued to do so. At Daily Kos, Georgia10 comments: "He is sneaking around with the same crowd of influencers, riding the high of peddling power. Well, not the same crowd. Because when you relapse, you relapse hard. So Santorum's new lobbying gang includes extra special 20 to 30 people, in addition to about 40 of his old friends." Header over the post: "Santorum To Lobbyists: I Wish I Knew How To Quit You."

ROOTS PROJECT: Do Senators Turn In Clusters When The Netroots Contact Them?

Despite the Senate Intel Cmte's agreement with the WH on new oversight rules, the liberal netroots haven't given up pressuring cmte members to provide better oversight. Starting this a.m., they have a new project going -- PSoTD explains: "What are your guarantees, as an American, that this spying isn't abused for domestic purposes and not for national defense? What are your protections, as an American, from the government? Is a faith in big government enough? One would think that Republicans would be much more concerned about the NSA project than they are. ... I just don't understand that kind of blind trust. And if you're a Pennsylvanian, perhaps there is one Pennsylvanian that you should ask to explain why such blind trust by the citizenry is required. His name is Senator Arlen Specter." Vichy Dems: "The immediate goal: to encourage Pennsylvanians, and people with roots in Pennsylvania, to sound off about the upcoming Senate Judiciary Committee hearings concerning the NSA's unconstitutional, invasive, warrantless surveillance program."

WHITE HOUSE '08: A Hillary Of Beans

Lefty Marc Cooper: "How quickly America is, apparently, going to hell. Not more than a month or so ago we were a 'plantation.' Now, it seems, we're on the verge of becoming a 'police state.'" After Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) said this, "I simply have no choice. Too outrageous. Can't let it pass. Someone, somewhere has to take five minutes to underscore the gross and rather macabre hypocrisy that's involved here." He points out that current border policy with Mexico dates back to '93-'94 with then-Pres. Clinton and AG Janet Reno "most responsible": "Can anyone provide us, then, with a single, on-the-record statement from Ms. Clinton expressing, at the time, any concern for a police state? I'd love to see it. ... What we can show you are the memorial crosses for the 3500 migrants who died as they were pushed deeper into the desert by Clinton's various border 'operations' and the "deportation orders for literally tens of thousands of legal immigrants ... So Hillary, on this subject at least, have the minimal decency to hush."

DEMOCRATS: The Taking Of Pelosi One Two Three

Matt Stoller writes at MyDD: "A few weeks ago," lefty blogosphere favorite Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) "came out with a report called 'America for Sale' on the cost of Republican corruption," which was subsequently posted to House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi's leader page. GOPers "smeared Slaughter with charges that writing the report itself was an unethical use of taxpayer funds, and not one Dem "came forward public to stand by their colleague." And then, "in a final insult, the report was removed from Pelosi's leader web site, apparently because of worries that the Republicans will file ethics charges against Pelosi for hosting it" because it might violate Franking rules. He continues: "Enough is enough. Whoever made the boneheaded decision in Pelosi's office is just out of touch. Leaders serious about ending corruption do not hang out to dry members who stand up against the looting of the country." More: "Standing up to this ineffective, anti-progressive, anti-meritocratic mechanism that coddles Democratic members is going to be key, whatever happens in 2006. The rallying cry for Democrats in the House should not be 'Universal health care for Democratic incumbent Congressmen', as it seems to have been since 1994. New candidates coming into office should realize that it's time for open elections for committee slots, for leadership posts, and for every other position of power in the House."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dear Diary

On 3/9 Hotline On Call noted the launch of ex-Sen. John Edwards' new blog, "more of a website, really," One America Committee. And it's not a new site, really, but a dramatic upgrade and relaunch of a blog that had been operating on the site since the end of WH'04 -- we last cited it on 7/25. On Call notes that the Edwards site is "bound to be copied," and that's probably true, but the key feature distinguishing it from previous campaign blog is its diary feature -- inviting members of its community to post their own blog entries to the site. Unlike diary-equipped blogs such as Daily Kos and RedState, partial entries of each diaries appear on the front page. Diaries present a unique challenge and must be well-moderated, as both dKos and RedState are often held responsible for the sometimes-impolitic views expressed by participants. But with '08 still an election cycle away, there's time to get it figured out.

Of interest: Some of OAC's pre-launch posts are still visible. On the "Featured Blogs" page, Daily Kos was used as a placeholder, as it's explained: "It's the 800 lb gorilla of the blogging world, and of course everyone knows it. It's the DailyKos [sic]. This is not likely to be a featured blog, because it's already so big and well-known, but I needed to set up the featured blog section, so here it is."

LEST WE FORGET: Ad Nauseum

Making a long-awaited return is "Adam Nagourney" -- the pseudonymous blogger doing what purports to be an impersonation of New York Times' Adam Nagourney at the blog AdNags: "I know I haven't been keeping up with my personal journal here. Well, it's because I've been working on a huge piece on the blogosphere and how stupid blogs are and how dumb blogs are and how they think they can do stuff about elections ... I am writing the piece that slammos the blogs that I bragged about to Tim Russert when I saw him at Starbucks." The fake Nagourney, you may have noticed, is barely literate.

But the fun isn't over yet! In the comments to his post, you'll find reax from such respected media figures as: "Jodi Wilgoren"; "Anna Marie Cox" [sic]; "Deborah Howell"; "Bill O'Reilly"; "Mike Barnicle"; "Elisabeth Bumiller"; "Byron Calame"; and even "Jeff Gannon." (Though possibly ... Jeff Gannon.)

Friday Bonus "Lest"! Greg at The Talent Show locates on YouTube the legendary scene from "Way of the Dragon" where National Review's John Derbyshire gets his ass kicked by Bruce Lee himself.

Posted by at March 10, 2006 01:13 PM