Wednesday, February 22, 2006

In which the Democrats bat the bunny around

It seems pretty clear that the decision by the Bush Administration to hand over control of several U.S. ports to a state-owned business from the United Arab Emirates is going to be a political loser. Democrats and Republicans are both oppposed.

But why are Dems hitting this particular issue getting so much harder than some of the other soft spots in the Republican Death Star?

I mean, there's the domestic wiretapping issue, the debacle that is Medicare and the drug bill, the truly awful idea of health savings accounts and a dizzying array of Congressional corruption scandals, none of which is bipartisan in nature.

The frustration and helplessness is like watching a good friend who can't get girls to pay any attention to him.

Everyone has that friend. Oh, he's a great guy. Smart, funny once you get to know him. Maybe a little shy. Usually, he's coming off a heartbreak, or a bad breakup or 12 years as a totally ineffective opposition party. You go out, he sees a girl. You can tell he thinks she's cute. But despite your offer to buy every round the rest of the night if he goes over and talks to her, no matter how bad he gets shot down, he remains in his seat. And next thing you know, she's picking out songs on the jukebox with some douche in a corduroy blazer.

Or maybe even he gets to the point where he asks a girl out. She says yes. And it's on, until you find out the next day that they went to dinner, got one beer afterward, and he was home in time for the 11 o' clock "Seinfeld."

What's a good wingman/progressive voter to do? I don't know, frankly. All I know is I'm getting sick of watching elected Democrats be the guy in the PG-13 movie everyone's really hoping makes it happen.

I mean, they've got these claws, and they're just staring at them. While the bunny shivers in the corner and Republicans spill Scotch all over the Constitution.

Meanwhile, if the Democrats keep taking themselves out of the game, talking about puppy dogs and ice cream, well, you know it's going to end up somewhere on the theocratic-plutocracy tip.

6 comments:

CrimeNotes said...

This is the first situation, ever, where I agree 100% with George W.

CrimeNotes said...

More here ...

http://www.boomantribune.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/2/21/3280/79427

I started a post about this and got in over my head.

double entendre said...

Why is Flop writing political commentary?

CrimeNotes said...

I don't know, but I thought that it was quite good.

Flop said...

Oh, I have no doubt that the xenophobia and fear-mongering that will sprout up because of this will leave us all feeling icky and a little bit nauseated. Kind of like if we'd gotten a full-body hug from Britney Spears.

But I wasn't addressing the policy, just the politics. As for the policy, there's two issues here. One is giving operational control of the port to a state-owned company from any part of the world. This deal appears to have been rubber-stamped. Second, if the Bush administration is willing to go to the mats for government privatization in any way, don't you kind of figure we should be skeptical, if not downright suspicious?

(Disclaimer: These arguments presuppose knowledge of the issue and above and beyond what's contained in my post and/or the movie "Swingers.")

Flop said...

I just read the piece referenced by C-notes in reply 2. It's very good. And dead-on about the underfunding and general neglect given to port security by the Bush administration.

I think I'm going to come out of this whole thing sickened and disappointed that Democrats won't stand up for the Constitution, but will go knee-deep into the world of knee-jerk xenophobia for a clear winner on which they'll face no pushback from Republicans (a.k.a. against the computer with the offsides turned off.)