Monday, February 27, 2006
THE PUBLIC JUST DOESN'T LIKE IT
It has been covered here, but I had no idea it had gotten this bad -- my mother told me last night that their heads hurt; it's all that's being discussed. But the half-funny part is that nearly everyone is yelling IN AGREEMENT, opposed to the views of the President.
The latest from The A.P.:
General rule: A president may get divisive or unpopular measures through a divided Congress, thanks to support from enough members of his own party, or some combination of members of both parties. That is clearly not the case in this matter. And no president has any chance of getting something which virtually the ENTIRE Congress opposes vigorously. The BBC tells us:
It is not just politicians who seem opposed, but also ordinary members of the public. I have even seen the opposition to the deal described as an American version of a cartoon riot. As semi-interesting as that comparison might be, it is not appropriate. Democratic voters are always fully entitled to tell their elected officials they oppose a proposal, and opposition does not equate with rioting.
What is more interesting to me is this. This episode has blindsided the administration. That's incredibly ironic, given that the administration has spent the better part of the last 5 years telling people to be always ever alert. Well, in this case, the public thinks they are.
Thus the President now sees how "perpetual alert status" may sometimes have unforeseen consequences. My mother said she saw Tony Blankley of the Washington Times term it a feeling in the gut, and he noted that the widespread opposition is such that there is just no going against the public on this one. So it is natural that politicians in both parties are now (of course for their own reasons, but they would not be so opposed if the public weren't) reflecting that gut reaction.
So unless something drastically changes, the administration will ultimately lose. A big question is this: What were members of the administration thinking which might have led them to believe the public would not find this deal troubling?
UPDATE: Debbye at Being American in T.O. points out:
And very interesting this also:
I don't think so. ¶ by Robert, Monday, February 27, 2006
It has been covered here, but I had no idea it had gotten this bad -- my mother told me last night that their heads hurt; it's all that's being discussed. But the half-funny part is that nearly everyone is yelling IN AGREEMENT, opposed to the views of the President.
The latest from The A.P.:
The Bush administration will conduct a highly unusual second review of potential security risks in a business deal it previously approved for a United Arab Emirates-based company to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports.
The new, 45-day investigation is aimed at averting an impending political showdown as Congress returned to Washington on Monday from a weeklong break.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who helped negotiate the plan, quickly recommended that lawmakers wait for the outcome before acting on legislation to delay or block the deal. Frist, R-Tenn., said he expects oversight hearings to continue this week...
The new, 45-day investigation is aimed at averting an impending political showdown as Congress returned to Washington on Monday from a weeklong break.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who helped negotiate the plan, quickly recommended that lawmakers wait for the outcome before acting on legislation to delay or block the deal. Frist, R-Tenn., said he expects oversight hearings to continue this week...
General rule: A president may get divisive or unpopular measures through a divided Congress, thanks to support from enough members of his own party, or some combination of members of both parties. That is clearly not the case in this matter. And no president has any chance of getting something which virtually the ENTIRE Congress opposes vigorously. The BBC tells us:
...Republican and Democrat politicians have criticised the transaction, which would hand control of six US ports to the United Arab Emirates firm, claiming it would make the country more vulnerable to terrorism...
It is not just politicians who seem opposed, but also ordinary members of the public. I have even seen the opposition to the deal described as an American version of a cartoon riot. As semi-interesting as that comparison might be, it is not appropriate. Democratic voters are always fully entitled to tell their elected officials they oppose a proposal, and opposition does not equate with rioting.
What is more interesting to me is this. This episode has blindsided the administration. That's incredibly ironic, given that the administration has spent the better part of the last 5 years telling people to be always ever alert. Well, in this case, the public thinks they are.
Thus the President now sees how "perpetual alert status" may sometimes have unforeseen consequences. My mother said she saw Tony Blankley of the Washington Times term it a feeling in the gut, and he noted that the widespread opposition is such that there is just no going against the public on this one. So it is natural that politicians in both parties are now (of course for their own reasons, but they would not be so opposed if the public weren't) reflecting that gut reaction.
So unless something drastically changes, the administration will ultimately lose. A big question is this: What were members of the administration thinking which might have led them to believe the public would not find this deal troubling?
_____________________________
UPDATE: Debbye at Being American in T.O. points out:
...last week was a sorry example of our ability to differentiate between the war on terror and fear of all things Arab. I am referring, of course, to the sensationalist fear-mongering over the sale of a British company to a company run out of the UAE and both Democrats and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. I'm just a private citizen and even I know that security at ports is run by federal agencies not private ones, so why don't U.S. Senators? As someone quipped, "We're all racial profilers now."...
And very interesting this also:
...Has everyone already picked up on the fact that the same company that has raised such alarms in the U.S. already leases a container facility in Vancouver?...
I don't think so. ¶ by Robert, Monday, February 27, 2006
