The Lame Ducks May Be Those Who Killed the Port Deal
Jack Kemp (and count me with him) is fed up with both parties over the "Port Fiasco". He wants to start a new party combining the foreign policy of Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman with the defense policy of Ronald Reagan and Scoop Jackson. He is looking for someone from either party who puts "principle ahead of politics and the next generation ahead of the next election."
He is particularly disappointed that:
a majority of the candidates for president from both parties cannot make the distinction between Middle Eastern radical jihadists who choose hatred and suicide bombs to attack the West from a small Arab country like the United Arab Emirates that chooses to stand with us against the tide in its own region in the war on terror and ends up getting the back of the hand from the U.S. Congress.
I have been harsh towards John McCain. However, on this issue and national security in general, he has been particularly statesman-like.
No doubt Bush did not read his tea leaves correctly to know that the political reaction to the ports deal would be so negative. On its face, it is one needing explanation. But, the substance of the deal is positive for the country and free market capitalism.
As discussed below regarding "maverick" Peter King, the President may have low polls right now before Spring of an election year. But those Republicans should beware. As Niall Ferguson wrote about supposed lameduck Presidents:
They should remember that a second-term president is not necessarily a lame duck — he is also a man with nothing to lose...[W]here the stakes are high — and they don't get any higher than American national security — the presidents are harder to roll over. The next time you hear the word "duck" in Washington, my advice would be to do just that.