Skip to main content

Port Deal: When have Democrats ever stood for the right thing for America?

Jeff Blanco has an interesting perspective on the sale of the port managment company to the Arab corporation. I really don't know what to think, and generaly, trust Bush's leadership. I think politicly this whole thing is a bad move, but that doesn't mean the deal itself is bad. I simply do not have enoughy facts to decide either way. On the other hand, knowing how a corporate parent company would have complete access to our port related information, I'm not comfortable about the deal either.

I thought Jeff's way of looking at it was interesting.
Think about it folks, when was the last time that Democrats, on the whole, actually stood up for the right thing in America? Think hard, name one thing where Democrats have put America first above all? It's a universal rule, no matter how good something is for this country, Democrats will point to another country and say their's is better. Canada's healthcare is better, Rwanda was a better war than Iraq, even the dictator Hugo Chavez is a better "president" than George W. Bush. Europe's gas prices are better than ours, French people know how to fight a war, even though they can't win one. When have Democrats ever stood for the right thing for America?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Hugh's perspective ads value:

The almost instant and widespread negative reaction to the proposed sale of the contract for port operations in several major U.S. cities to a firm owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates is based on the intuition --held obviously by many, many people-- that the deal would make America more vulnerable to terrorist attack.

That intuition is not based on crude typecasting of all UAE citizens as potential terrorists. Rather, it seems to be based on a general understanding that (1)big, successful crimes involve either extensive surveillance and/or cooperation by an "insider," and that (2) ownerwship of the port operations by the UAE increases the likelihood of both.

These are not irrational reactions.

Mary Katharine has a round up of links.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Al Cardenas Comments on Univision Democrat Forum

Al Cardenas is Chairman of Romney for President's Hispanic Steering Committee. I got the following email from the campaign. Boston, MA – Al Cardenas, the Chairman of Romney for President's National Hispanic Steering Committee, issued the following statement regarding tonight's Democrat presidential forum on Univision: "Tonight's Univision forum demonstrated once again the consequences that a President Clinton, President Obama or President Edwards would have on the Hispanic community.  Whether it's tax increases for families and the two million Hispanic business owners, socialist-style health care, coddling dictators, opposing free trade with our allies or putting family values last, the Democrat presidential candidates made clear how out of sync their policies are with the best interests of the Hispanic community. Mitt Romney has put in the effort to reach out to this vital bloc, and, after watching tonight's debate

Harry Potter Mania -- Discussion

There is a great discussion going on at WorldMagBlog on the whole Harry Potter mania. Nothing to do with Latinos, I suppose, but I thought I would ad my two cents. A reader commented: I think its interesting how much people want to be in a group that is all connected by some common thread. It says a lot about our desire for homogeny, not always along racial, sexual or religious lines, but also simply based on what we do in our spare time. The interesting thing about Harry Potter fans vs. Star Trek fans is that a vast majority of them are kids who have grown up with the books, or the parents of said kids. I wonder if what sort of effects this will have on them as they get older (and whether or not they will remain HP fans). We live in an obsessive culture. Posted by David B. at July 22, 2005 07:54 AM This is an interesting phenomenon. I would think it is indicative of our society, more than anything else. I tend to agree with the idea that it shows a desire or need for communi

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok . Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together. In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.