Memo to George: We ain't buyin' it.
Memo to Congress: Fear no veto.
-Dan
Posted on 02/26/2006 12:41:06 AM PST by Flux Capacitor
Survey of 1,000 Adults
February 22-23, 2006
Should Dubai Ports World Be Allowed to Buy Port Operating Rights?
Yes 17%
No 64%
Are Port Operating Rights Currently Owned by U.S. Firm?
Yes 15%
No 39%
Not Sure 46%
Trust More on National Security
President Bush 41%
Democrats in Congress 43%
February 24, 2006--Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.
Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.
From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.
It is important to note that the question about trust on national security issues was asked first, before any mention was made of the Dubai Ports issue.
The preference for the opposition party is small, but the fact that Democrats are even competitive on the national security front is startling. In Election 2002, the President guided his party to regain control of the Senate based almost exclusively on the national security issue. On Election Day that year, just 23% rated the economy as good or excellent, but the President's Party still emerged victorious.
In Election 2004, national security was again the decisive issue as the President won re-election. Voters consistently expressed a preference for George W. Bush over John Kerry when it came to issues surrounding the War on Terror.
Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans do not believe foreign firms should be allowed to buy any companies in the U.S. Fifty-five percent (55%) disagree. However, even among those who believe foreign ownership should be allowed in general, 61% oppose the Dubai Ports transaction.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of Americans say they have been following news about the Dubai Ports deal somewhat or very closely.
Memo to Congress: Fear no veto.
-Dan
How many favor a ship from an unfriendly port blowing up a couple of miles out to sea not only doing typical nuclear damage, but lots of tidal waves?
40%? 0%?
How many have a clue?
Ships don't have to be in our port at all.
Russian and German craft came pretty close years ago, though most people don't know that, either.
Like the man said, "If a thousand men believe a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing."
I just didn't expect FReepers to still be believing this stupid thing after all the information we've got now. Mikey Savage and Pat Buchanan must be high-fiving Hillary and Chuckie.
But now they're the fount of all knowledge.
To the war zone?
Just playing devil's advocate, but what are we afraid of, that as we're sending men and material to surround Iran that someone will tell Iran "Hey, you know that war Bush is building up for, well, they're building up for it"?
sea = sea...
Time for bed. LOL
But don't tell that to some folks. They just aren't interested in hearing inconvenient facts.
Then I'd say that 17% of Americans are using their heads and not their hearts. Those are the Americans I want with me in a fight, not the other percentage of knee jerk reacting air heads.
That's the job of Senator Jay Rockefeller.
One of the main reasons I thought this deal was so unfortunate, was that it really handed the left a pocket ace. It instantly made the democrats look credible on a national defense issue.
I know a majority of folks here think that's silly. You don't think it should matter. And I'm here to tell you, it's doesn't really matter what you think. It has impacted the political landscape.
I don't think the deal is that great. I still think it's going through. I think it is going to cost the President. I think it's his own damned fault. You folks will think it's mine, and so be it.
This was the wrong time to come up with the wrong idea that wasn't explained to the American public in a manner that would have avoided this problem. It was deemed a no-brainer by those who think they know more than everyone else, and it's going to bite someone on the ass for this miscalculation.
LOL!
I'm just curious, could you link me to the report of Buchanan's thoughts on this subject? I haven't seen them. I'm actually surprised to see you imply that you had.
This deal sucks and most people realize it. Wow, the American public isn't so gullible after all?
First, no poll on any of those people or matters were ever this lopsided against the administration. Second, this is not a Newsweek, CNN, or Zogby poll, but Rasmussen -- the organization that most accurately predicted the outcome of the last election, nailing the popular vote to within four-tenths of a percentage point and correctly calling every close state.
So according to what could be argued to be the most reliable scientific gauge of national public opinion around, Darkwolf, you and approximately 52% of all Freepers are on the fringe when it comes to this issue. That's a fact; whether it's "inconvenient" or not depends only on who you are.
-Dan
I have seldom seen a group of people so happy to call everyone else names, that don't agree with them.
Could you please tells us Mr. Conservative, if we have first ammendment rights any longer?
Mmm-hm. The more Freepers who have to come out sounding like liberal Democrats in order to support this thing, the more sure I am that opposing it is the right thing to do.
-Dan
We just need to keep a tight watch on everything coming out of Michigan, then there will be no more OKC bombings.
I wonder if the numbers would be different if it asked the question along with "knowing that the CEO is an American?".
I implied no such thing, merely made a wild guess--sort of like a lot of people around here.
But if you want to bet me that he approves of a deal involving Arabic people involved with us in any way, I'll take that bet.
You are certainly right about that.
This whole deal should have been announced publically when it was a approved with the economic and strategic rationalle explained to the American people emphasising the strategic importance of Dubai for US interests in the ME.
Instead the President kept it quiet and allowed it to become blog fodder.
Now he's between a rock and a hard place. Nine months before a midterm election he's in a veto war with a Republican majority in Congress who are concerned only with their paychecks after November.
Yea, I heard that Michigan is one tough terrorist state and then on top of that they're becoming allies with Ohio.
When the other thread has the UAE itself blaming a Jewish conspiracy for people being against the deal, you just know people that support it still have some screws seriously loose.
If you haven't seen Buchanan make comments on this subject, why would you feel compelled to slander others on that basis? What has Buchanan to do with this topic? I've never seen him make a single comment on our ports. Have you? If so please post a link to it. I'd like to see it.
Wait about 50 years. :)
-Dan
"That being not the case, the obvious conclusion is that Jewish-dominated political and business circles supported by vested interests are mobilising themselves against any effort by any Arab country to emerge into the international market and thus gain an influential role in world affairs whether it wants it or otherwise."
From the UAE's Pravda.
I guess that's probably a good reason you support the deal as well.
And that is pertinent in what way, exactly?
Second, this is not a Newsweek, CNN, or Zogby poll, but Rasmussen -- the organization that most accurately predicted the outcome of the last election, nailing the popular vote to within four-tenths of a percentage point and correctly calling every close state.
And missed the 2000 election by NINE points.
So if the numbers were reversed on Rasmussen's poll, would you suddenly be FOR the deal?
So according to what could be argued to be the most reliable scientific gauge of national public opinion around, Darkwolf, you and approximately 52% of all Freepers are on the fringe when it comes to this issue. That's a fact; whether it's "inconvenient" or not depends only on who you are.
Another in your endless parade of strawmen--when did I ever claim NOT to be on "the fringe"? If you want to think just like the MSM-controlled sheep, feel free. You seem to have missed the quote I posted above--I think for myself. I don't need to check with my prefered pollster to figure out my position on an issue.
I always find it hilarious when people run to polls to prove their "side" is right. Who cares what a poll says? Think for yourself, and stop foisting Rasmussen numbers on us--is this a daily thing with you? And if those numbers change, will YOU then change? -Dan
by the way some of these spinmeisters talk, its almost as if the threat from the middle east has disappeared...and now our biggest threat is the McVeigh type. (these individuals have missed jayna davis' book, i guess)
Oh cut it out. The UAE is our best ally in the region. Snickers...
In truth, in some respects I actually believe it is.
I guess your side's no longer whining about being called racists, which you all said was an illegitimate response, and are now engaging in the same tactic--only it's a GOOD thing when you do it. LOL What a bunch of hypocritical sheep!
Those are my thoughts as well.
Blah Blah.. Got angry when I got too close to the truth I see.
So you consider saying that Buchanan agrees with Savage, Hillary, Chuckie and you on this issue slander?
LOL Look at the hypocrit running away after its smear bellyflops! LOL
You don't have a fact in your head so you smear. Well done! Back to Du with you.
Yep, it's a real "Jay-walking" world out there.
The stupidity staggers the mind.
If either state ever gets a good football team there is going to be big problems
Hah! Only "true conservatives" now support this fiasco?
Your dangerous agenda is noted.
Blah Blah.. Got angry when I got too close to the truth I see.
That cesspool town of Dearborn, MI is our version of Fallujah.
I was laughing at you, incredulously. Opposite of anger.
When I first heard of this, my initial reaction was "Have you lost your freakin' mind!". Then I looked into it, listened to people who actually have experience shipping into and out of American ports as well as people who have actual experience with Dubai. IF security is handled as I understand it will be, I have no problem with the "baggage handling" end of the port operations being sold.
BUT I look at the Administration's handling of the issue, especially the early veto threat on top of zero advance work, and I am back to "Have you lost your freakin' mind!".
Poorly done by the White House, and plenty of blame to go around to everybody in the West Wing. Assuming Bush didn't have much advance notice of this, and I can see that happening, somebody up there is getting paid too much to let this no-brainer go by without red-flagging it to POTUS' desk when it first landed on CEFAS' desk. IDIOTS!
When I first of this I thought 'they're out of their freaking minds!'
After reading up on it, and today's little matter of the UAE blaming the Jews for the objections, my attitude is now 'they're out of their freaking minds!'
Darkwolf377, Howlin found a Buchanan article and linked me to it. In the article Buchanan does seem to back the premise that it is wise to object to the port deal.
Thank you Howlin.
This article is very strange to me. Buchanan has sided with the Arabs on a number of issues. He did not want us to enter Iraq in 1991. He didn't want us there in 2003. He has voiced some support for the Palestinians from time to time.
Now he comes out against the port deal, and I'll be darned if I can understand why this is different to him. Them being the consumate enemies of Israel, I find this hard to comprehend. I would think folks who dislike Buchanan would find it even harder to fathom.
In fairness, Buchanan has defended Israel's right to defend itself, when under the attacks of the intifada post the 2000 peace talks.
This is the link to the article. For the record, I had come to my own conclusion without reading any of Pats thoughts on the subject.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1585269/posts
Blah Blah.. Got angry when I got too close to the truth I see.
Oh, I think you can if you try real hard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.