Terry McMahon's Awesome Blog

I knew once I made a post with not enough hot links on them that I would suddenly discover a new series of hot links. So here we go!

• First off, I received requests to write on the UAE ports deal, and the only problems were that I was unsure of my position and uninformed of the details. What could go wrong? Thankfully, Robert Reich (whose book I read!) wrote an essay on one of my favorite sites, politicalwire.com, which explained why it's not a big deal. First, he points out that it's a money issue, not a nationality issue:

  About 80 percent of American ports are already run by foreign companies. These companies usually hire Americans to do the day-to-day management. After all, global companies want the best talent they can get. Dubai Port World’s chief operating officer is Edward Bilkey, who's an American. Its former American executive, David Sanborn, was just nominated to be U.S. Maritime Administrator.

  And if this deal goes through, Dubai Ports World will probably keep most of the American executives who have been working for the British company that now runs the six ports in question because they’ve made the company lots of money, which is why Dubai Ports wants to buy it.

  Whatever the arrangement, the day-to-day operations at the ports will still be done by American longshoremen, clerks, and technicians. And control over port security will remain with the U.S. government, the Coast Guard, Customs, harbor police, and port authorities, who make and enforce the rules.

  
  Then he points out the real port security issue:
  

  I don’t mean to minimize the real danger that a terrorist might sneak into an American port or plant a nuclear bomb in a container heading toward an American port, or a container mounted on a truck that crosses an American border headed for Kansas City.

  But if that happens it won't be because of the nationality of the company that has a contract to run a port, or of its managers, or even its workers on the ground.

  It will be because this nation didn't want to pay for the gamma-ray monitors and radiation scanners and inspectors necessary to oversee more than a tiny percent of containers heading into America. ...

  You see, the real issue here isn’t about nationality. It’s about what we’re prepared to pay for our security, and whether we pay mostly for a war in Iraq or we finally get serious about security here at home.

  
  Again, I still don't really know what's going on, but Robert Reich is liberal and an economist, so he couldn't be wrong, right?

• You want to know what's a good-looking headline? Try The Hill's recent "House Republicans could see 10 to 15 more retirements." Open seats are always much easier to win, and they can turn a safe Republican seat into a toss-up in the blink of an eye. Once again I have to confess ignorance: I was under the impression that House incumbents have all decided by now whether or not to say (it's certainly true in the Senate), but that seems contradicted by sentences like these:
  

  Referring to the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), New York Rep. Tom Reynolds, the aide said: “Tom Reynolds is literally begging people not to retire. Everything we hear coming out of their side is every caucus [meeting] is a lecture from Tom Reynolds begging people not to retire, saying, ‘Please stay, please stay, please stay.’”

  
  I still have no idea if we can take back Congress this fall, but as days go by I see fewer reasons to think there's no chance it could happen. A Wall Street Journal piece a few weeks ago pointed to 30-40 Republican-held seats that are theoretically in play, and if we have the wind at our backs Democrats could conceivably only lose 1-2 seats. Can we pick up 15 to make a majority? On the micro level, just a couple of days ago the New Hampshire House Democratic Leader announced that he was challenging the two-term Republican incumbent. On the macro level, it turns out President Bush was specifically warned of the danger faced specifically by New Orleans specifically as a result of Hurricane Katrina? Yikes. If the news keeps sounding like that, I think we can do it.

• Continuing with more substantive matters, the WWE stopped by DC the other day, and the good folks in our modern-day traveling circus decided to get involved politically. Here's a photo of three-time WWF Champion and two-time #1 New York Times bestselling author Mick Foley with a bunch of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee folks. (The narrow site here crops out a guy on the right, Jon Vogel, was one of our consultants for the Kentucky campaign in 2004.)

  

  We also get this gem from the Hotline On-Call story (from where I also ripped off the photo):
  

  RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, ever alert to targeting opportunities, loves the WWE's outreach and particularly its demographic appeal.

  
  So true! I think WWE should be a great opportunity for both parties to reach voters, but then again, I'm biased because I still remember the days when their storylines made sense. Sort of like the Democratic Party!

• Downside of National Journal stories is that they cost a bundle to look at (assuming you're not on a law school ethernet like some of us) and they have no static links. So, if this doesn't work, I found an amusing political anecdote:
  

  Here's what we do know: Whenever a candidate or political party starts trying to claim that congressional elections are going to be decided on local issues, it really means they know the current climate stinks for them. More importantly, the word "local" is also code for "we're going to turn an election so negative as to drive turnout down and make the alternative unelectable."

  
  I'm always hesitant to publish my position on what political strategies "really mean," mostly because there's never just one reason for a politician to do anything. Here they may be so unpopular as to be forced into a negative campaign, but, presumably, all the negative stuff they're saying about the opponent will be true, and hopefully important. So it's hard to say. Nonetheless, that's still pretty funny.

• I also don't want to say that political analyst Stu Rothenberg is kind of a moron, because he's not, but he and I certainly have differing views of what makes a good candidate. Rothenberg seems to think it's "institutional support," which is fine, since his sources are all institutional and he probably doesn't want to be seen as too supportive of outsider candidacies. Nonetheless, his commentary on a Matt Brown dustup (about which I have no knowledge or opinion) is pretty ridiculous. How about this: since Stu Rothenberg is such an independent and unbiased journalist, if I threaten to boldface all the loaded words he uses, I wouldn't be able to boldface anything. Right?
  

  Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown (D) has been desperate for media attention.
  [Saying "desperate" for anything implies the campaign is about to collapse. This is not true.]

  Brown is in the center of a huge controversy ...
  [A huge controversy gets you mocked on the Daily Show. Rothenberg decides that the issue of how this incident is any different from any other product of op research is not worth discussing. I would disagree.]

  ... with political opponents and journalists questioning whether he used Democratic state parties in Massachusetts, Maine, and Hawaii to launder funds that he otherwise would not have been able to accept.
  [Again, I have no idea how this incident plays on the merits. But "people are talking" is the weakest argument I can imagine this side of John Cornyn's "there are those who would say." In politics, "questioning" usually means "attempting to make political gains from." I mean, Matt Brown's political opponents are going after him? Really? They're not just hoping he self-destructs?]

  His outsider/reformer message is at least compromised...
  [See, if this were really true, Rothenberg could just say "His outsider/reformer message is compromised," without the sinister implications of "at least" that Rothenberg has no way of backing up. Then it would just be bad writing. Also, if anyone can tell me how his outsider message is compromised by a campaign finance issue, I would love to hear it. Wouldn't screwing up his campaign finances make him seem less like a guy who knows how to handle the DC institutions?]

  That’s not a message that an alleged “reformer” wants to deliver.
  [OK, this is my favorite. We already know Matt Brown is a reformer, since he reformed Rhode Island's Secretary of State office and state lobbying enforcement. Those are facts. But alleged "writer" Stu Rothenberg is a smart guy: he knows that if you put "alleged" before a word, and then put that word in quotation marks, it sounds like a joke to assume the guy's serious, even though those are just stylistic tricks that provide no evidence.]

  
  Now, I understand, since I support Matt Brown my independence is "at least compromised." But Rothenberg was a dick to Tony Miller, too, and I'm starting to get sick of his attempts to ruin good candidates with bias and rhetorical flourish. Seriously though, I bet he's great to have around.