Nathan Newman wrote:
>So we have "leftists" piling on to join the rightwing in accusing unions of
>corruption and joining the same rightwing in accusing latino Senators of
>racial profiling.
-Can you really believe there was no anti-Arab racism involved in the -ports mania?
There is a difference between whether some people were motivated by racism versus whether many people were against the deal for non-racist reasons. I've noted that a lot of the attacks on Israel thrive on implicit anti-semitism, but folks here seem to scoff at that idea, even as I agree that there are perfectly good non- anti-semitic reasons to condemn Israel's actions.
Similarly, while any condemnation of an Arab government will get some boost from anti-Arab views of some Americans, that doesn't mean that every such political issue is motivated by xenophobia.
-I can't believe you really think that, but I bet you -like the way the whole thing polled. Bush took a hit and the -Congressional Dems gained a few points. Sometimes opportunism works, -but it still stinks.
Here is a reality-- for four years Dems have been trying to make an issue of security in our ports. Four years. Long before Dubai try to buy the ports, the Dems were condemning loose security in the ports. That's a fact and not some latter-day claim. So finally Bush gives them an opening to actually hit on a point they've been pushing for four years. You may see that as opportunism, but it's opportunism they've been pushing for four years.
DEMOCRATS: BUSH ADMINISTRATION NEGLECTS PORT SECURITY (2003) http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/press2003/pr09_29_2003portsecurity.html
Bush Administration Fails to Provide Funding to Strengthen Port Security (2004) http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-178
Internal report takes aim at port security efforts http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-13-us-port-security_x.htm