As we see Bush's numbers take another dive, mostly as a result of his own party stabbing him in the back it is interesting to take a dispassionate look at the latest bit of overhyped and hysterical posturing on the part of pundits and politicians.
Once upon a time when you were in a war you supported your president, especially if you were of the same party. But now it seems that loyalty is just another outdated notion. If the Republicans lose in the midterms, all I can say is it could not happen to a nicer bunch of guys and gals.
Hanson covers the issue of the Dubai Ports deal:
The port deal reveals deeper pathologies than the hypocrisy of our politicians and ignorance of the public. A now hyper-media is fueled by a 24-hour news cycle -- regardless of whether there is enough earth-shattering news to justify thousands of salaried telejournalists. And 2006 is an election year, in which Democrats see advantage and Republicans fear losses.
But more importantly, the Dubai port deal shows how at odds are American perceptions and reality. For the last half-century, we have been living in a complex interconnected world of mutual reliance. Soon we will import more food than we grow. We already burn more oil than we pump. For years we have bought more than we export, and we borrow far more than we lend. To justify these precarious dependencies, America assures foreign business leaders, investors and lenders that our markets remain open and immune to the distortions of xenophobia and provincialism.
Americans may not like that devil's bargain, but it was made long ago and, for better or worse, we are long past being an agrarian republic. The resulting singular affluence of the American consumer derives from just these tradeoffs in our autonomy -- and the trust we receive from those who loan and sell us things we cannot immediately pay for. So rejecting the Dubai port deal is not only hypocritical, but in the end dumb.
read it all.
From remote rural to close-to-everything suburban
30 minutes ago