Incumbency will protect most GOPers in the House, but the Republican vote to kill the ports deal is a sign of a party desperate not to be dragged down with Bush.
Basically, the GOP had national security as the main issue that allowed them to trump public support for the Dems on most domestic issues. Subtract that and the GOP is in free fall. The national Dem leadership is admittedly a bit pathetic in capitalizing on this, but grassroots progressives in the states are going to be the ones mounting many of the challenges to incumbents and open seats that will decide the elections.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238>
John Podhoretz writes in his New York Post column, that much like when he had to withdraw Harriet Miers' nomination in the face of Republican revolt, President Bush may emerge the victor from the demise of the Dubai ports deal by taking the issue off the table long before the midterm elections. LINK
The Washington Post's Peter Baker calls the port deal collapse a "singular failure" for President Bush but he's not so sure that Democrats can capitalize. LINK
"By turning against Bush," writes Baker, "some GOP strategists believe Republican leaders may have saved themselves a worse fate." Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio tells Baker that Bush has "no political capital" but he thinks Republicans in Congress "may have made chicken salad out of chicken you-know-what" by breaking with the President.
On Mullings.com, GOP uber-strategist Rich Galen argues that Republicans in the House and Senate running for re-election win because they now have an excellent counter-argument when their Democratic challengers accuse them (as they most certainly will) of being Bush clones: "I have two words for my opponent: Dubai Ports." LINK
The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire writes that the deal's demise "crimps Democratic plans to use 45-day review hammering Bush's party." LINK
The Washington Wire has a Port of Seattle official saying that Americans are "xenophobic" about globalization, but they "like their '$1.98 underwear at Wal-Mart.'"
"The outcome did nothing to solve the underlying issue exposed by an uproar that has consumed the capital for weeks. A vast majority of containers that flow daily into the United States remain uninspected and vulnerable to security gaps at many points," writes David Sanger of the New York Times. (And Note how high up he plays the sell vs. transfer language.) LINK
USA Today reports the effects of the port deal are still unknown, but Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) predicts, "damage from the quashed deal 'will reverberate in the Arab world.'" LINK
Although Dubai ports deal is effectively dead, the Wall Street Journal's Hitt and King remind us that Republicans are still worrying about the effect the deal has had on their national security profile and commercial interests are still worrying about its effect on foreign investment.
The Journal also says that Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage want to see the fine print on the actual deal.
The New York Times' tick-tock: LINK
The Financial Times reports that few buyers meet requirements for "US entity." LINK ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk