Do you think that conservative Americans ignored the ports deal when they first heard about it? Here’s a quote from the Feb 23rd Wasington Post (2 1/2 weeks ago):

“Republican lawmakers have been flooded with phone calls and letters from constituents encouraging them to fight Bush over the port deal, even at the expense of GOP unity on combating terrorism.”

http://tinyurl.com/o85r8

I can tell you this: I am absolutely not a protectionist, and I could provide as proof many quotes from my posts at Economist’s View and Cafe Hayek. But I certainly do not want companies from any Middle Eastern nation managing our seaports. Like most conservatives in the U.S., I just do not trust Arabs. You may think that makes me a bigot, but I really don’t care. My country’s security is more important to me than any label that might be placed on me.

http://tinyurl.com/o85r8

Oh and lets not forget the million $ donation to that library from the same folks either.

I can’t wait to see the photos of her campagin in 08. She will appear as Medusa and each snake head will have talking points and denial points!

Slick is really not a slippery enough adjective for either of these two.

The ports deal as of today, I’m convinced we missed a pretty darned good opportunity. We also managed as a nation to show our skirts to the world also. I too reacted upset when the news first hit. It seems rather strange, in fact still does. But the more our attorney leaders spouted off, the more I was compelled to make an attempt to understand what was really going on.

But I also feel that the names of every single congress person and senator that had something to add to the diatribe needs a new job, (perhaps a real job), this november). Yes some pretty good folks stood up and made asses outta themselves. Too bad so sad. They are paid and paid very well to THINK! When they demonstrate they can’t perform such a basic function as a homo sapien I think it’s time for them to learn the phrase, “would you like fries with that”? or maybe “Welcome to WallMart”!

ciao

John: Even if there were significant correspondence before Congress got involved – which I rather doubt – the question is *why* people in Texas “learned” about the deal, portrayed in the terms it was. I don’t think they had a similar opportunity to “learn” about ports being taken over by the British or the Australians. Did they?

In evaluating the news, the most interesting question is often “why this story, rather than some other one?” Stories get pitched, shaped, sold. This story had legs not because it made any rational sense to worry about it, but simply because it had potential as a wedge issue – a club to beat down an already unpopular president. But once you whip up a frenzy of protectionist sentiment, there’s no telling where it will stop.

I find the recent demonization of Dubai really scary.

Free trade and open immigration are our greatest protection of all, in that they foster mutual interdependence. We don’t want to destroy those we most rely on as business partners. In closing down the borders, we are rendering ourselves defenseless against warmongering tendencies on both sides – we are making war more likely, not less.

I don’t think this is protectionism at all. It is understandable fear. Had it been a Dutch company or Irish company acquiring the contracts, the deal might not have even been discussed by Congress.

Story here: http://tinyurl.com/z5qg7 ; I believe it is a free link.

To the protectionists and isolationists, of course, such distinctions do not matter. But to those who have to operate the holding company, having to divest oneself of bad assets can’t be a bad thing!