House Republicans to try to block ports deal - Republicans Out

front on this. Everyone thinks it is the republicans fighting this more than the democrats. The republicans know how to be very vocal and grab hold of an issue. Bush is not running again so he doesn't care.

=====================================================================================================

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republican leaders on Tuesday embraced legislation that would block a Dubai-owned company from taking over operations at several U.S. ports, brushing aside a veto threat from President Bush.
"We want to make sure that the security of our ports are in America's hands," said Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., whose House Appropriations Committee planned to approve the measure Wednesday.

The move marks the latest step in a Republican revolt in Congress unlike any other in Bush's five years in office. The president has yet to veto any legislation, and GOP leaders have been careful to avoid sending him anything that he wouldn't sign.

Now, eight months before an election, they have decided to challenge him.

"We're not going to let the Democrats get to the right of us on national security," Republican Rep. Peter King, the House Homeland Security Committee chairman, said recently.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-ports-deal_x.htm

What better way to shore up the troops for November than by showing they are still the stronger party on national security. This stinks to high heaven.

It would have ripped the facade off their "war on terror" operation and threatened
their agenda.

I doubt national security was ever a real issue -- I gather that U.S. port security
practice is a junk-yard operation compared with security in Dubai or Hong Kong or Singapore.

The deal was just an opening for the RW to resurect the "Arab Terrorist" bogey-man
just in time for the November election. Bush is not running for office. He is the fall
guy. We are so focused on hating Bush, we take our eyes off what is really going on --
mid-term elections and the future of congress.

But if the deal goes through, and the Democrats get a backbone - they're out of office in November. That would be a beautiful campaign slogan for the Dems. If only they would use them.

CORRECT and BETTER at National Security and the fact is the Dems have always been strong on National Security issues, we just have also learned that sometimes a bit of honey wins more friends and influences more people then vinegar (not to mention it's easier on the National Debt and involves less cut backs to necessary assistance for schools, the working poor, veterans, seniors/disabled, etc). All you RW fascists in office truly care about is making BIG money for BIG corp and helping out your fellow rich mucky mucks. You "talk the talk" but you can't "walk the walk" for the life of you, you don't seem to know the meaning of the word "integrity". Instead of working to create and keep peace you basically piss on the world and our country which creates MORE "terrorists" not less and LESS National Security.

:grr: :nuke: :grr:

Sorry for the mini :rant:.


:hangover:

The media just isn't reporting it. They want to make the rethugs look good in an election year. :puke:

in their face.

Breaking with Bush to try and look good now after going along with every crooked thing he has wanted to do to us for the past five years. I think it's a political circus.

I like what I'm seeing. Half of the Republicans are siding with Bush, while half are trying to block the ports deal.

I would rather see the Democrats say what Edwards said on Sunday, which is 'I'd like to see our ports run by American companies.'.

Immigration and outsourcing are huge issues this year. If they could figure out how to use them it could be good day in November.

New investments in Ports increase U.S. jobs, in contrast to investments in telecom which increases Indian jobs.

My point wasn't necessarily about people losing jobs because of the port deal. It's more about framing the ports deal to address a bigger issue.