Media declare port issue over, ignore Democrats' longtime focus on port security
SUMMARY: Following Dubai Ports World's announcement that it would divest its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports, news outlets and media figures depicted Republicans as having neutralized the issue of port security. In other cases, they portrayed the Democratic opposition to the state-owned Arab firm's acquisition of the ports as purely political. But such characterizations take a narrow view of the political issues involved in the controversy, entirely ignoring differences between the two parties' broader records on this issue.
Following Dubai Ports World's (DPW) March 9 announcement that it would divest its leases to terminals at six U.S. ports, news outlets and media figures depicted Republicans as having neutralized the issue of port security. In other cases, they portrayed the Democratic opposition to the state-owned Arab firm's acquisition of the ports as purely political. But such characterizations take a narrow view of the political issues involved in the controversy, entirely ignoring differences between the two parties' broader records on this issue. Indeed, congressional Democrats have in recent years repeatedly stressed the need for greater port security and have urged Congress and the administration to act on the issue, as Media Matters for America has noted. By contrast, Republicans have regularly resisted Democratic efforts to secure U.S. ports
Since the Bush administration's approval of the DPW deal became public on February 11 and both parties declared their opposition, the media have often cast Democrats as "Johnny-come-lately's" to the issue of port security. The characterization ignores congressional Democrats' substantial track record of promoting port security. Lawmakers such as Sens. Charles Schumer (NY), Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Bill Nelson (FL), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd (WV), Ernest Hollings (SC), Rep. Jane Harman (CA) and Gov. Jon Corzine (NJ) have all put forward legislation to bolster port security.
Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, have regularly defeated these efforts to secure U.S. ports, as the Senate Democratic Policy Committee documented. In fact, many of the Senate Republicans who opposed the DPW port deal -- including Sens. Rick Santorum (PA), George Allen (VA), Susan Collins (ME), Norm Coleman (MN) and Lindsey Graham (SC), among others -- have continually voted against previous Democratic attempts to strengthen port security.
Despite this stark contrast in the two parties' records on port security, several news outlets responded to DPW's March 9 announcement by asserting that Republicans, in their opposition to the deal, appeared to have neutralized any benefit the Democrats might have stood to receive from the controversy. For example, in a March 10 article on how the port controversy exacerbated the divide between President Bush and the GOP-led Congress, Washington Post staff writer Peter Baker wrote that it was doubtful the Democrats would be able to reap any political benefit from "that issue," given that Republicans were "every bit as vocal as their opponents in standing against the port deal":
The port deal has provided ammunition to Democrats who have begun making the case more broadly that Bush is in over his head. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday called the port situation a "case study in the administration's incompetence," and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) said the administration "was clearly asleep at the switch" and "bungled the oversight of this deal."
But it's not clear whether Democrats will be able to turn that issue to their benefit in the fall. Republicans on Capitol Hill were every bit as vocal as their opponents in standing against the port deal, making it harder to draw a clear distinction come campaign time. By turning against Bush, some GOP strategists believe Republican leaders may have saved themselves a worse fate.
Viewed narrowly, Baker might be right that congressional Republicans were as vociferous on the DPW issue as Democrats. But viewed more broadly, the issue of port security -- the central issue raised by critics of the DPW deal -- is one in which Democrats and Republicans have vastly different records. Baker's article entirely ignored these differences.
Appearing on the March 10 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert similarly depicted Republicans as having disposed of the port deal as an issue for this year's congressional election:
KATIE COURIC (co-host): But eight months is a long time, Tim. Can the Democrats really continue to use this as a hot button issue? Do you think this really has legs?
RUSSERT: They will use it as a metaphor for incompetence. And what the Republicans and the Democrats say to me is that when they go out in the field and -- and poll and say, "What do you think of your congressman?" -- when they ask about a Republican congressman, they say three things: Iraq, corruption, and the ports. They have now taken care of the port deal. Corruption -- they may fine tune some legislation. Iraq is out of their control. Those three issues are front and center confronting this president and this Republican Congress.
Other news outlets singled out specific Democrats' opposition to the deal as motivated by political opportunism. A March 10 New York Post editorial questioned whether Schumer and Clinton would "show the same concern" over the broader issue of port security:
Those who worked so feverishly to block the Dubai ports deal have won.
Now let's see whether those same pols who were fulminating over foreign ownership -- Chuck Schumer? Hillary Clinton? -- show the same concern over the reality of what passes for port security.
But as noted above, both Schumer and Clinton have previously supported efforts to strengthen port security. In 2005, Clinton co-sponsored a successful amendment that provided $150 million for port security grants. She also co-sponsored a 2005 amendment to provide an additional $450 million for such grants. In 2004, Schumer proposed an amendment to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports.
Nonetheless, a March 10 Washington Times editorial characterized Schumer as a "new supposed convert to national security":
As a vignette, this episode nicely captures what we've come to observe about Mr. Schumer. In a Congress where lawmakers regularly do just about anything to get attention, he stands out for his singular capacity for self-promotion.
This new supposed convert to national security is an embarrassment. His actions discredit people who see genuine security problems with handing ports-management contracts over to a government-owned company from Dubai.
Further, on the March 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity asserted that Schumer and Clinton's opposition to the port deal "was never about homeland security or national security," but rather "about scoring some political advantage":
HANNITY: But it's interesting -- if you listen to, for example, Harry Reid and Schumer and Hillary Clinton, and the rest of them, they are still -- even though it's gone away as an issue -- well, they're still demanding a vote. Does that not prove that, for them, this was never about homeland security or national security; this was about, and always continues to be about, scoring some political advantage?
I haven't checked anything news-wise lately about the DPW deal but I thought it was interesting that i had heard an analysis of the decision of DPW to "transfer" the port control to an American-based entity.
Notice they used the language "transfer". What do they mean exactly by that. Are they going to sell their interest? Are they going to set up some sort of American based entity and transfer the management to them?
They never really say. This came from the feature I listened to about the language surrounding DPW's concession on NPR this morning..
I can understand the concern..
Just food for thought..
From the very start of the news day, that's been the talking point...
DECLARE THE DEAL DEAD
...obviously for the purposes of calming all Public concern on the matter; which can only mean that somehow...
THE DEAL IS STILL ALIVE
As for me, I'm waiting until I know for sure; I wouldn't want to eulogize this 'contract' that while it lived so threatened our Port Security, just to find out later on that the ghost of DPW is haunting our nation's Ports .
So, the GOP 'took care of the port issue'. Right. Who exactly is this "American entity". Furthermore, what exactly have the Republicans done for the country during Bush's reign -- things in the best interest of the country, that is? The only time I've heard any Republican voice an opposing opinion to Bush is this year... before the '06 elections.
And, of course the democrats are trying to score political advantage! Why shouldn't they? The Republicans have (literally) run this country into the ground and the Democrats are supposed to applaud? Forget it. We're not talking about partisan politics here... we're talking about good versus bad gov't.
FOX is the RIGHTWING propaganda machine... the hypocrisy is nauseating.
Dead, Dead, Dead...!
Guess the media don't find it newsworthy as to what's behind this SecretSquare...since they done got bought off, had their brains neutralized and show as much throughput in their endeavors as a stuck toilet does in getting the job done!
Where 'o where is Walter Cronkite??? When will Mr. Cronkite throw down the gauntlet and cry, "That's all I can stands cause I can't stand no more!!!"
why don't they just declare the Iraq war issue over?
the dems want a vote on the issue is that they KNOW that the deal will go through, SOMEHOW if no legislation is enacted. The Bushistas ignore EXISTING law whenever it's convenient, so why the hell would they let this port deal die if there's no legal basis for stopping it? They have NO intention of letting this port deal die. The Bush Crime Family have a vested financial interest in the UAE - a HUGE interest. Here's how I see it: 1- leak info from secret review process on port deal 2- let Republicans distance themselves from one of the most unpopular presidents in history -who, by the way - will profit from the deal 3- let DPW gracefully withdraw from deal by promising to "transfer" port leases to a US entity 4- declare deal dead, ignore Dem calls for a vote on legislation that REALLY kill the deal (which I really, really doubt is dead at all) 5- port deal quietly goes through after all the hoopla dies down, Bush family makes big $$$$, Republicans successfully distance themselves from the Chimp.
Anyone want to add to the plot? I'm sure I've missed something? Maybe Bill Frist will declare that DPW is not a vegetable in his medical opinion? Perhaps "Little Ricky" Santorum will write "It Takes a UAE Sheik with 6 Wives" for consumption by the masses? Better yet, maybe Tom Delay will take bribes from DPW lobbyists just so they don't feel left out. Then, he will give that money to Boehner, who will then pass out checks on the floor during the vote in his new role as Majority Leader in the House. Sheesh!! I could make this stuff up all day - too bad that in another context, its all true!!
But I generally agree. It's tough being so suspicious of this Administration, but they certainly do invite it.
The attachment of the DPW ban to the supplemental spending measure by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday afternoon was unexpected; that it was attached by a 62-2 vote was a shock. And with that bill the most urgent before the House right now (it'll have to come before the full House sometime next week, and it'll have to go through), to have such a quick pronouncement of 'death' to the 'deal' by all those pushing it (in less than 24 hours after that 62-2 vote), invites the suspicion that not only was the pronouncement of 'death' perhaps the quickest manner to head off that legislative ban, it was also the quickest way to quiet the rising (and concerned) Public Voice that kept the pressure on the Congress; that fueled that 62-2 vote.
Fox News from the start this morning, did nothing but speak of the 'deal's death': no talk of compromise, no more talk of veto, and no more pitching of the 'deal', despite that being the entire week's work regarding the matter.
And whether such a suspicion is well-grounded or not, the effect is undeniable: all this talk of the 'deal's death' has quieted the Public's concern...
...but has it headed off the legislative ban? That's the seven billion dollar question.
And so we wait and see, both about the details of the 'transfer' to a 'U.S. entity', and especially about the attachment to the supplemental: Shall the House consider (and pass) the supplemental with the DPW ban attached, or shall someone move to have it stripped out? And if the supplemental passes with the ban attached, shall the Senate agree to it, or shall they go to conference with House members on the issue, with the intent of stripping it out then?
Too many questions remain to be answered; it's too soon to answer them. The 62-2 Appropriations vote to attach the ban being the start of this drama, it's next is act scheduled for the full House's consideration of the supplemental; and with the Senate waiting in the wings, a Joint Conference may be the final act.
The ghost of the DPW 'deal' may indeed end up haunting our ports (despite the universal pronouncements of it's 'death'), unless our Congress see's to it's excorcism.
We have our diligence on the matter, the People do; so does our Congress.
realize that his way of life is being constantly used to further the causes of the far-right-wing extremists that make the money and profit?
In this country, even the right-wing liars have every right to say their peace......but the lies these kool-aid mixers say are so plentyful in there deceit that I wonder sometimes how Bush is at 34%....Dick at 18%.....this seems high under these circumstances.....
Anyways, as it pertains to the right-wing freaks (specifically)on Fox Opinion and the others - I can see why these people would lie the way they do and why they attempt to distort the simple views of Average Joe Conservative and create the hatered that many of them seem to have toward Average Joe Liberal
For many....I don't blame them (I blame the rich, millionaire right-wing talking-heads)....We all (Average Joe's) have to work our tails off to make ends meet, we are stressing to make all those monthly payments so we don't lose our homes....
So most people don't bother following politics or the real news (this is exactly how the rich pr1cks want it!) this is where Bill O and Rush and Sean buzz around the carcass of the unsuspecting conservative and strike with their lies and BS (What is Average Joe supposed to do?)
But if Average Joe Conservative would for a moment think about who it is that they listen too (Rush, Sean, Bill O, Ann, and so on) they would realize that every one of them has enough millions in the bank that by doing their dirty deeds they can only stand to make more money.....so like I was saying.....its no wonder that they spew the hatered toward us liberals....and the lies toward Average Joe Conservative
We liberals see the truth to it all!! How these people will destroy a democracy for profit, angering otherwise decent conservative people of simple needs so that they can get away with it!!
I know that there are some decent conservatives in here that are moderate (which means you know that I'm right, but can live with it!) and (those of you that blast me.......know I'm right, but can't!)
This port deal is just one of dozens of exactly the situation I'm talking about.........
Did y'all know that Patty Murray's husband works for Stevedore Services of America? According to the Seattle Times [link to archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com] they are in line to profit from this Dubai port deal either way. A Seattle Weekly article has this lead-in:
"Pork-Pillow Politics
Sen. Patty Murray has worked hard on Capitol Hill for port security funding, and her husband's Seattle employer, SSA Marine, has benefited." link to article: [link to www.seattleweekly.com]
How come this info never comes up when people are talking about who benefits?
How can the Dems view not be political? Does anyone understand that the DBW would control only certain terminals and parts of ports, NOT PORTS THEMSELVES. No one ever mentioned until it was too late but, the DBW would never be in charge of security... Who's in charge of the security of terminals and cargo holds run by other countries companies at airports, and why isn't this brought up? We all know its an American entity, but since there is no pending purchase I guess its not an issue. Selective issues at specific times to benefit themselves is the way politicians work... Rep or Dem. Also funny that the liberal side has a problem with Profiling in America, but because its an Arab country it can't go through. When will Hillary Rotten speak out against the Chinese and a bunch of other countries running terminals and cargo holds at airports... She won't because she is PROFILING... ACLU!!!
...anyone hear that Custer Battles was found guilty of defrauding United States taxpayers this week????
Anyone find it interesting that Dubya wanted the police to shoot looters stealing water, formula and diapers after Katrina. Yet, not a word from our law and order President about Custer Battles. Nor has any media outlet asked the President for comment.
Video of black people stealing stuff is sexier, I guess.
Yea, the media will tell us what we need to know. They're about as trustworthy as politicians.
ARE YOU SURPRISE? AFTER THE DEAL WAS OVER THE MEDIA COULD FIND DEMOCRATS ALL OVER THE PLACE THEN, BUT IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS WHO WERE THE ONLY ONE TRYING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS DEAL. THAT'S WHY DEMOCRATS DON'T GAIN ON THE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE THE MEDIA ONLY PUT A POSTIVE SPOT ON REPUBLICANS AND ACT LIKE THE DEMOCRATS ARE TROUBLEMAKERS. MARK MY WORD THE AMERICANS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PUT REPUBLICANS RIGHT BACK IN POWER IN NOV. WITH THE HELP FROM THE MEDIA.