It was a given that Bill Frist, John McCain, Bob Ehrlich, and the other Republican lickspittles would cave to the White House on the UAE ports issue, after their initial blustering. They've all already shown their stripes as cowardly, pathetic Bush/Cheney toadies, so their flip-flops on port security come as no surprise.
But that's beside the point in the greater scheme of things. The REAL issue now is how the DEMOCRATS react.
For the first time perhaps since The Event That Changed Everything, the Democrats have been HANDED an issue in which they can differentiate themselves from the Republicans on national security in a way that appeals to those elusive red-state voters the DLC crowd is always trying so desperately to chase.
Well, guys, this is
it. If the Dems stand firm against the ports deal, even filibuster it, the Dems can score some MAJOR points with the so-called "security moms" who already agree with us on almost everything else. We'll be making some major progress towards strong gains in November. We'll be the Party of Security (we've always been, but I'm talking perception here). And we'll have done it
without compromising Democratic core values.
This is a fantastic opportunity for the Democrats to effect a fundamental meme shift. The DLC crowd's supposedly been drooling about this for years. Well, here we go. Show your true colors, guys.
Middle America is furious about our government turning over control of our ports to a totalitarian, repressive regime with direct ties to the mastermind behind the most devastating terrorist attack in American history. Middle America is furious at Bush over this.
When November comes, we want to be able to offer these Middle Americans an alternative. If we don't want to keep hearing in exit-poll interviews, "Well, yes, I was mad at Bush about the ports thing, but the Democrats went along with it too, so I just voted GOP again because it's been my habit and the parties are both the same anyway", then THIS is the time to take a FIRM stand.
If the Democrats join Frist and his flunkies in this last-ditch effort to bail out Bush and help the GOP safe face, then all the talk about "how the Dems need to look tough on security to win" will be exposed as the fraudulent drivel it is. If the Democrats truly believe that Quaker peace groups are a greater threat to our security than handing over the keys to our ports to a terror-sponsoring dictatorship that engages in human trafficking, then we've officially become a one-party state, and the DLC crowd's bluff will have been called for good.
Let me put it this way: If the Democrats fold on this issue, an issue that (quite unlike, say, Alito) doesn't require ANY red-state Dems to walk a fine line, then the party consultants completely forfeit ANY right to talk about a "perceived security gap" costing the Dems elections.
And if the Democrats cave to Frist on the ports and get trounced in November, ANY Democrat who cites "weakness on national security" as the reason for the shortfall deserves to get waterboarded.
This is the opportunity we've all been waiting for to redefine the party's public perception on security matters. It is time to seize the moment. If we don't, the party "hawks" will permanently lose whatever credibilty they may retain -- with the netroots, and with Middle America.