[Mb-civic] Republican Port Politics - Robert D. Novak - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Republican Port Politics

By Robert D. Novak
Monday, February 27, 2006; A15

It was no surprise that Sen. Charles Schumer, a fiercely partisan 
Democrat always hunting for political advantage, ignited the furor over 
management of America's ports. But why did congressional leaders of 
George W. Bush's own party join the attack?

A second-term president hovering around 40 percent in popular approval 
ratings cannot expect full support on sensitive issues, even from his 
own party. But Bush contributed to the lack of Republican backing with 
faulty White House outreach to Capitol Hill, followed by his injudicious 
veto threat against still-undefined legislation.

Beyond the Bush political operation's shortcomings, deeper problems are 
reflected by overwhelming public opposition to a company owned by the 
government of a close Arab ally operating U.S. ports. Polls suggest the 
darker side of the American mind: isolationist, protectionist, nativist 
and xenophobic. Bush's ceaseless efforts to rouse his countrymen to 
support the war against terrorism may have unleashed the dogs of 
anti-Arab prejudice.

The firestorm over whether Dubai Ports World should be permitted to 
replace a British company in control of U.S. ports is unexpected largess 
for Democrats, who are desperate to regain control of Congress this 
year. Left-wing Democrats, led by Schumer and Sen. Hillary Clinton, seek 
the opportunity to trump Bush and the Republicans on their strong suit 
of national security. Newly appointed Sen. Robert Menendez, a less than 
appealing candidate shown by early polls to be trailing in the 
Democratic bastion of New Jersey, jumped into the fight against the port 
deal.

Republicans hurriedly joined the attack on the United Arab Emirates, an 
indispensable U.S. ally in the Middle East. Rep. Vito Fossella, 
suggesting that the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge in his New York City 
district was imperiled by UAE management of the ports, compared the deal 
to letting Arabs control security at American airports. In fact, the 
Dubai company would not affect U.S. government security, and the ports 
would remain under state and local ownership. Rep. Peter King, the new 
Homeland Security Committee chairman, has acted as though he wanted 
immediate House action by suspending the rules.

It is not merely New Yorkers King and Fossella and other lawmakers with 
ports in their districts who have spoken out. In South Dakota, far from 
salt water, freshman Sen. John Thune said Arab management of the ports 
gave him "heartburn." With Congress in recess, Thune typified lawmakers 
encountering massive public resistance back home. That mood was 
generated by the feeding frenzy on cable television and the Internet 
that, in turn, was triggered by bipartisan congressional attacks.

Deputy Secretary Robert Kimmitt, an experienced Washington hand, is in 
charge of regulating foreign acquisitions at the Treasury Department and 
didn't give a heads-up to top Republicans in Congress. House Speaker 
Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist might have been 
less quick to attack the port arrangement if they'd had advance word. 
Hastert heard nothing from a former staffer, Kevin Fromer, now handling 
Treasury legislative affairs.

When the Democrats first opened fire, presidential counselor Dan 
Bartlett was alerted by congressional Republicans to stormy waters ahead 
and urged to do something about it. Bartlett replied in the imperial 
style of this presidency by suggesting he hoped Republicans could 
support the deal, but if they could not, it just would be too bad. That 
was followed by the president's rare session with reporters aboard Air 
Force One in which he threatened a veto.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), whose Banking Committee has jurisdiction 
over the issue, was silent at first, but only because he was traveling 
in Europe. When he issued a brief, limited-circulation statement 
Thursday, it was not good news for the White House. "From Treasury's 
perspective," he said, "the [foreign acquisitions] process with respect 
to the Dubai transaction worked perfectly; from the Banking Committee's 
perspective, it failed miserably." He set hearings for Thursday that 
will not be pleasant.

The rest of the world may wonder how a relatively routine commercial 
transaction turned Republican leaders against their president. Frank 
McKenna, the Canadian ambassador, who is leaving Washington this week, 
has cracked the code by appreciating the existence of two U.S. 
governments, one executive and the other legislative. That system 
requires more presidential finesse than was displayed in handling the 
Dubai contract.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601406.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060227/ed61d706/attachment-0001.htm