The only reason she is even in Congress is because Rudy got sick and had to withdraw his name. She was down something crazy in the polls when that happened, about 20-30 points iirc. And that's in New York, the state where she is probably viewed more favorably than anywhere in the country.

On the national stage, she would be a disaster. There are states where she wouldn't get 25 percent of the popular vote. But because of the nomination process, and the blinders the Democratic elite are wearing, there's a decent chance she could get nominated. That would be one of the worst ideas in politics, and a lot of people who need to lose their jobs would have a lot of egg on their face.

I'm not the biggest Hillary fan but...

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 7-8, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. LV = likely voters

.
"I'm going to read the names of several individuals or groups. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of someone, please just say so. Hillary Clinton."

Favorable Unfavorable Never Heard of/Unsure
% % %
2/7-8/06 49 44 8

Right now, Bush wouldn't mind those numbers.

Looking at the entirety of that survey, her numbers are stronger than they were in 04, but still pretty weak. If she runs as the exact opposite of Bush it might not be an historic ass-kicking. If she runs the way Kerry ran, she might not win a single state.

one thing is for sure....Playing the Hillery card would be the Big gamble. Throwing all of the cards on the table in one play.

Why argue if you are so rooted in political ideals (not just this topic, but health care; and not just you, people like Bubba, Flasch)?

i just vomited in my mouth that I got compared to Bubba. A little bit, right in the back of my throat.


oh, yeah, cuz this is a democracy still, and this board is like my family so why not?

I'm not a huge Hillary fan, and I would think that it's a bad idea to nominate a moderate who is seen as a liberal, compared to the other way around. And I challendge the assertion, but any state that Hillary wouldn't get 25% of the vote is one that the Dems wouldn't win anyway. I'm also not sure why you say that she is most popular in NY.

If someone has a persuasive argument for something, I am willing to re-evaluate where I stand. But a persuasive argument /= saying France's unemployment is because of nationalized healthcare.

Back to the port deal.

Here is the text of a letter sent to Bush by Rep. Sue Myrick(R)

No, nationalized health care is part of it. It's the extremely high tax rate.

The Bush Doctrine:
I think that is the cognitive dissonance that is creating a lot of the conservative backlash to this and forcing them away from the knee-jerk acceptance of whatever Bush proposes.

Regarding the Rumsfeld bit here. I don't think Rumsfeld was legally required to review anything. A committee that he is part of, was to review the deal, and apparently did so. Nothing is said about requiring the Sec. Def. to be directly involved in the process. Honestly I do think that it is normal for something like this to be cleared by several governmental agencies without appearing on the radar of either the Sec. of Def. or the President.

The required forty five day investigation period would seem to be in order though. I'm not sure why there would be any opposition for that process.

i think with the atmosphere were in today, admittedly the admin. exclaims the war on terror all the time and rightfully so, this shouldve been on Rumsfeld's radar and if it wasnt then someone below him made a mistake by not informing him. The same for the Pres. Id be willing to bet that behind closed doors theyre now saying the same thing.

It amuses me that Bush uses Arab sentiments as a rationale for this. He has used terrorism and national security as a bludgeon for 4 years and with his disregard for international law, international treaties, international allies, and even domestic law, his foreign policy can be distilled down to, "Fuck you", and now we have to allow the UAE to control our ports or we might offend someone.

Nicely put, I couldn't agree with you more...

Islamofacism?

Maybe they can make the boats run on time.

I wonder how long will it take before people realize electing this man was a mistake? Do people love their grand kids? Don't you all want them to have a nice future?

Bush and I finally agree on something:
So true, so true.

it is kinda wierd that all the time its, "Security on the forefront, security is on the front burner, etc." but Then Chertoff comes out and sayd we have to balance security with global trade, and the admin is putting out sound bites about security not being a concern in this affair, etc. Im not saying that security isnt a concern, cuz I dont beliebe any pres. would want us to be attacked, but it is kinda a new type of speak....it confuses me.

I don't understand it, either. Some subtlety is eluding me.

its being delayed so that it can receive a closer look which is probably best for everyone, at this point.

Honestly I hope they come up with a way to investigate this so the congressman all have good access to data and information regarding the transaction.

I would love to see a list of every congressman's current position right now. And after 45 days, I want to see if/how the list changes based on their assessments of the investigation and why. I'd like each congressman to right a report in their own words what effect the new investigative process has on them versus their old stance.

Let's make these guys earn their paychecks and report back to the American people their findings.

i dont foresee any information coming out that would make me think that any foreign country should run anything on our borders AND any that have flown under the radar in the past and have done so should have those contracts reneged and American companies should be given those responsibilities. Those companies or in this case that country, would be handling the loading and offloading of containers and that, to me, is enough reason right there.

Here is why I think the government should be doing it and not even an American company: corporations and governments have different priorities. Sure we like to think that corporations will put country first, but that is not always the case. Corporations exist to make a profit (and that's a good thing) not to put the best interests of the country first. That is why we need environmental laws, that is why Halliburton is involved in a ton of overcharging scandals. Left to their own devices, corporations have a tendency to cut corners to increase the bottom line, especially if that is something that flies below the radar, something like port security.

But a company owned by people that used to pal around with Osama? I think that is way too much.

Here is the problem, even if they aren't "in charge of" security, they still have access to it. And like I said before, I'm sure the UAE is good people, but it only takes one person to screw us.

This is going to be a fascinating thing to watch to see who backs down first, the President or the GOP congressmen. This thing only has 17% approval, and it is the congressmen who are coming up for election in a couple months, so my guess is it would have to be the President. We'll see!

When I first read the title, I thought it said "POL - Our sports under UAE control? Now that would be scary!

First time i could get online today....

That loud noise you heard was the explosion at the White House. The Coast Guard, the one's in CHARGE of the security raised GRAVE concerns over this deal, and still the White House didnt apply the THEN mandatory 45 day review. Big Problems ahead for this Administration and anyone attached to it. Many people have defended this deal stating that the Coast Guard handles security so to quote Bush, "Dont worry about your security." but when the Coast Guard then raises the concern, id say the White House is absolutely full of shit on this one. This administration's priorities, now that theyre truly out in the open, are flawed ESPECIALLY when compared to what we sold the public when they went to the polls.

Reading over the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, it's clear that the port owners have a good deal to do with security. Saying that the Coast Guard is in charge of security at the ports is like saying that the FBI is in charge of security at banks. Sure, the FBI goes after bank robbers, but the day-to-day security at a bank is handled privately by the bank. Besides, it's just common sense: at a port, do you see Coast Guard guys everywhere on the docks? No, you see a lot of security personnel.

Though, as Jon Stewart said on Larry King tonight, I don't see how they could do a worse job than the only 5% of containers that are presently inspected. Unless you really do think that DPW has become a leading contractor for running ports around the world so that it could get into the US to perform terrorist acts (in which case, get the tinfoil off your head).

I'm getting ready to have Flasch and Giggles fitted for Tin Foil Caps. Not really. I understand your guys' opinion, I just think the degree of your concern is unjustified.

I think this whole thing is being seriously blown out of proportion just because of the origin/nationality of the corporation involved. I believe this kind of thing is fairly commonplace, and that realistically this deal won't place this country in any greater danger than it was a month ago.

Seriously if you think this is such a big deal, what the hell is wrong with performing a thorough search on the 25 year old Arab Male flying alone, rather than my 75 year old mother travelling with a grand-child? In my mind the type of profiling I'm describing makes more sense.

That said. I don't know why the White House has such a bee in their bonnett regarding this deal. Are they reacting to the fact that their opponents are capitalizing on the story because they know it will have traction with the masses? Are they trying to cover their ass, because the matter wasn't thoroughly looked into? Are they upset that critics of the deal are essentially saying that the Admin didn't even do their due dilligence, and figure that by threatening a veto they are simply showing that they are standing behind the branches of the administration involved in the deal's approval? Are they helping some cronie fund his retirement by slipping the deal through?

When I examine their potential motives none of the sinister options seem to really hold water. I think they are backing up the branches of the administration that approved the deal. I don't know why they were opposed to the mandatory additional 45 day investigative period, but I honestly don't think that anything will turn up that will quash this deal. Unless, of couse, it is public opinion. But then again what the hell does the public know, there are lots of states whose populations have overwhelmingly voted to write discriminatory language right into their constitutions.

I can't speak for everyone, but if you read my opinion you would know that I am not in favor of any corporation operating the ports, and definitely not in favor of any foriegn corporation, so this point doesn't have any effect on the validity of my argument.

Hi, I'm the real answer. I was posted a couple of pages ago, only 7 posts into the thread, tho you seem to have missed me.

SI

my concerns were voiced by the Coast Guard, although the secret commission says those concerns were vetted....BUT unfortunately Susan Collins (R) doesnt think so, as of today. Glen, our concerns are for Homeland Security, shouldnt the 9/11 pres. be too?

I heard McCain on the radio this morning say the deal was not for a PORT but for a TERMINAL. I confess I don't understand what the difference is.

Just to restate two of the biggest problems:


I have yet to hear a good explanation of why Snow & Rumsfeld, who are supposed to sit on this committee, didn't know about the deal until the Press told them about it.


We know that 9/11 operatives & money flowed through Dubai's banking system. We know that nuclear materials from Pakistan flowed through U.A.E. on their way to Iran, Libya & North Korea.

Now, the Coast Guard has raised these points, but the Bush Administration is telling us that these issues were "addressed". How, exactly?

They got their tax cut, and a couple of ringers on the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade. I think they don't care about anything else.

See: None of the sinister motives seem to hold any water.

My feeling is that we really don't know how security might even be compromised. It just seems obvious on face value, but I'm not sure there is any substance beneath that concern. I honestly think this kind of thing is commonplace. This particular deal just happens to hit on a few hot button topics like ports, post 9-11 security, and the involvement of an Arab company/nation.

I'm not on the bandwagon saying this deal should have been run through without review. My position is essentially neutral towards it. If I see something beyond the fact that this is an Arab company that shows there is a security risk, then I'll stand in line with you guys in opposition. It's just that right now I haven't seen anything that didn't stem directly from the fear that the company in question is Arab.


As for Bigglesworth's sentiment that the Government should be doing this...I really think that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner. If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like getting supplies into New Orleans the day after Katrina.

Glen, would you allow nuclear power station and nuclear warhead security to be outsourced to a foreign company? If not, what is the difference? You say that private enterprise has shown they can fulfill this function in an exemplary manner, yet port security got F's nearly across the board in the recent 9/11 Commission report. If getting F's are "exemplary", what grade would you consider bad enough to say that maybe things coule be improved?

It's a weak argument to use an incompetent organization as the model for all types of the same organization. This is like me saying, "If we let the Government take over, getting an imported product would be like buying stock in Enron right before the crash." If there is one thing that conservatives think the government does well, it is security.

There is an inherent security risk just in the fact that only 4% of cargo is checked to begin with. So on that fact alone you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with me. This is a move in the wrong direction, we should swing the pendulum regarding port security in the other direction.

Actually I have no trouble with privately owned Nuclear Power Stations. Aren't they all privately owned now as it is? Nuclear Warheads...well those are weapons, and therefore under the responsibility of the Dept of Defense(I'd guess), so what you describe would be pretty much as absurd event.

I'm not talking about private enterprise having an exemplary performance at providing security. That isnt' their job. These companies manage operations loading and unloading ships in an orderly and efficient manner. If you think they aren't doing that impressively well, then I think you aren't paying much attention.

The example of Katrina is relevant. Government manages through beaureaucracy, and I don't think that model works when applied to mechanisms that need to run lean and efficiently. Private enterprise has done a good job to this point. I don't see any reason to change that now.

Glen:

I had more to write here but now that POL threads are in the crosshairs Im scared. I need to post in some non-pol threads to get my ratio down.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_go_ot/ports_security
They do start the article with but they also add So I'm not sure what the problem is, or why the AP leads the report in the most inflammatory way possible.I'll agree that port security is not very good, but other than baseless profiling against Arabs, how is this a move in the wrong direction? And don't give me the "2 9/11 hijackers came from there and money moved through Dubai's financial center" as proof the UAE supports terrorism. That would be almost as ludicrous as me saying that because Richard Reid was from Britain and some money went through London's financial centers to al-Qaeda that P&O should not have been given control. Especially when the only alternative was a company from Singapore buying the ports in question. Even more so when you consider that Saudi Arabia already controls port operations in more than one port in the US.

I still don't understand the difference between 'port' and 'terminal.'

bishop

however at the boards today the 2nd in command at homeland security, who signed off on the deal, hadnt even heard about the letter until yesterday and therefore could not have had their issues addressed prior to their vote!! IT simply doesnt make sense and it is spinning out of control.

PLUS on the same day that this was approved a former head of the UAE company was appointed to the post that would oversee whom, his former company....coincidence perhaps but you cant have the police investigate the police or you get skewed results.

Sure I think they/we need to do better. I agree with you there.

That said

Other than the fact that this company is from Dubai, is there one single reason that you think they will handle security any differently than the company that is doing it now? Or even one single reason that makes it evident that they are a bigger security risk than the present foreign company? I'm looking for an answer that doesn't boil down to "We can't trust the Arabs"

A port is a large complex with several terminals loading and unloading ships. A port is akin more to a geographic location, and the terminals specific destinations located near one another.


This message brought to you straight from my ass.

Glen: Let me try.

1) The UAE royal family has had extensive contact with Bin Laden.

2) The UAE banking system was used to launder money for the 9/11 attacks.

3) The UAE ports have been used as a central point to distribute nuclear info/material from AQ Khan to Iran, Libya, and N. Korea.

4) According to the CIA we actually cancelled an attack on Bin Laden because he was with too many members of the UAE royal family at the time.

5) The Coast Guard expressed concerns about the UAE running the ports specifically saying it would be easy to hide money transfers and get travel visas without the proper checks.

6) Much like other totaliatarian states, one revolution could put our ports under the control of extremists.

7) When a foriegn government controls our ports it makes it very hard for us to negotiate honestly and evenly.

8) We made secret deals with the UAE regarding port control so that they are more shielded from U.S. legal action against them.