The Last Polka

"But one must know how to colour one's actions and to be a great liar and deciever. Men are so simple, and so much creatures of circumstance, that the deciever will always find someone ready to be decieved."

Monday, February 27, 2006

More Port Politics

The UAE-U.S. Port Management controversy (i.e. Portgate) has taken some interesting turns since the story exploded into the media last week. After (once again) proving that President Bush is an out of touch, lame duck, the administration seems to have reached a deal with Congressional Republicans (at least the leadership) to delay the deal for 45 days in order for a more 'thorough' review to occur. I don't need to say this, but I'm going to anyway: The President grossly misjudged the Congressional reaction to this deal and, more importantly, the reaction of the American public. This issue has disaster written all over it, unless the president gives in now and moves on (much like he did with Harriet Miers). He has virtually no political capital left (and hasn't since his reelection, by the way) and cannot waste it on a long, drawn out battle over this foolish deal. Another element to this is the fact that this is an election year--an election year that is going to be bad for the GOP anyway, in spite of this controversy. Democrats should not let up on this issue; they need to drive home the competence factor--and the administration's lack of said competence. The Bush administration is continuing to govern without regard for the interests of the American people; they feel no obligation to keep the public informed about its actions.

Also, from The AP:

Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard raised concerns weeks ago that it could not determine whether a United Arab Emirates-based company seeking a stake in some U.S. port operations might support terrorist operations.

The disclosure came during a hearing Monday on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to assume significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. It also clouded whether the Bush administration's agreement to conduct an unusual investigation into the pending takeover's security risks would allay lawmakers' concerns.

For the administration to pretend as if there are absolutely no security concerns is ludicrous. This deal was reviewed in secret with, once again, no Congressional oversight. Furthermore, for anyone (including Administration apologists) to 'play the race/ethnicity card' is laughable. The same people that have recently tried to justify torture as a viable policy option are apparently now very sensitive to the feelings of Arabs and Muslims across the globe. Wake UP. This is a national security issue. God forbid this deal happens and something awful happens at one of these ports...I don't want to think about.

More, from Thomas Friedman (who I have a great deal of respect for):

But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in which the president now finds himself, I will not join this feeding frenzy. On the pure merits of this case, the president is right. The port deal should go ahead. Congress should focus on the NSA wiretapping. Not this.

As a country, we must not go down this road of global ethnic profiling, looking for Arabs under our beds the way we once looked for commies. If we do, if America, the world's beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road, we will take the rest of the world with us. ...

If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the critics. But the security argument is bogus and, I would add, borderline racist.

Wow. I'm not going to lie...I'm a little sad. I though Friedman would be a bit more pragmatic with this one. Friedman makes himself look like a fool. Here's a brief memo, Tom: Not everything can be explained away by globalization. Having the UAE royal family operate our ports isn't going to lead to a pro-America wave in the Middle East. NATIONAL SECURITY TRUMPS GLOBALIZATION AND ECONOMICS EVERY TIME. It's a fact that we all need to accept. The security concerns are not 'bogus,' Mr. Friedman. At the very least, they need to be examined further. At this point, nobody (no matter how big their ego, Tom) can honestly claim to have enough information to categorize these concerns as bogus. Again, Friedman makes himself look foolish with these statements. I'm not even going to tackle the "borderline racist" aspect of the column. I think you know how I feel.

Note: This isn't the first time Friedman has been off his game in recent months (see: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2006/02/friedman-on-sotu-bush-makes-strides.html )

Finally, this from The Hill:

A bipartisan group of senators pressed ahead yesterday with a bill giving Congress power to block a Dubai-government-owned ports company from assuming control of several U.S. ports, despite the Bush administration’s agreement to initiate a second review of the deal.

The senators’ move, as well as several congressional hearings on the ports deal planned for this week, signals that the company’s consent to delay the takeover may not be enough to sate Congress’ growing appetite for oversight. While some lawmakers hailed the request from Dubai Ports (DP) World for a longer executive-branch investigation as a good first step, Democrats continued to question whether the administration panel that already cleared the deal would be able to reevaluate it independently.

...But Schumer’s bill, co-sponsored by GOP Sens. Rick Santorum (Pa.), Susan Collins (Maine), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and Olympia Snowe (Maine), would give Congress the authority to reject the ports deal after completion of the new 45-day review.

Santorum signed on to the bill late Friday, adding conservative heft to the unlikely partnership of ports-deal skeptics. Santorum did not hesitate in joining such Democratic co-sponsors as Schumer and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), said Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham.

Schumer?...Santorum? Co-sponsoring the same legislation? I think a pig just flew by my window...more later.

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Portgate, Civil War And Such...

I recently heard someone refer to the last week as a "slow news week." Obviously, I was shocked at that statement. This past week was full of fascinating stories (especially when compared to the previous weeks 'Cheney-shotgun-gate').

First of all, the UAE port controversy has given us yet another example of the Bush administration's second term fatigue. Consider, a) this deal was done in secret and Bush claims he had no idea that the deal was going through, b) the absurdity of the Bush administration's lack of political savvy, c) the news broke in a week when Bush needed to get back on message and talk about his domestic agenda. These factors, among others, have led to a National Security/PR nightmare for the administration. Fellow Republicans are running scared and, for once, have to be honest with themselves and their constituents: the Bush administration is WRONG. They were wrong to not keep Congress abreast of the situation (especially their allies) and they were wrong in their knee-jerk rebuttal to the criticism they received. This story has already spun out of control and the administration is on the wrong side of it. They cannot hope to reframe the debate on this one - they're going to have to retreat. Bush's threat to veto any legislation that would delay or put a stop to the deal was foolish and empty. He cannot spend what little remains of his political capital, in an election year, defending this ridiculous decision.

Also happening this week: Iraq may be spiraling into a disastrous sectarian civil war. The attack on a 1200 year old Shiite mosque may prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back in this fool's errand. Strikingly relevant is a piece in the latest Foreign Affairs: Written by Joel Rayburn (a former history instructor at West Point), "The Last Exit From Iraq" compares the British Mesopotamian Mandate (1920's-1930's) to the current U.S. occupation. Here's a taste:

...In fact, Washington's current position bears a strong resemblance to London's in the late 1920's, when the British were responsible for the tutelage of a fledgling Iraqi state suffering from immature institutions, active insurgencies, and the interference of hostile neighbors. Eventually, this tutelage was undermined by pressure from the British Parliament and the press to withdraw -- forces quite similar to those in the United States now calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Building a better understanding of the United Kingdom's mistakes -- and of the consequences of that country's ultimate withdrawal from Iraq -- could thus help illuminate the present occupation and provide answers to when and how to end it. If the British record teaches anything, it is this: costly and frustrating as the fostering of Iraqi democracy may be, the costs of leaving the job undone would likely be far higher, for both the occupiers and the Iraqis. This is a lesson the British learned more than seven decades ago, when their premature pullout in 1932 led to more violence in Iraq, the rise of a dictatorship, and a catastrophic unraveling of everything the British had tried to build there.

Good stuff, if you ask me. Rayburn goes on from there to draw some fascinating comparisons. Needles to say, an Iraqi civil war would be disastrous. Some conservative pundits are trying to downplay the significance of the raging conflict in Iraq. Don't be fooled. Sectarian violence is possibly the worst kind. And the fact that over 100,000 U.S. troops are stuck in the middle of all of this is disturbing, to say the least. I'm reminded of Lebanon in the 1980's - we were there, trying not to take sides and suffered because of our perilous position. The violence in Iraq has the potential to make Lebanon look like a picnic.

Note: Joe Gandelman ("The Moderate Voice") is all over both of these stories. Go check out some of his stuff: http://themoderatevoice.com/

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Scandals And Midterms

I'd like to warn those Americans who are sick of beltway 'politics as usual' and vicious partisan bickering - you ain't seen nothing yet. The 2006 midterms will be every bit as partisan (maybe more) as the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. With Democrats thirsty to return to power in Congress and incumbent Republicans hoping merely to survive, I expect to see tremendous amounts of money spent and some bitter exchanges between candidates. Particularly important in the 2006 election cycle will be the various scandals occurring in Washington (Plamegate-->Libby/Rove Gate; NSA domestic spying/'terrorist surveillance'; Abramoff/lobbying scandals). For this post I'm going to focus on the political maneuvering around the NSA spying scandal, an issue that members of both parties seem to be eager to address. (I have posted on the politics of domestic spying; these comments were an initial reaction and many of the main points are still relevant: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/12/politics-of-domestic-spying.html ; http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/12/more-on-politics-of-spying.html)

"Terrorist surveillance program" - NSA Spying and GOP Strategies

Some Republicans (especially those in moderate-liberal districts/states) have been eager to distance themselves from the president on many issues, including domestic and foreign policies. However, the NSA controversy is a different beast entirely - while certainly controversial, Republicans have begun to frame this debate as one of essential national security vs. liberal whining over legal technicalities. Rove and company have made it clear what the GOP national security platform will be (it should sound familiar): Democrats have a pre-9/11 world view and will not protect you and your family in these dire times. The NSA spying controversy is actually a relatively strong issue for the President - he has come out swinging from the beginning and will continue to do so. He recently spoke about declassified information regarding an attempted attack in LA; it seems that this foiled attack had nothing to do with the NSA program, but that doesn't matter. The main point is the same - this president and the Republican party are committed to protecting you and yours. As Iowa Gov. Vilsack recently implied(and I predicted soon after the program was revealed [1]), the Democrats are falling right into this trap and are once again allowing the GOP to frame this debate. Unless Dems start talking seriously about sanctioning the administration (i.e. censure, impeachment) for this abuse, they will look like a bunch of whining softies. Obviously, without a majority in either house of Congress, talking about censuring/impeaching the president is useless. Most Americans (including myself) aren't very well versed on the inner workings of the FISA Court - thus, citing abstract, legal objections to the program may not be wise.

Ethics/Corruption

Here's a scandal that might actually work well for the Democrats. Self described "independents" and "moderates" don't respond well to corruption. Since the Democratic leadership seems...reluctant to offer actual alternative policies (see "Oh Howard..." from November '05 [2]), they should hammer home this Republican-corruption angle. They've been handed several high profile corruption cases and they should not sit on them. Why not go after the deficit and pork barrel spending while you're at it (Remember the "Bridge to Nowhere" - that might make a good DNC ad...just a thought).

Cheney Shooting

Okay, this incident will not have any impact on the midterms, but I felt like I should mention it. On that note, I hope Cheney's victim will recover fully from this unfortunate accident. (More on the politics of VP Assault With Deadly Weapon later).


[1] From The Last Polka, 12/18: "I expect the Democrats to run, full speed ahead, into this trap; they will once again be painted with the 'weak on defense' brush."

[2] I like citing myself, so here's part of what that post said:

[Dean]: "Right now it's not our job to give out specifics. We have no control in the House. We have no control in the Senate."

And here's what I said: "What? It's not your job? It's not your job to tell voters what you would do differently? Its not your job to articulate specific policy differences between the Administration and the Opposition?... The head of the National Democratic party said those very words on Meet The Press on 11/13/05. Russert asked him about specific Democratic plans on Social Security, the deficit, Iraq, energy prices, and other issues, and that is how the DNC chairman responded. PITIFUL. EMBARRASSING."

Yeah, I don't like Howard Dean

Sunday, February 12, 2006

WaPo: Warner's High Hopes Meet Low Rating In NH

There's a headline that upsets me. The basis of this headline is a garbage "presidential preference" survey taken recently:

A lot has changed for Mark R. Warner since he left behind the Virginia governorship and his 80 percent approval ratings to begin mulling a presidential campaign.

But perhaps nothing more than this: At just 3 percent in a recent poll asking Democrats nationwide to rate their presidential preference, Warner has become an unknown overnight.

Are you kidding me? No responsible journalist would put any stock in such a poll. Over 2 1/2 years out from the '08 election, and this guy's citing a presidential preference poll? Ridiculous.

What about the gross amounts of money that Warner has raised in recent months? What about the fact that he is "unemployed" and can concentrate on real campaigning (i.e. meet and greets, small settings where he can talk to people). That's how early campaigning in NH is done.

I'm not including a link to the story because its not worth your time. It' awful. Don't bother.

Monday, February 06, 2006

Friedman On SOTU: Bush Makes Strides, But He's Still A Long Way From China


I'm going to make a confession - I love Thomas Friedman. Alright, I said it. That feels better. For the record, if you want to learn about why the Middle East (or at least the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) is the way it is, read his From Beirut to Jerusalem. Anyway, I read his analysis of last week's State of the Union (SOTU from here on). After Friedman's work on globalization and the undeserved publicity the President's comments on energy independence and competing in the global marketplace, its not surprising that Friedman focused on those aspects of the SOTU. For Friedman, the president's change in tone on some key aspects regarding these issues show that President Bush might mean what he says. Here's Friedman:

I heard the president use language about the necessity of breaking our oil addiction through innovation on renewable technologies-without mentioning drilling in Alaska-which I've never heard before. When the president changes language on an issue like this in a sustained manner (and we still have to see if it will be sustained), the whole country and bureaucracy starts to talk differently.

I said before that I love Friedman and his work - However, he is reading too much into the President's rhetoric on energy independence. He didn't mention ANWR for a simple reason: its a dead issue and its not going to be revived in an election year. Sen. Ted Stevens was recently embarrassed after trying and failing to sneak ANWR drilling onto an Appropriations bill. That was also a defeat for the President and, with approval ratings still hovering in the low 40's, he wasn't about to remind people of that embarrassmentent. The absence of ANWR from the SOTU was due to political realities, not a change in philosophy.

Here's more:

The technology we need to make a huge reduction in our gasoline consumption is already here, hybrid cars that run on flex-fuels. No great breakthrough is required. What's needed are more buyers. While enticing Detroit to make these more fuel-efficient vehicles is a good idea, we also need a gasoline tax to entice every consumer to buy one. The president rejects a gasoline tax. He's wrong. He can't end our oil addiction unless he ends his tax-cutting addiction.

Friedman is right on this one. He is also right to note that if you think that a gasoline tax will be signed into law under this administration, you're crazy. Even when everything else goes down the shitter, conservatives can still look at this president and say, "At least taxes are low." Again, the President would never risk this by accepting something as controversial as a gas tax. So basically, if we assume that Friedman is correct (that one of the only things holding us back from breaking our "addiction" to Middle Eastern oil is incentive to invest in alternative energies) we can conclude that the new SOTU rhetoric is EMPTY. Here's a bold prediction: this president, despite his new catch phrases (i.e. 'addiction to foreign oil'), will do nothing to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Even after his apparent misguided optimism, Friedman seems to accept this conclusion:

And if he fails to carry through with this energy initiative, I'll be the first to rip him for it. In the meantime, I prefer to give him a new reputation to live up to. You never know. And by the way, pal, you got a better horse to ride right now?

No Tom, I don't.