Liberal Talk Radio

If memory serves, somebody around here seemed to make the same sort of argument Mickey Kaus is putting forward:

What if Congress eventually votes to kill the Dubai port deal, President Bush exercises his first-ever veto, and then Congress by a two-thirds vote overrides the veto? On the chat shows today, this veto-overrride scenario was treated as humiliating for Bush–further weakening, low approval ratings, lame duck status, second-term blues, etc. But mightn’t it instead be a logical Kabuki outcome for the GOP? Congressional Republicans would get what they want–which is a chance to demonstrate their independence from the President. Voters would get what they want–which is not to worry about Dubai running American ports–and they’d be more inclined to return the incumbent Republican majority. Meanwhile, Bush would show friendly Arab governments a willingness to risk his prestige to go to bat for them. (‘I tried. Too bad about those timid Congressional xenophobes.’).

Kaus doesn’t see how it helps the Democrats (“control of Congress is a zero-sum game–there can’t be an outcome that helps both parties”), but I still disagree. I’ve seen Chuck Schumer so much lately up there on the high horse about this issue. It’s possible my perspective on this is skewed — Chuck is everywhere for me, frequently showing up in my dreams, as well — but I think the Democrats have gotten pretty good right-on-terrorism points with this issue . . . no sense in seeming overtly political by rooting against an override . . .