Let us assume that the Democratic leaders obsessively read Salon.com and actually take its articles to heart. Let us further assume that they go and change and be like Dale Earnhardt, presenting a "balls-out" image to crowds of "middle-brow white America", ready-made for ravenous consumption. Let's keep assuming and pretend that it's worked.

Now what?

With all the talk about how "the Democrats need to win", it appears to me that everyone is losing sight about exactly WHY we want them to win. And that is because we have an administration that is incompetent and corrupt, driving out nation steadily towards ruin. We want an administration which is competent and honest (as far as an administration can be honest), which will coax our nation into prosperity in this rapidly changing world. Yes. Now tell me, how would an image of "balls-out" Democrats achieve this end? We will have a party in charge that is good at presenting themselves to the "middle-brow" public and cultivating an engaging image, sure. Don't we have a party like that in charge right now? Or perhaps everyone is convinced that simply because they are Democrats, they will make everything better and all they have to do is get elected?

Image is nice, yet I've a sneaky suspicion that the Democrats are not simply "losing the middle America"; our entire political system (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) has lost its mojo. It does not take politicians long to figure out that even in a democracy power can be abused and personal gain extracted from it. These days, extracting personal gain is all our politicians do... or did you forget why the Republicans gained so much power only ten years ago? Do you expect that the "culture of corruption" has disappeared from the Democratic ranks in that time? They merely haven't wielded enough influence to make it show, is all.

We don't need a particular party in power, ladies and gentlemen. We need professional politicians who are more motivated to keep our country going than lining their pockets. Fat chance on getting that in the next election. Instead, we'll most probably get some Democratic leaders pretending to "listen to middle America", getting elected, and doing more of the same. Because they can. Because we re-elect the members of Congress 96% of the time.

Hey, wasn't there a similar kind of hysteria back in the '80s about the Japanese "owning everything"? Is it just me, or is there a correlation between a conservative President in power and a freakout about foreigners taking over the place?

Also... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the entire history of the Americas consist of foreigners barging in and taking over? I mean, not like the Americans pioneered the idea - c.f. Babylon, Hammurabi, reign of - but hostile takeover sort of became an artform here. Of course, having it done to *us* really hurts.

Now I wonder, is the general success of foreigners in the U.S. going to lead to a) a wave of protectionism or b) a wave of college enrollment? I hope for b), but I fear it's going to be a).

Given that the current anti-Arab xenophobia was fomented by the Bush administration, I think the current kerfuffle over the port deal is very important to our own politics. First off, the animosity the rest of the world feels towards us, in all probability, won't get much worse than the Abu Gharib and Gitmo scandals have made it. Protectionism on the basis of nationality is bad, but not unknown in American history or the history of any other nation; blatant disregard for the Geneva convention, the UN, the world opinion, and our very own Constitution is much much worse.

What's interesting about the port deal is that it puts the administration in a difficult spot. Just how difficult is evident from their oscillation between defending the deal as normal and valid and then trying to distance themselves from it. If Bush actually approved the deal, why is he trying to distance himself from it? If he hasn't approved the deal... why not? From what I read about it... it's kind of his JOB. If he had at least told us that he is aware of the UAE support of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, but he's had the Dubai company checked out and it's clean... but no. Yet again, he's asking us to trust him, except why should we? Isn't he saying he's had no idea that this deal was even happening? And if he has, why is he saying he hasn't?

The members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, aren't engaging in "paroxysms of xenophobia", but rather they are (as always) protecting their own positions. The failure of the Social Security reform taught them a simple lesson: the Bush administration is not the ship they want to sail the rough waters in. While not yet capsizing, it's kind of rocky and the deck is too slippery. They can't possibly get behind the port deal; the risk of going down is too great.