Portgate
By: Guy in Politics, War on Terror on February 22, 2006 - 8:53 am
Hoo! Boy…..Even though I find myself on the same side of the Portgate issue as Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, I couldn’t understand, other than the obvious political reasons, why the Dems took the position that they did. The New York Sun explains and hits this one out of the park . Remember, when in doubt…follow the money.
Mr. Schumer, the first to raise the alarm about the deal? He’s collected $4,500 in campaign contributions from the trough of the Longshoremen. Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, who was one of the first big-name Republicans to break ranks with the administration over the deal? The Longshoremen’s political committee donated $5,500 to the King campaign. It turns out that nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse.
Senator Clinton’s campaign took $4,500. Senator Dodd, $2,500. Congressman Fossella, $9,500. Senator Boxer, $6,000. Senator Lautenberg, $9,000. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York who is another outspoken critic of the Dubai deal, has accepted $22,500 from the Longshoremen since March of 2000. Senator Menendez, a leader of the opposition to the Dubai deal, has taken in fully $39,500 in campaign contributions from the Longshoremen’s political action committee. It puts a different spin on the statement yesterday from the president of the International Longshoremen’s Association, John Bowers, who said, “We echo United States Senator Robert Menendez who correctly notes that our ports are the front lines of the war on terrorism.” It raises the question, for example, of whether the Longshoremen are echoing Mr. Menendez, or whether Mr. Menendez is echoing Mr. Bowers, who has been so generous to his campaign.
Read the entire piece…the scales will suddenly fall from your eyes.
Hat Tip: Maggie’s Farm
Trackback URL for this post:
http://geezervilleusa.com/2006/02/22/portgate/trackback/
February 22, 2006 - 10:36 amAlthough I too distrust the motives of the left and organized crime - controlled unions, that does not mean they cannot be right on the issue. It simply does not make sense to have our ports under a UAE company. They will have ship name, tonnage, source/destination, etc. for every ship that enters/leaves our ports. How likely that this will fall into radical Muslim hands? How useful will it be? We don’t know.
“Remember, when in doubt… follow the money.”
May as well — that’s what the Republicans do.
February 23, 2006 - 7:43 amPat,
February 23, 2006 - 8:21 amLong before I affiliated myself with the Republican party, I was, and remain a conservative. Sadly, just as you say, the Republicans are, in many cases, just as guilty as the Dems.
February 25, 2006 - 12:43 amSaw a news item with the longshoremen protesting the sale. This just after reading an article that the longshoremen don’t want to negotiate with the new “owners” as the UAE is going to be tougher to deal with than the Brit firm. Side note: damn few ports seem to be operated by anything other than a foreign country.
February 25, 2006 - 7:21 pmI’m sorry to have to say this, but money, the Democrats, and longshoremans, have nothing to do with the fact that this President is sleeping on the job, as he did during 911.
I’m afraid before any Conservative can see this, a bomb or some type chemical terrorist act will be activated at one or all 21 ports.
Then what say you?
Larry,
February 27, 2006 - 6:28 amWould one of those ports be Long Beach, which Bill Clinton sold to communist China?
Without a doubt, this is yet another issue where President Bush is “damned if he did, damned if he didn’t.” Had he been opposed to this port deal, he would have been lambasted as a xenophobe and bigot.
Let’s not get too wrapped around the axle when it comes to this issue. Operating a port and securing it are two different things. I sincerely doubt that the Coast Guard (lead agency for port security) will give up any ground on this.
Now what I’d like to see is a more stringent inspection plan for checking out what’s hitting these ports. I won’t wrestle for the hand grenade about who makes the money pulling stuff off of ships. (Although I’m somewhat dismayed that we don’t have an American corporation that’s willing to do the work.)
See you on the high ground.
MajorDad1984
March 2, 2006 - 6:14 am
March 2, 2006 - 7:46 amThe Democrats can’t lose on this one. Money from the union and a public , safe, attack on arabs. Perfect. George is such a political moron.