Hehe.

I think the problem is the same for both red-state Dems and blue-state Republicans - right now they're too out of tune with the parties' bases. A Giuliani or a Lieberman (let's consider him a red-state Dem for the sake of the argument) may be able to reach across the isle, but they can't galvanize their own base.

Politics is a very dirty business. I home somebody with hands relatively clean may have a shot at the presidency.

Carol Mosley Braun. Look how far that went....

I don't know enough about her. Just because she's a black woman doesn't automatically make me want to trust her.

I didn't say I supported Edwards this time, I said I did last time, and Richardson wasn't running. I said that I am so far supporting Mark Warner this time so far and I will point out that Richardson hasn't said what his intentions are. (My old high school and college buddy who was the lead singer for my band in college also is a political consultant in Virginia who works for Warner and he says nice things about him, by the way).

I agree with your comments and will point out that I did not limit myself to the south, but only to red states.

Nah. I know her track record and also I know she made some pretty hard line promises to certain groups "if she got elected." like giving Leonard Peltier an appeal...finally. I mean, she knew it wasn't going to happen, but she tried to push that agenda anyways. Actually, she's got a pretty good record (for someone like me, I know our politics differ greatly) and no dirt under her fingernails. She also was the first African-American woman to become a senator, so I'm guessing people watched her extra closely, and she still held up well under public scrutiny, so clearly she never said anything too outrageous, or mispronounced too many words on national television.

Guiliani is pro-choice. I think that makes his chances in this current fundie-dominated Republican party very unlikely.

we talk about america here more than any other forum ive ever been on.

He certainly has my vote now

Yeah, I'm sure that made the difference.

I'd be glad to talk about Britain instead and how the Labor party is self-destructing by turning on Blair and trying to force his resignation. Welcome back Tories, if Blair steps down.

Alaska is KING! especailly Anchorage

Alaska h8ter

Alaska rocks man

Bickering ? That issue seemed has been the only example of bipartisan unity (with bipartisan agreement at the polls) that I've seen in years.

Well, I think they lost their "moral" position over that one. They sit around yelling at racial profiling and civil liberties and then pounce on Bush for allowing an international corporation that happened to have its roots in the Middle East get business contracts. They're all over the place. They yell about his abusive (and rights infringing) actions, and the one time he doesn't profile a business they get all defensive and play the "national security" card. If they wanted to debunk that hysteria and racism, they certainly got confused somewhere along the way.

Its like saying you believe a religious person should be entitled to the same rights everyone else is, and then turning around and telling a religious person they're not entitled to, well, the same rights everyone else is. Dubai World Ports got that contract fair and square. They're innnocent until proven guilty, not guilty just cause they're Muslim. If anything they'd be better equipped, and professionally invested, in not letting local politics ruin their international business. It was a typical case of "If you're not with us, you're against us."

The Dems, and everyone else, just slapped the hands of a capitalist international business community that would have worked hard to bridge the gap between non-fundamentalist religious and ethnic clash by type-coding them as the same religious zealots as the country they started out in. Its a business that has no previous track record of such lapses in security (that I am aware of), and should be approached as such. International conglomerates are not tied to the politics and philosophy of their home base. Just look at Shell Oil and Holland for goodness sakes. Does Shell really share the values of The Hague, and does that Institution share the values of Dutch citizens?

As far as I'm concerned, its not about partisanship, which is always the problem, its about sticking to one's guns and saying if racial profiling is illegal, and infringment on civil and business liberties should be of highest value, than DuBai should undergo the same scrutiny and consideration as any other business, and then proceed, just like any other business. If they screw up, it'll be the downfall of their entire decades large business, and I doubt they would desire to do that.

Drinks are on me!!!

Well, I know some were portaying it that way, but for some of us, it was also the fact that this was not a typical capitalist business, but a government-owned business -- a government that gives no rights to women, instills religion as an official government policy, and is basically a dictatorship. It is a business that answers to a government which may have interests other than profit in mind.

I'd feel the same way if Hitler's Germany had wanted to run our ports, too.

Comparing Dubai and Hitler's Germany is a bit silly. A comparison with modern-day China would be a bit more prudent.

Bringing up security or as a concern in this case is just as silly. The security is run by the U.S. entities, just as before. If there's a problem on the security front it has to do with the current government policies, not with who's running the ports.

You're saying that the government of UAE does nto share our values. Well, how are you going to get them to share if you're denying them the most sacred right Americans enjoy - the right of ownership?

I watched a movie yesterday called "Danger Island" and in it one of the characters was baffled by the word "prudent"

"Translation to normal speak please!" they demanded.

God Danger Island was such a good movie.

Yeah, the Hitler comparison was an exaggeration to make a point (hence the smirk). But still, I believe that to encourage democracy in foreign countries, you don't give them these things, and instead give your contracts to real businesses, not businesses owned by a government. I don't see how giving them what they want helps anyone except to make that dictatorship richer and more powerful.

I never made an argument about security, really, but only about whether a government will have interests different than a business would. Most big businesses don't care about politics except how they can use that to make more money.

And I am not sure I agree that the most important right in all of the United States is the right to ownership. It's important yes, but more so than freedom of speech, religion, and all our criminal defense rights? What good is ownership if a government can throw you into jail without a trial because of your religion or something you said?

Hmm, unfortunately, most senators were not speaking about the ethics, they were speaking about national security. if one is going to debunk the manipulation of "security" language, the last thing (s)he can do is resort to the same rhetoric.

As for the government sponsored angle, almost every country with the exception of the U.S. is nationally affiliated. Including British Airways, KLM, agriculture, etc. and in the U.S. its indipendant in word alone, as there is plenty of tax cut support and other government sponsored perks to businesses. Its a mixed bad in these regards. On the one hand, the Google project in China (and I do prefer Krem's comparison) is that country putting restrictions on an international company. We would still be applying american port standards to here, and I do think the most powerful way to influence some of the regressive elements of a religious government is not to deal with them on a religious standard. You think every country doesn't have horrible treatment of women? Try doing business with Frat houses anywhere in this country.

Anyone check Dubai's hiring practices? I never heard a lick about that in the past "security" uproar. What if they actually had better employment practices than anywhere else in their country? especially since they have international headquarters (like london now) that have hiring standards and different religious female demographics that still believe in working, etc. If Dubai had a good track record of hiring women? Better than the typical UAE business? Would you then want to encourage those business practices by giving it the contracts? International business employ people all over the world, which can be a good thing (contending with different populations that don't have the same conservative gender roles) and it can be a bad thing (read: little kids sowing their fingers off for two cents a soccer ball). Not once during the proceedings of Dubai did I hear congressmen clamoring to check their hiring practices.

It was all just the usual flimsy spined racial profiling and national security schtick, and it proceeded to add UAE to the long list of countries we tend to group together in vast "Axis of Evil" Middle East. I'm surprised at this point anyone knows the difference between UAE and Saudi Arabia.



Sure, I'm not one to turn down free drinks. Plus, I'm pretty sure I'm going to need one or two before I go see Snakes on a Plane. :-P

Are you suggesting that the dictatorship of the UAE doesn't own anything? And that owning an American port is going to somehow instill in this dictatorship our American values? That's a bit idealistic, doncha think?

I would think that if anything, you'd support private ownership of the ports by an American company.

I agree that some Democrats were being hypocrites about racial profiling, but no more than the Republicans were. Bush and his pals think it's OK to lock people up without a trial or to stop them in airports based on the countries they come from or how they look, and the constant explanations of "but we're at war" as an explanation was used to explain all sorts of Constitutional violations. For him to now say "How dare you racially profile these people!" while he has been doing the same thing for 6 years is what is being criticized here.

Well, the thing it's not really for you OR me to "give" these contracts. If this was a government contract, then I would tend to agree with you. But this was a private (and British at that) company that decided to sell its operations to the highest bidder. All of a sudden the U.S. comes in and says "nope, we don't approve of the deal".

On of the common complaints the U.S. has against foreign governments (rightly so) is when U.S. companies' facilities get nationalized with or without a payment. The U.S. claims it's "anti-free trade" - and it is. Yet, it turns around and does the same thing to other countries. How is anybody supposed to take the U.S. lead in free trade seriously then?

Does it really matter what kind of interests Dubai has? As long as we've got the security angle covered, what else should you be worried about?

Sorry, I meant to say "one of" the most important rights

I was only responding to Groucho's comment about Dubai having different values from the U.S. and that being the reason for denying them a business transaction.

I support a company's (in this case P&O) to sell its operations to whoever it wants to without the U.S. government interference.

If I were a citizen of Dubai I would be against of my government owning a port management company as that interferes with free trade, but that's for the people of Dubai to sort out.

Speaking hypothetically, of course, since the people of Dubai have no say in what their government does.