Seamus Fermanagh
03-09-2006, 22:33
First to the Ports:
The UAE's offer of an additional 45-day review period for the Dubai "Ports" Deal has been accepted and then stomped on within 6 days. Both halves of our legislature, notably Senate Democrats and House Republicans were in a political race to squash the deal and take credit for the kill. Senate Democrats had the tougher go, of course, since they were trying to force a vote whereas the House Appropriations committee was able to attach a Ports Deal rejection amendment onto what is widely viewed as a must-pass, must-be-signed emergency spending bill for the military and Katrina relief.
Now, Bush has already signaled in "read my lips" fashion that he'll veto any effort to kill the Ports deal. A big slice of the U.S. public, for various reasons, is leery of the deal -- and they are squawking to their representatives. Therefore, the House appropriations bill takes up this political pissing-match challenge and dares the Pres' to veto a bill that would leave our troops economically stranded (or at least would be portrayed that way in the media). What's a President to do.....
If some kind of deal can't be brokered, and the President refuses to veto, we are left with at least two results:
1. An attenuated relationship with a Middle Eastern state that has been fairly supportive of US efforts in the war on terror. NOT good for winning the war.
2. The assumption of full lame-duck status by the Bush administration a full 6 months PRIOR to the mid-term elections.
Next to the Parliament:
The second point above reveals one of the few weaknesses in the American Republican system as opposed to a Parliamentary system a la England. If the PM lost such a major vote because her or his own party rejected administration policy so completely it would likely constitute a vote of "No Confidence" and elections would be called to assure a leader who could create (via voter base or political coalition) majority support.
Here in the US, we'll have a very early-on lame duck President whose ability to effect domestic policy would be largely negated. The result of this will NOT be Congress leaping up to take control and establish a cohesive policy to move the nation forward, but a hodge-podge of unrelated and unfocussed legislation that will do little but respond to the whim of the moment -- gridlock for want of purpose. Bush will still be the Commander in Chief, and would still be able to pursue many of the objectives of the War on Terror, but would have difficulty generating the support for another major operation (absent another major attack on the US). Political capital is, for a President, the key to success.
The Third Rail of Politics:
Where did the political capital go? Bush had a fair dose after finally having racked up an outright win in November of '04. His number one domestic objective -- the reform of our Social Security System -- did what it has to all other reformers, electrocuted him on the 3rd rail of politics.
Now don't get me wrong, I wanted him to succeed. Our current system was designed by FDR as a stop-gap measure to allay fears in the US workforce and help get people active in order to combat the Great Depression. The system was then Frankensteined out of all proportion and has been kept in place at least 3 decades longer than FDR himself intended. We've ended up with a system that combines the worst features of Free Market Fend for Yourself retirement with the most inefficient features of the classic Socialist Government Program from Perdition -- and we are apparently hooked on it like crack cocaine.
Bush's reform effort was stopped cold by Social-Security-As-Is supporters, notably the liberal wing of the Democrat party, despite the fact that the Dems had been handed a clear electoral loss in the preceding election. Much of the political capital Bush had accrued was spent, and with no result. The continuing casualties in Iraq, the government mis-cues with Katrina (at all levels), and even the NSA eavesdropping to-do were all stumbles, but Bush had little umph with which to face them -- and a host of political opponents (and outright enemies) willing to point out, magnify and fixate on every faux pas.
And now, the acquisition of indirect control by an arab firm over 6 terminals at 4 or 5 ports in the USA has become a huge political watershed -- even though the Chinese are running far more of them than that at this very moment along with both terminus points of the Panama Canal. The American electorate, when its opinion gels (however ignorant, correct, or dead-arse wrong), really does wield the ultimate authority here.
Interesting times ahead. Thoughts?
The UAE's offer of an additional 45-day review period for the Dubai "Ports" Deal has been accepted and then stomped on within 6 days. Both halves of our legislature, notably Senate Democrats and House Republicans were in a political race to squash the deal and take credit for the kill. Senate Democrats had the tougher go, of course, since they were trying to force a vote whereas the House Appropriations committee was able to attach a Ports Deal rejection amendment onto what is widely viewed as a must-pass, must-be-signed emergency spending bill for the military and Katrina relief.
Now, Bush has already signaled in "read my lips" fashion that he'll veto any effort to kill the Ports deal. A big slice of the U.S. public, for various reasons, is leery of the deal -- and they are squawking to their representatives. Therefore, the House appropriations bill takes up this political pissing-match challenge and dares the Pres' to veto a bill that would leave our troops economically stranded (or at least would be portrayed that way in the media). What's a President to do.....
If some kind of deal can't be brokered, and the President refuses to veto, we are left with at least two results:
1. An attenuated relationship with a Middle Eastern state that has been fairly supportive of US efforts in the war on terror. NOT good for winning the war.
2. The assumption of full lame-duck status by the Bush administration a full 6 months PRIOR to the mid-term elections.
Next to the Parliament:
The second point above reveals one of the few weaknesses in the American Republican system as opposed to a Parliamentary system a la England. If the PM lost such a major vote because her or his own party rejected administration policy so completely it would likely constitute a vote of "No Confidence" and elections would be called to assure a leader who could create (via voter base or political coalition) majority support.
Here in the US, we'll have a very early-on lame duck President whose ability to effect domestic policy would be largely negated. The result of this will NOT be Congress leaping up to take control and establish a cohesive policy to move the nation forward, but a hodge-podge of unrelated and unfocussed legislation that will do little but respond to the whim of the moment -- gridlock for want of purpose. Bush will still be the Commander in Chief, and would still be able to pursue many of the objectives of the War on Terror, but would have difficulty generating the support for another major operation (absent another major attack on the US). Political capital is, for a President, the key to success.
The Third Rail of Politics:
Where did the political capital go? Bush had a fair dose after finally having racked up an outright win in November of '04. His number one domestic objective -- the reform of our Social Security System -- did what it has to all other reformers, electrocuted him on the 3rd rail of politics.
Now don't get me wrong, I wanted him to succeed. Our current system was designed by FDR as a stop-gap measure to allay fears in the US workforce and help get people active in order to combat the Great Depression. The system was then Frankensteined out of all proportion and has been kept in place at least 3 decades longer than FDR himself intended. We've ended up with a system that combines the worst features of Free Market Fend for Yourself retirement with the most inefficient features of the classic Socialist Government Program from Perdition -- and we are apparently hooked on it like crack cocaine.
Bush's reform effort was stopped cold by Social-Security-As-Is supporters, notably the liberal wing of the Democrat party, despite the fact that the Dems had been handed a clear electoral loss in the preceding election. Much of the political capital Bush had accrued was spent, and with no result. The continuing casualties in Iraq, the government mis-cues with Katrina (at all levels), and even the NSA eavesdropping to-do were all stumbles, but Bush had little umph with which to face them -- and a host of political opponents (and outright enemies) willing to point out, magnify and fixate on every faux pas.
And now, the acquisition of indirect control by an arab firm over 6 terminals at 4 or 5 ports in the USA has become a huge political watershed -- even though the Chinese are running far more of them than that at this very moment along with both terminus points of the Panama Canal. The American electorate, when its opinion gels (however ignorant, correct, or dead-arse wrong), really does wield the ultimate authority here.
Interesting times ahead. Thoughts?