[Mb-civic] Republican Breakdown - David S. Broder - Washington Post Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Republican Breakdown

By David S. Broder
The Washington Post
Friday, March 10, 2006; A19

At the beginning of this year, or even a month ago, no one would have 
guessed that a routine business transaction between two foreign-based 
firms would prove to be the lever for breaking up the governing 
Republican coalition in Washington.

But that is exactly what happened in the eruption of political protest 
over the proposed takeover of cargo operations at six U.S. ports by 
Dubai Ports World from the London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam 
Navigation Co.

Congressional Republicans, spurred by what members describe as a wave of 
grass-roots protest, were poised to block the sale despite President 
Bush's insistence that it be allowed to go forward. Yesterday the Dubai 
company said it would pull out of the American ports deal.

Before that, the conflict brought to the surface deep-seated resentments 
from the Capitol end of Pennsylvania Avenue toward the people around the 
president -- and, surprisingly, toward Bush himself. The harmony that 
had prevailed during most of Bush's tenure -- the deference that a 
Republican-controlled Congress has generally shown to his wishes -- 
disappeared. Even the normal circumspection with which congressional 
Republicans treat the White House withered in the unexpected heat of 
this dispute.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, a committee chairman, told The Post, "This 
is probably the worst administration ever in getting Congress's opinion 
on anything."

The rebellion was fueled by talk radio and cable TV commentators 
stressing that the proposed new operators are based in the United Arab 
Emirates. White House efforts to point out that the UAE has been an ally 
in the war on terrorism and has provided important logistical support to 
the Navy did not quiet the uproar, and an offer to begin an additional 
45-day security review of the deal came too late to reverse the tide of 
public opinion.

Even before the ports deal broke into the news, congressional 
Republicans were beginning to signal their inclination to go their own 
way, regardless of White House wishes. Despite six months of 
salesmanship by the president last year, his proposal for introducing 
private accounts into Social Security never caught on with the public, 
and as a result it never even came up for a vote in the House and Senate.

The Bush budget proposals struggled throughout the year and finally were 
approved only in an overtime session. But this ports issue was striking 
because it tested Bush's political credibility on what had been his 
strongest front: national security.

His reputation in that area has been damaged by the continuing strife in 
Iraq, a nation that, according to this week's Post-ABC News poll, 80 
percent of Americans believe is headed for civil war.

In a pointed comment on the proposed ports deal, House Speaker Dennis 
Hastert said of Congress, "We will continue to use our best judgment on 
how to protect the American people." He left the clear implication that 
Bush was not necessarily doing that.

Democrats were understandably gleeful at the spectacle of the 
Republicans fighting among themselves, especially over what is purported 
to be a national security issue. Partisan Democrats such as Sen. Charles 
Schumer of New York, the head of his party's Senate campaign committee, 
jumped on the ports issue quickly -- hardly expecting that the 
Republicans would be scrambling for space aboard the bandwagon.

Now the Democrats are broadening the argument, claiming that the Dubai 
deal is another example of the White House being unaware of, or 
incapable of anticipating, serious problems -- whether they involve the 
insurgency in Iraq or the levees in New Orleans.

But before the Democrats get too gleeful, they ought to ponder the 
nativist sentiment that was also fueling this populist rebellion. Some 
portion of the antagonism stemmed directly from the fact that this is an 
Arab-based company.

Another Post poll reported this week that more than 2 out of 5 of those 
surveyed said they had recently heard negative comments about Arabs. 
Attitudes toward Muslims, the survey said, are even more negative now 
than immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The same nativist spirit poisons the current debate about immigration. 
Talking to public officials recently from states such as Minnesota and 
Illinois -- far from the southern border -- I heard blunt expressions of 
the negative public reaction to the changing demographics of rural and 
suburban communities that have received many new immigrants.

Liberals such as Schumer ought to reflect that they are playing with 
fire when they help stoke this fever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/09/AR2006030902290.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060310/652a9c53/attachment-0001.htm