Of the three major daily newspapers in the U.S., two published principled editorials on the potential sale of port operations to Dubai Ports World, and one demonstrated its increasing devotion to political hackery. Can you guess which one I’m talking about?

The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post each have smart edit boards, and both wrote editorials today calling on politicians to tone down the rhetoric and look at this port deal more rationally. Both edit boards have a history of understanding the realities of global capitalism and economic integration, and both have a history of discouraging hysteria over foreign investment and “outsourcing.” The editorials they wrote on the possible port sale followed from the positions they have taken in the past.

On the other hand, the New York Times editorial board continued to demonstrate that, on national political issues, it is an extension of the DNC press office. Despite its knee-jerk leftism on a number of topics, the NYT ed board has traditionally recognized the importance of foreign investment and the stupidity of overheated protectionist bloviation — which I attribute to the influence of op-ed columnist and globalization enthusiast Tom Friedman. Therefore, one might have expected the NYT to approach the port sale with an understanding of the economics and incentives involved.

Unfortunately, the only consideration for the NYT ed-board members these days in evaluating any national issue is how they can use the issue politically to assist the Democratic party and attack the Bush administration. Thus, they have twisted the port deal to fit this template. They start with a sort of vague rehash of the arguments against the port deal:

The issue is not, as Mr. Bush is now claiming, a question of bias against a Middle Eastern company. The United Arab Emirates is an ally, but its record in the war on terror is mixed. It is not irrational for the United States to resist putting port operations, perhaps the most vulnerable part of the security infrastructure, under that country’s control. And there is nothing in the Homeland Security Department’s record to make doubters feel confident in its assurances that all proper precautions will be taken.

Nowhere does the editorial point out that security operations at these ports would not be placed “under [the United Arab Emirates’] control” — these would remain the province of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs. Omitting this key fact is, at best, indicative of a weak argument against allowing this firm to manage commercial operations at these ports. At worst it’s just deceptive.

Next, the ed-board members trot out the usual litany of anti-Bush tropes: They bring up the subject of “extralegal spying,” as if the NSA issue had any relevance here. They lament that the administration has not imposed “reasonable safety requirements on chemical plants” (for more on that, see here, here and here). And they can’t pass up an opportunity to criticize Bush’s “aggressive antiregulatory agenda.”

It’s no secret that the Dems are using this issue in an attempt to seize some ground from Republicans on national security. It’s also no secret that the NYT ed board now evaluates issues using primarily political criteria. Other critics of the port deal sound anti-takeover. The NYT, as usual, just sounds anti-Bush.