Eleanor Clift: Blowback for Bush on Dubai - Can the Dems capitalize on it?

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

The controversy over letting a company owned by an Arab government control the management of six American ports is one of those rare issues that put Bush at odds in an emotional and visceral way with his conservative base. It’s like Harriet Miers on steroids with right-wing talk radio aflame and grassroots activists radiating outrage.

On Capitol Hill there was an odd sense of exhilaration as Republicans and Democrats came together to bash Bush for letting the deal get this far. The debate is so explosive, touching on everything from the excesses of globalism to accusations of racism that Bush is fortunate that Dubai Ports World has given him at least a temporary out: the announcement that while it will go ahead with closing the deal, it will “not exercise control” over its new U.S. operations for the time being. This could give the White House time to win congressional support or find a face-saving exit. It’s certainly not in President Bush’s interest to let this come to a veto and have the only veto of his presidency overridden by a rebellious Congress.

An issue that divides Bush from his conservative base on national security is manna from heaven for the Democrats. Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow with the Democratic Leadership Council and a former advisor to John McCain, calls the flap over port management the national security equivalent of the crime bill that set the stage for the Republican sweep of Congress in 1994. President Clinton’s crime bill was ridiculed by Republicans for advocating “midnight basketball,” a program that symbolized the administration’s emphasis on prevention over punishment. The phrase became a laugh line on the campaign trail for Republicans to mock Democrats.

This is blowback for the way the Bush administration exploited Homeland Security in the ’02 midterm elections, Wittmann says. Democrats got morphed into Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in campaign ads for pushing labor protections for Homeland Security bureaucrats, which the Bushies characterized as putting special interests over national security interests. “That’s the way Democrats will use this in ’06,” says Wittmann. Any downside for Democrats? “This is a freebie,” he says. “It’s one of the rare moments where God smiles on Democrats.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11546540/site/newsweek/

[laylah]

1. My question is

WILL the Dems capitalize on it?

Jenn

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

2. And the unfortunate answer is "we'll find out."

We're in a time where our only focus should be going for the throat. You want to rule Monkey Island, go for the alpha male ape. Karl Rove's fat ass needs to be in the crosshairs. Are the Dems ready to do battle with this corrupt bastard and emerge triumphant?

"We'll find out."

[gulliver]

3. I think Bush wants an override.

He wants Congress to override his veto to help Republicans in November. So Bush loses a little face. That's nothing compared to what would be in store for him if Dems take over the House or Senate.

Right now the Republicans are clearly guilty of being a rubber stamp for an unpopular White House. They are looking for something to disagree with him on.

I'm not sure such a play would work. Everyone knows that the entire GOP has walked lockstep with Bush as he committed his follies and stupidities.

[dansolo]

4. That would be a very risky tactic

There is no way that this is a tactic that would be used to promote Republican candidates in this election cycle. The only issue that is propping up the entire Republican party is that they supposedly can protect us better than the Democrats. Once that facade is torn down, their support will collapse like a house of cards. If they were really trying a political ploy to allow people to distance themselves from the president, they wouldn't pick an issue that their own base would oppose at a visceral level. No, I believe that this deal is simply one in the long line of moves where the only motive is the greed of Bush and his friends. Since he is a lame duck, he doesn't give a shit about other Republican candidates who are trying to get reelected.

[Call me Deacon Blues]

5. I think we need to quit trying to "capitalize" on things

We need do what's right. That's it. What's right is to oppose Port-O-POTUS. And not to knuckle under to Frist & Hastert & their toadying to Bush; it's incredible to me that someone like Frist who, while a slimey bastard is a slimey intelligent bastard and it must make him vomit a little in his mouth every time he has to kow-tow to that smug, witless son of a bitch. Nevertheless, they WILL force this abrogation of our national security for money, pure and simple. We should fight it. Period. Any political gain is a side issue. Folks, this is why our country is so fucked now -- our leaders are ONLY concerned about politics. That's the reason we've lost the Supreme Court. That's the reason we have Vichy Dems like Lieberman. If we do what's right instead of what's expedient, we will win. Not until then.