It worked last time, didn’t it?

250,000 Arab americans in NJ. Menedez has a 36% approval ratings..and will be running against Keane jr. another 06 race.

Peter your corporate analogy is weak. Insert the phrase ‘Arab-owned’ before all your corporate references.

The campaign commercial that is already being planned:

Every uniformed Officer and high ranking intel Officer stating that the UAE is essential in the GWOT and that they have been a steadfast ally, citing all the examples of their support. Followed by every Senator who is opposed, making some crazy anti Arab statement about their unwillingness to trust ANY Arab government.

The closing voice-over:

“Who do you trust to defend our National Security?”

Military v. Dems in 06, which is what Rove has always wanted.

Yes, and the reason you didn’t hear about them was because there was no political angle to discussing it in the first place. I don’t think this deal should have ever moved beyond the discovery phase (of which the tone – deaf Bush administration did a failing effort on), but the quick denunciations from some on the left feel all – too – familiar as just more piling on these days.

Fargus, I know you made the distinction of saying state-owned, but say P&O was owned bythe British government. Would you be up in arms about that? I’m guessing probably not. It seems to me the issue of foreign ownership, state or not, is a red herring. It’s all a question of which foreign nation. I think everyone would agree that we wouldn’t want a company owned by the Iranian government running our ports. For that matter, I doubt many people would want a company owned by Iranian private investors running our ports either.

The reason the UAE deal is controversial is it falls somewhere in between Britain and Iran. Depending on whose essay you read, they’re either a vital ally and a nation more devoted to doing business than preaching Islamofascism, or they’re a shadowy emirate that plays both sides of the fence. I’m certainly not expert enough on the region to say for sure which interpretation is correct, and I’m pretty darn sure most of the politicians who are pronouncing so authoritatively on the matter don’t know what they’re talking about either. For that reason, I think Congressional hearings might be good, if only to educate people on the situation, and stop some of the grandstanding.

As for hypocrisy, would it be all right to say we shouldn’t hire individual Arabs to work at ports, just because they’re Arab? I think if you say that’s wrong, it’s hard to then turn around and say the employee can be Arab, but the guy who signs his paycheck can’t be.

1) His argument rests on the statement that “Democrats loudly denounce any thought of racial profiling.” Some do and some don’t. The organizations which oppose it are the ACLU, NAACP, and other advocacy groups. Post 9/11, there is no consensus among Democrats one way or the other.

2) He then conflates racial profiling with the ports issue, which is a false analogy. Individual rights are much different (and much broader) than corporate rights, especially for foreign companies. You could make a case that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect one against racial profiling, but no such case exists on behalf of corporations. Hence one can oppose racial profiling and the ports contract without being inconsistent or a “rank hypocrite.”

3) Krauthammer concludes by agreeing that the Democrats who oppose the contract are correct in objecting to it, although the implication is that they take the position for partisan reasons (to be to the right of Bush) and not for the profound reasoning which Krauthammer offers. It’s a cheap shot: what he is saying is that even though the Democrats are right, they’re wrong.