i agree (and have long agreed).

but for the dems to engage on national security grounds, we've got to, like, engage: kerry made some efforts along these lines, but not enough (and perhaps the audience wasn't as receptive then as it would be now).

with bush's "central front" on the war on terror collapsing, with the dems 4.5-year track record of trying to improve port security in the face of bush/gop resistance now drawing some attention, dems need to be willing to say in public what i'm sure they say in private: bush's strategy is a failure. we've got better ideas and here they are.

But Mr. Daalder, I take it that you yourself think that most of those 64% who oppose the deal have fallen victim to some sort of xenophobic hysteria or anti-Arab bigotry.  Is that correct?

Arun - are you sure of this address?? I can't make it work.

Remove all of the extra spaces from the URL (there are three) and it will work.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

But Mr. Daalder, I take it that you yourself think that most of those 64% who oppose the deal have fallen victim to some sort of xenophobic hysteria or anti-Arab bigotry.  Is that correct

The 64% today. The 54% who see Iran as public enemy no.1. The angst ridden Cartoon Hypocrites, the Left Behind Armageddon Crowd, the Conintern Thought Police the 80% who watched an Accomplished Mission on CNN, the Patriot Actors, the Useful Idiots...

America you've been had 

A poison in the body politic that hinders the excerise of a reality based foreign policy..most of us...need to induce vomiting ASAP

This Toronto Star article captures the bushies' ports deal dilemma: Reaping what has been sown...

Irony is a constant in politics. Since Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush has deliberately defined the world in the black-and-white, us-versus-them language of his war on terror. Now, the rhetorical demons he so assiduously promoted are coming back to bite.
..............................................

...So perhaps, it is understandable that so many Americans balk at the idea of their ports being run by an Arab company. It is irrational; it is even racist.

But in the topsy-turvy world that George W. Bush helped to create, it is sadly logical.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Real world disaster...I don't think many Americans, elite or hoi poli, appreciate the fact that 9/11 really did change everything

But not in the sense the WarParty propagandists would have us believe...

Now we seem to be coming to some sort of epiphany...Bring it on

War in Error

Sending a general to do a sheriff’s job

By Andrew J. Bacevich

Small events sometimes reveal large truths. Last month’s U.S. missile strike in the remote Bajaur district of Pakistan was such an event. Aimed at taking out Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s chief deputy, the strike missed its intended target and killed as many as 18 residents of the small village of Damadola. But the episode did not end there: outraged Pakistanis rose up in protest; days of highly publicized anti-American demonstrations followed. In effect, the United States had handed Muslims around the world another grievance to hold against Americans.

In stark, unmistakable terms, the Damadola affair lays bare the defects of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11. When President Bush in September 2001 launched the United States on a global war against terrorism, he scornfully abandoned the law-enforcement approach to which previous administrations had adhered. To all but the most militant true believers, it has become increasingly evident that in doing so Bush committed an error of the first order

I mean, we could be on the verge of civil war in Iraq.  And yet for the past few days, the major posts at America Abroad have been about the politics of what is, by any comparison, a minor issue.

 While I agree that the ports thing has probably negligible foreign policy significance, it does appear to have surrprisingly substantial significance in domestic politics. The real issue is not the ports, it's the process and the politics around it. If it exposes a large rift between the President and members of his party in the Congress, I would say that is very significant. If it exposes a complete divergence of the President's rhetoric and actions, I would say that is very significant.

As for Iraq... there may be a sense of detachment and helplessness. The ports are a domestic issue and thus far more relevant to most Americans. More importantly, many people may be asking - what can we do about it? And the answer is, "nothing much". If a civil war is on the cards in Iraq, can the US - or anyone else - stop it? I don't think so.

I'm not surprised that an issue that is less important but closer to home and one that something can be done about is in the forefront. I'm not saying it's good or desirable, just understandable.

If I were a political strategist type, and I were inclined to look to the medium rather than the short range, I think I'd be wary of national security as a campaign issue, for either party.

Seems to me that there is only so much that any government can do to prevent a terrorist attack - and hence, eventually, one is coming.  If no attack happens, the President isn't necessarily going to get any credit for that - you never know what's planned for tomorrow, and you never know whether the absence of an attack is dilligence on our part or lack of interest on the part of those who might contemplate terrorism against the U.S.  However, if an attack does occur, you can be pretty sure that the President, whoever it may be, is going to take the heat.  All the more so if they've run a national security campaign, I'd think.  So on the one hand, you get no credit for making terrorism less likely, but all the blame for not preventing the unpreventable.  Where's the upside to governing based on that? 

bluebell

The Iraq obsessed fail to understand the full dimensions of the port issue.  It's an issue much broader than UAE running ports.  Anyone else ever listen to Lou Dobbs?  This issue gets to some very deep scepticism Americans have about the security of our borders, about outsourcing, about globalization, about jobs, about control of our own economic destiny, about the real intentions of global corporations, about the corruption in Washington. 

Americans know they are losing control of their government and their economic future.  If a party ever comes along smart enough to represent these concerns, it will win.

Is it our love of irony -- a particularly annoying and arrogant intellectual trait from the point of view the average red-stater -- which loses us elections with such regularity?

Could be, but would you give up irony? Even if it might win an election? Wouldn't that be a Pyrrhic victory anyway?

If red-staters can't appreciate the fine art of irony, the secession option can't be taken off the table. 

Testify, My Brother, Testify!

There is only one company that has the credibility with the American people to take over the ports and run them the way they want them run.  Its time to turn the ports over to Walmart and be done with the whole issue

Best idea I've heard yet.

Is it our love of irony -- a particularly annoying and arrogant intellectual trait from the point of view the average red-stater -- which loses us elections with such regularity? 

Nah! Just the opposite, I would argue!

Our candidates have been East Coast intellectual elite earnest liberal irony-impaired types, supported by irony-impaired Streisand types (a stereotype actualy unfair to her, but it's there.) The stain of the political correctness movement of the 80's never wore off, it sticks to liberals like glue.

Kerry is earnest and irony-impaired. Hillary is earnest and irony-impaired. Dukakis is irony-impaired. Dean screaming or talking in earnest is irony-impaired. Gore presented as so irony-impaired as to be compared to a schoolmarm.

The "average red stater" is not irony-impaired. Good old boys do irony. (I recall some rising support of Clinton among them after it was revealed he was a philanderer and not so earnest as he appeared.) So do most country singers.  Even Rush does irony; he does it badly, but he does it. Fox TV is about irony going back to "Married with Children," on to The Simpson's and now "King of the Hill."

Reagan learned to use soft irony after his more zealous earnest CA conservative days. Bush's smirk conveys irony. Laura does the Desperate Housewives joke....even Tom DeLay off camera is known to snark.

The average Christian Coaltion type, the Borks and the Scaifes and the affiliated, they DO lack irony and hate that Americans have become ironic and cynical. They have been fighting and screaming since the 60's to get their beloved illusionary/delusionary irony-free 1950's back.

They are not the same thing as your "average red stater." I think that your "average red stater" does tend to give such conservatives a bigger break on the irony-impairment than to liberals because they all have at least one relative that's one of the god fearin' religious types that whupped them upside the head when they were young and they recognize the need for that kind of person in the family.

The zealous irony-impaired liberal segment is probably far far smaller than the conservative. They just get much more press. But I would argue that they are not a figment of the imagination and they are not extinct; stereotypes resound when they have a basis in fact. Why I myself here on TPMCafe have at times so despaired about a waxing moontide of irony-impaired zealotry and/or earnestness in commentary and posting that I have been known to attempt to inspire with irony lessons. :-)

The Democratic party is the one that has got to get itself some irony and cynicism. It's actually very close to what the Sister Souljah moment was all about, mho. Less about far left liberalism than about zealous earnestness. The popular Republican taunt "what about the children?" was all about Democratic lack of irony.

I have no polls, data or links to back any of these earnest impassioned generalizations of mine up. But neither do you. :-)

It's the attitude. The guy holding the gun properly and speaking steadily will not get the attention that the crazy guy screaming will. The first guy argues he's a better shot and doesn't hit bystanders but the wacko is certainly more scary and gets votes.

For a pinch of humble pie, remember Kennedy ran on national security (without foundation). It often works if you get in the first punch.  

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Ron Brownstein joins Ivo...Live by the xenophobic sloganeering die by it...

 

War Rhetoric Blows Back in Port FurorPresident Bush may not like the arguments that critics are raising against the Dubai company attempting to take over cargo and cruise operations at ports in six U.S. cities. But he should recognize them. The arguments marshaled against Bush closely echoed the ones he deployed to defend the Iraq war.

The president, in other words, is stewing in a pot he brought to boil.

gray -

I watched Edwards w/ Russert was again impressed. Couple thoughts:

- He strikes me as straight.  He speaks in clear words, acts with respect  and has passion for life.

- Cannot put my finger on why but I don't see him as the winning presidential candidate.   This is not so much a lack of confidence in him but that I believe he can do more good in another role.

- Where I'd love to see him is as the chair of the DNC, now.  First he is an adult who could preside over what will be a contentious primary season that has tremedous possibility.  Second I believe he would be effective w/ the bigger money folks where Dean has struggled.  Third I believe that he can use his young and limited Beltway experience to find ways for the party to connect with both the established and potential new Democratic voters.  Fourth, he can respond to the media with finesse and I believe could actively court them successfully.   Last and very important he can be an effective national spokesman.  The Democrats need more than a couple of long-winded Senators on every talk show.   Dean hasn't grown into this and does not seem to have the confidence of his fellow prominent leaders.

- A deficiency for him as DNC chair or  presidential candidate is his lack of executive experience. (Senator and lawyer just don't give him that experience base).  To me the Democrats need to have major national leaders and candidates who understand and prefereably have experience in leading and managing.

Edwards in public this Sunday morning -

Interviewed by Russert and also gets George Will's attention:

Edwards says that one lesson of 2004 is that presidential elections "are not issue-driven"; rather, they are character-driven and voters see issues as reflections of character. The issues "show people who you are." ...But the idea that the candidate's persona is primary and that issues are secondary is a mistake made by some Democrats who yearn for another John Kennedy. He was a talented but quite traditional politician whom many Democrats wrongly remember as proving that charisma trumps substantive politics.