Port Security as a Republican scam.

UPDATE/RETRACTION: The early consensus seems to be that I am totally wrong on this speculation, so I'm going to abandon it. So, in the ethics of blogging, I'm going to retract it, but leave it up. Read it if you want, but understand that I think I may be wrong on this one. - Mike

Shoot me down if you want, I sometimes see things that aren't there, but I see a political play for the midterms in all this. Let's step back a month or so, when Karl Rove came out of hiding to lay out the Republican strategy for maintaining control of Congress. His plan came down to two words, "National Security."

Other analysts have pointed to the drag that Bush has been on incumbent Republican polling and that the best strategy for the incumbents would be to establish some "independence" from Bush.

So, now, we suddenly have an issue on which incumbent legislators can claim both. "I am so concerned about protecting you from terrorists that I am willing to be independent of the president." That's an awfully convenient confluence. Also in this, Bush gets to come out in defense of Arabs.

Now, I recognize there are downsides if this is indeed a strategy including further political damage to Bush, but what if you were to compare that to what would happen to the Republicans if they lost a chamber of Congress and the Dems suddenly had the ability to call hearings, launch investigations, and issue subpoenas? What would that due to the Republican's standing?

Also, I still consider this somewhat of a non-issue for the reasons in the post below, but I also find the response strangely racist. All that would effectively change through this sale is the ownership and perhaps a few management positions. The on the ground staff would still be the same Americans that were working for the previous British owners.

But the imagery being created around this seems to be of brownskinned men conspiring with Al Qaeda to manage the transfer of "the package." It's movie-like and not real. It's plays upon a stereotype that has been planted in all of us by movies and TV shows since the eighties. So, I see this as a soft appeal to racism in all the rhetoric.

And whenever I see an appeal to racism no matter disguised, I see a Republican ploy for votes. Who was against interracial marriage, same sex marriage? What party hosts the people against affirmative action? Those who paint welfare as a black phenomena? Which party supports racial profiling? Those who want to repeal the voting rights act? Immigration?

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but when I see bigoted sterotypes being ginned up around an issue, I see the ugly side of the Republican party.

(I recognize that there are other ways that the Repubs could claim national security credentials. But the issues they would use Iraq, Patriot Act, NSA spying are not proving all that popular. If you're looking at an election, do you seriously want to sign up for what Sen. Roberts has been getting over the past week for caving to the Bush admin on the NSA spying? Do you really want to take a strong position for Iraq right now?

No. Let's find a brown bogeyman to rally against. That's always been an effective Republican ploy. Willie al Horton.)

So in this theory, Bush takes a hit, but holds onto both houses of Congress. That, I would argue, is far more important than his approval ratings at this point.

This is just an off the top of the head conjecture, and I'm more than willing to change or abandon it in the face of good argument, so....

Whattya think?