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.


Popular posts from this blog

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.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …