Port Security Frenzy: Real Concern or Real Grandstanding?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While Democrats and Republicans vent their anger over the Bush Administration’s decision to allow a United Arab Emirates-based company from taking “control” of America’s east coast ports (from a British company), I have a question: Exactly what responsibility and authority does this UAE company have? Specifically, how is U.S. security weakened?

I don’t know, and I bet 99.5% of the people discussing the “threat” don’t know. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet most of us have no idea what managing a port entails.

But that hasn’t stopped people from ranting about the Administration’s decision to approve the British-UAE deal.

CNN political commentators Donna Brazile (on the left) and Bill Bennett (on the right) agreed that it is a terrible thing. Pennsylvania Representative Bill Shuster (R) wrote a letter to the President expressing concern about the deal. Representative Max Burns (R-Ga.) and Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are worried. Both House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King (R-NY) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman Chuck Schumer (D-NY) are demanding the President reverse his decision. I guess this is the bipartisanship we’ve all been longing for, huh?

Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley (D), who just coincidentally happens to be running for governor, went absolutely bonkers over the deal.

"I am calling upon President Bush to reverse the outrageous, the reckless, and the irresponsible decision to turn over American ports to foreign governments," said the Mayor, who didn’t exactly sound like a model of thoughtfulness and reason.

Talking of “turning over” American ports to a foreign company that apparently is controlled by a foreign (Middle Eastern) government raises the specter of terrorists flowing through the ports of New York, Baltimore and Miami. But with the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Customs and the Department of Immigration and Naturalization still firmly in U.S. control, it’s far from clear how that sale threatens U.S. security or enables terrorists to gain access to the U.S.

What we have here is a small dose of real concern and a huge amount of grandstanding by legislators, Republican and Democratic alike.

Democrats smell an opportunity to appear tougher than the President on national defense and homeland security, enhancing their generally weaker credentials on fighting the war against terror.

Republican legislators realize that they cannot allow Democrats to seize the one issue that the GOP has had an advantage on since September 11, 2001. And GOP members of the House and Senate even get an issue on which they can “stand up to” Bush, a hard-to-pass-up opportunity since the President’s job ratings remain weak.

The White House probably does deserve blame – blame for not seeing that his decision could easily be demagogued and turned into a political issue. Now, fairly or unfairly, the President is on the defensive and some in the media have started to pile on, as did CNN’s Jack Cafferty, who never allows reason or logic to interfere with his analysis.

The President does not have to change his decision if he believes it to be correct. But he needs to make the case that the new company will not be in a position to aid terrorists, and that it will continue policies and procedures (both involving personnel and operations) to keep America’s ports safe, and to enhance that safety and security.

Still, the President is taking a political hit, and given his current standing, it’s a hit that he cannot afford.

This column first appeared on Town Hall on February 23, 2006.

A Dumb Mistake May Cost Democrats

By Stuart Rothenberg

For months, Democratic insiders have been touting their candidate in Ohio’s 6th District, state Senator Charlie Wilson. They’ve been arguing that the socially conservative Democrat fits the district perfectly, and that he will easily hold retiring Congressman Ted Strickland’s open House seat in Southeastern Ohio.

But Wilson and his campaign team apparently have trouble with both arithmetic and geography, and the campaign’s surprising ineptness suddenly puts Democratic chances of retaining the district in doubt.

Wilson submitted just 46 valid signatures, four short of the 50 he needed to get his name on the May 2 primary ballot, in part because his campaign submitted signatures from people who don’t live within the 6th Congressional District. (In an obvious irony, Wilson himself lives in the neighboring 18th C.D., not in the 6th District.)

Wilson took much of the blame, admitting that he didn’t realize that his home county, where he got most of the signatures, is split between two Congressional districts.

Most campaigns use the signature-gathering process as an opportunity to build a list for fundraising and future voter contact. Wilson, apparently, didn’t pay any attention to the signatures or plan to use them to his advantage.

This is a conservative Democratic district, and without Wilson on the November ballot -- either by winning a write-in campaign for the Democratic nomination, through a successful Independent bid during the general election or by selecting him to fill a vacancy if the eventual primary winner drops out of the contest -- Democrats will likely lose the seat. The GOP nominee is Ohio House Speaker Pro Tem Chuck Blasdel, a credible candidate who was seen as a formidable Republican nominee even before Wilson’s ballot access problem developed.

The problem for Democrats is that a write-in campaign would be extremely costly, while an Independent bid would mean two Democrats and only one Republican on the November ballot.

This is one of the dumber mistakes in recent memory, rivaling a blunder by then-state Auditor Anne DeVore (R) of Indiana in 1994. DeVore, the clear favorite for the GOP nomination in a Democratic open House seat that year, missed the deadline by a couple of hours for turning in her signatures. That year, the Republican nomination -- and the seat in Congress -- was eventually won by David McIntosh (R).

No matter what happens in Ohio 6 from now on, it will be hard for Democratic operatives and strategists to sing Wilson’s praises as a candidate. He looks like a fool.

This piece first appeared on Political Wire on February 23, 2006.

New Print Edition: WV Senate & TX 22

The new February 24, 2006 print edition of the Rothenberg Political Report is on its way to subscribers. (Click here for subscription information.)

West Virginia Senate: Generations
By Nathan L. Gonzales

It was almost smooth sailing to a record ninth term for the longest-serving member of the U.S Senate, West Virginia’s Robert C. Byrd (D). After nearly a year of speculation, Cong. Shelley Moore Capito (R) announced in October that she would not challenge Byrd and instead seek reelection.

But late last year, Republicans were successful in recruiting wealthy businessman John Raese into the race. He has run twice statewide before and is willing to invest his own personal money into his upset bid.

Making the case for West Virginians to fire Byrd after half a century will be difficult for the GOP nominee. But Republicans have successfully ensured that the 88-year old senator will have to work to get reelected.

For the rest of the story including the lay of the land, candidate bios, anaylsis of the GOP primary and general election, as well as the Bottom Line..subscribe now.

Texas 22: The Big One

If you weren’t paying attention, you might think former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay was running for Congress in all of the 232 Republican-held districts across the country.

Democrats are relentless in their attempts to couple the indicted congressman with any and all members of the But while Democrats hope voters have DeLay on their minds as they enter voting booths nationwide on November 7, the Republican congressman will only be on the ballot in Texas’s 22nd Congressional District.

DeLay is a fighter who hasn’t won a round in a while. From his indictments thanks to Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle (D) to having to step down from his leadership post, the road ahead is only going to get tougher.

Rumors of more judicial trouble continue to swirl around the GOP congressman and his aides regarding their relationships with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to tax evasion, fraud, and conspiracy to bribe public officials.

But before he can fend off any more charges, DeLay must get renominated and reelected to Congress.

A January 10-12 Houston Chronicle poll, conducted by Rice University and the University of Houston, showed former Cong. Nick Lampson (D) leading in a general election with 30%, to 22% for DeLay and 11% for former GOP Cong. Steve Stockman (who is running as an Independent).

No one can foresee with certainty what will happen with the current charges leveled against DeLay or what may be down the line with potentially new charges. But obviously, new charges would simply throw gasoline on an already volatile race.

For the rest of the story, including information on DeLay's primary challengers, how the GOP primary plays out, the general election battle, and the Bottom Line... subscribe now.

2006: The Year of Changing Your Mind in Politics

By Stuart Rothenberg

OK, so I really don’t expect a lot of consistency from politicians. They change their positions and their arguments from cycle to cycle. But this cycle, change has become the rule in more ways than one.

At least two candidates have turned down pleas to run for Congress, only to change their minds after others got in races to fill the apparent vacuums. Two other candidates entered races only to jump back out less than 48 hours later. And one of them jumped back into the race a few months later.

The best known case is in Ohio, where Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) turned down repeated appeals to get into the Senate race, only to jump into the contest after Democratic strategists and party insiders, desperate for a potentially strong challenger for Sen. Mike DeWine (R), succeeded in wooing Paul Hackett into the contest.

Hackett, quite rightly, was incensed. After trying to compete, he threw in the towel last week and, even more surprising, passed up a House bid as well. He was bitter. And he certainly deserved to be.

Ironically, Hackett’s exit may marginally improve DeWine’s chances of holding his seat, since he will now face a liberal Democrat with a lengthy legislative record.

In Minnesota’s 6th district, Democrats waited to see whether Patty Wetterling would run for the open U.S. House seat or for the U.S. Senate. Since she ran well against Mark Kennedy (R) in his 2004 House race, party insiders rightly figured that she had first claim on his ’06 open House seat.

After hemming and hawing for a while, Wetterling ruled out the House race. After more delay, she jumped into the Senate race. That opened the way for former state Transportation Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg to enter the House contest. He did, and party strategists and activists almost immediately coalesced behind his effort, giving Democrats a chance to win a Republican-leaning seat.

But then Wetterling dropped out of the Senate race and jumped into the House race. When Tinklenberg challenged Wetterling to explain why she would go back on her word, she uttered “things change, the world moves on.” How profound. That’s the kind of insight we’ve been missing in government.

Corey Day, a spokesperson, explained Wetterling’s decision by telling Roll Call, “Folks in the district came to Patty to do this, (sic) there was an overwhelming display of support for her.”

Give me a break. I’m sure some people encouraged Wetterling to run. There are more than half a million people in the district. Wetterling probably could find a few hundred loyalists to encourage her to run for the House. So what? It would have been nice if she had kept her word.

A St. Paul Pioneer Press story also quoted an EMILY’s List spokesperson as “very excited” that Wetterling had entered the race. Well, since Tinklenberg is a pro-life guy, EMILY’s List obviously prefers Wetterling. But can’t somebody finally stand up and scream that candidates should keep their word when they decide not to run and another candidate takes that as a cue to proceed?

Wetterling’s race switch enhances Democrats’ chances of holding Minnesota’s open Senate seat but damages her party’s chances of winning Kennedy’s open House seat.

Wetterling’s and Brown’s initial decisions caused others to enter races to which they otherwise would not have committed. That didn’t happen in the Michigan Senate race or in New York’s 29th district, two cases where candidate flip-flops didn’t involve questions of character or trust.

In Michigan, Republican Mike Bouchard entered the Senate race very briefly before announcing that medical issues forced him to drop out of the contest. But now Bouchard, believing that he has those issues under control, has re-entered the race, and he’s probably the favorite to win the GOP nomination.

But Bouchard’s exit from the race didn’t bring other hopefuls into the contest. Keith Butler and Jerry Zandstra were already in the race, so Bouchard’s flip-flop-flip was nothing more than a weird sequence of events.

Similarly, in New York’s 29th, Democrat David Nachbar announced a week ago that he would seek the Democratic nomination, pitting him against retired Navy officer Eric Massa, who has been running for months. But two days later, Nachbar left the race. While his flip-flop was bizarre, Nachbar had never promised Massa that he would not run.

I’m certainly not saying that politicians don’t have a right to change their minds. But in the Ohio and Minnesota cases, Brown and Wetterling showed that their promises were hollow. Is that really the way to start a bid for public office? Going back on one’s word, without even trying to clear the air first with the person harmed, isn’t a great character recommendation.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on February 21, 2006. Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.