"Port-gate"

My reactions go as follows:

-The deal doesn't actually pose any new security threat, beyond the administration's continued cavalier attitude towards port security.

-Bush is threatening a veto because a) one of his pals stands to make a lot of money off of this deal and/or b) he damn well feels like it. I'm going with "and."

-The huge media uproar about the whole mess is driven by the anti-Arab fear-mongering of the past five years, not any serious concern about foreign governments running U.S. ports. See: China, Britain. It's kind of poetic, seeing Bush's terror tactics biting him in the ass like this.

-There are legitimate security issues to be raised here concerning whether or not we should be out-sourcing national security to foreign nationals of any stripe. This is where I would like to see the Democratic response coming from--it would segue nicely into a more general discussion of Bush's utter failures re: actual Homeland Security.

-This is not, as some are suggesting, some intricate Rovian plot to give Congressional Republicans some media distance from an increasingly lame-duck president. That said, if they play their cards right, it could work like one. That is why the Democrats need to stake out some territory here right away, to keep the Republicans from recovering from this fumble.