March 18, 2006
SMOOT...HAWLEY...KING...FRIST:
French fry LNG foes: Takeover could thwart shutdown try (Jay Fitzgerald, 3/18/06, Boston Herald)
The state-run Gaz de France is bidding to take over private French energy group Suez SA, which owns the Everett terminal through its subsidiary Distrigas of Massachusetts.
The French government moved late last month to buy a controlling interest in Suez in order to block the sale of Suez by Italian energy group Enel.
But the deal may also ultimately blunt calls and efforts to force the closure of the Everett liquefied natural gas terminal, which critics say is a dangerous facility in the post-Sept. 11 world of terrorism.
“It takes a bad situation and makes it more complicated and perhaps worse,” said state Sen. Mark Montigny (D-New Bedord), referring to the French move.
Craig Hooper, a research fellow at the Monterey Institute for International Studies, said it’s a “little scary” that any foreign government, directly or indirectly, could take over such a major energy facility in the United States.
He noted the recent outcry over a proposal by a Dubai company to take over six U.S. port operations.
“Even if France is an ally, sometimes they have interests that diverge” from that of the United States, Hooper said.
Even for the Stupid Party, it's unbelievable how completely we played into the protectionist hands of the Democrats. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 18, 2006 8:48 AM
The party is merely following Bush's example, right?
Posted by: h-man at March 18, 2006 9:04 AMDon't you always say that majorities in a democracy will eventually get what they want? The Dubai ports deal was unpopular, so the politicians went for the popular side. This is just another attempt to get on the 50%+ side.
Posted by: Brandon at March 18, 2006 9:05 AMI'd bet people are even more opposed to the French operating a port than Dubai.
Posted by: AWW at March 18, 2006 9:07 AMAWW:
Yes, people care more about getting stuff cheap than about who runs stuff.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 9:33 AMBrandon;
Politicians should stand up for principle over politics and electability when OJ agrees with the principles. Otherwise, they should go for the votes if it's someone else's principle that's to be sacrificed.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 18, 2006 10:00 AMGetting elected is an important principle, avoiding the Depression is one too. You try to balance them.
It goes without saying that damaging your own electoral prospects in order to vindicate the policies of your opponents is completely unprincipled. That's what the far Right did with an issue no one cared about until they started squealing.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 10:07 AMIf you govern based on the latest poll numbers, the way Bill Clinton did, you get a legacy in office like Bill Clinton has, of a relatively high approval rating, but also of never making any hard choices. Obviously, the former outweighs the latter in the minds of most of the Republicans in Congress.
Posted by: John at March 18, 2006 11:48 AMApologies to Mr. Lombardi, Getting (re)elected isn't everything, it's the only thing.
Posted by: erp at March 18, 2006 12:37 PMIt goes without saying that damaging your own electoral prospects in order to vindicate the policies of your opponents is completely unprincipled.And the steel tariffs weren't a vindication of the policies of Bush's political opponents? You claim that this was part of getting fast track authority, but I have always found that one of your least plausible claims.
I am not expecting you to agree with me, but to simply consider that possibility that objecting to such things on principle doesn't make one a rabid partisan committed to ideological purity over any concern of electability. And perhaps that this is applicable to other situations, beyond even the Dubai Ports and steel tarrifs issues.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 18, 2006 2:08 PMDid he get Fast Track? Did he keep steel tariffs? Did the GOP add seats in the two elections since?
I accept that the far Right objected to the ports deal on their principle. That principle just happens to be evil.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 2:17 PMWhy keep bringing up the steel tariffs?Anyone who looks beyond the slogans and sound bites finds that not only does it seem that Bush realized he'd made a mistake, that he'd violated his campaign promises and principles, and then fixed his mistake when given the opportunity. Too many politicans will stick to a mistake, come Hell or high water, so it's refreshing to see one who can recgnize and reverse a mistake he made earlier.
Now if you want to rip him for signing Keating-McCain-Feingold, go for it...
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 18, 2006 4:12 PMraoul:
Because they misundersttod W then and to admit it would be to acknowledge themselves the idiots rather than he--same with NCLB and medicare reform.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 4:59 PMMr. Ortega;
It's a convenient example, as my issue is with Mr. Judd, not President Bush. I completely agree with your view on the situation. It is OJ who claims that it was never a mistake and (here's the key part) those of us who objected to it at the time were putting ideological purity over electability. In fact, my argument was basically the same as OJ's with regard to the Dubai ports.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 19, 2006 9:54 AMAOG:
Had W stopped a Dubaian company from buying an American steel company your point would be valid. Instead he imposed temporary tariffs to preserve our steel indusrey--vital to national security as port management is not--and as a way to win support for Fast Track authority, which worked too. It served political, security and economic principles.
What has the far Right achieved by opposing the Dubai deal? It's hurt the election prospects of trade supporters, made cargo hauling more expensive, and helped make the Left's case for protectionism and nationalization of such functions. It is completely unprincipled.
Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 10:10 AMMy beef is with the way the steel tariff issue is always brought up as if it was Smoot-Hawley II, and that the tariffs are still in effect and dragging the economy back to 1930. It's another one of those cases where the ideological eventually won, but because it wasn't won in the "right" way (pun intended), it's an illegitimate victory and never happened.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at March 19, 2006 6:29 PM