I knew Republicans were scared about the November midterms, but it was not until the theatrical uproar over the Dubai Ports World deal that it became clear exactly how scared they are, and how much they feel a need to separate themselves from their president.
The “Hell No” letter to the president by North Carolina Congresswoman Sue Myrick had the feel of a Sistah Souljah moment for the congressional GOP. The White House, blindsided by the furor, made the calculation that it was better to allow the Bush to be seen as out of touch -- "He did not know about the deal until it was done" -- rather than have people think that he was in bed with the Arabs, for fear that they will turn out to be terrorists.
The result, thus far, is a White House on the defensive, a congressional GOP that appears to be coming apart, and Democrats, always eager for a political opportunity on the terrorism front, piling on.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, who also happens to chair the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has said that his fear, if the deal went through, is that terrorists would infiltrate Dubai Ports World and use these positions to blow stuff up or commit other acts of terror. “These new revelations ask more questions than they answer," he said in typically dramatic Schumer fashion.
This is a hysterical moment in Washington, and Democrats need to be wary of it. There is no question that Bush has played into the Democrats' hand on this one, especially when he threatened to veto any effort to stop the deal. (After having gone longer than any president in history without a presidential veto, this is what he would use it for? That's political roadkill.)
But Democrats, always looking for an entrée into the homeland security/anti-terror debate -- where they have so much trouble with the footing -- have been harping on the port security issue for years now: They have argued that while Bush started a questionable war in Iraq that may or may not be effective against international terror, he has done nothing to improve safety at home. The nation's ports, rail systems, and vulnerable utilities, they argue, have not been fortified and remain easy targets. That, they say, is homeland insecurity.
Against that backdrop, it would have been hard for them to resist the revelations about an Arab, state-owned company running American ports, but they should have. The story reeks. At best it is a tale of rank political opportunism on the part of both Republicans and Democrats; at worst it is a monumental instance of racial profiling. Both sides are calculating that American voters are going to react poorly to the idea of Dubai Ports World operating in American shipping terminals. Even if they are right, it is a cynical calculation. And more than likely, they will be proven wrong. Americans have grown used to the idea of rich foreigners running big U.S. operations.
So if the political battle turns into a face-off between a principled, if out-of-the-loop, president and a politically opportunistic Congress, it's not going to be hard to pick the winner.
For Democrats, the good news is that they have options, and not especially bad ones. First, they could do nothing, shut up, and let the GOP fear machine run its course. Worried, over-reacting Republicans, acting as though their president is leading them off the cliff, is as good a situation as the Dems can hope for. Especially when the GOP seems to be on a warpath against their party's own president.
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Peter King, the moderate New York Republican, threw down the gauntlet, saying he will do everything to kill the deal. At least on this issue, King is in sync with the more conservative leaders of his party, Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. “I will fight harder than ever for this legislation,” King said, “and if it is vetoed, I will fight as hard as I can to override it.” If you're a Democrat concerned purely about the political calculus, what more do you need?
If for some reason, Democrats find it impossible to stay in their corner on this one, they ought to focus on issues of governing that allowed the president not to know that shipping operations at the largest East Coast ports were being sold to foreign investors.
Who those investors are should be a very limited part of the discussion. Because, as noted in Thursday's edition of USA Today, the Dubai Ports World deal “…merely is the latest example of a decades-long trend in which foreign interests have become heavily involved in U.S. institutions the government now considers targets for terrorism …”
The question is whether Ports of Dubai is any more risky than any of the South Korean, Japanese, Chinese, British, and German companies that now operate in the U.S. in terror “sensitive” arenas. But in some ways this chicken is coming home to roost for the GOP, because, as Karl Rove has said, we live in a post-9-11 world -- and therefore we are supposed to be scared.
Well, who's scared now?
Terence Samuel is a political writer in Washington, D.C.
