Presidential and Congressional Candidate Cuba Watch

Pensacola Paper Urges End of Embargo

2008-11-14T03:58:00.000-08:00

Free Cuba -- end the embargo

Editorial • November 14, 2008

Pensacola News Journal

http://www.pnj.com/article/20081114/OPINION/811140319

- z up

Already there's talk that a Barack Obama administration will relax U.S. restrictions on travel to Cuba and allow cash remittances by Cuban-Americans with family there.

Good.

And while he's at it he should do something about the counterproductive trade embargo.

For starters, it would be good for Pensacola. The Port of Pensacola once did a thriving trade with Cuba, and still ships frozen food there under a food-related exemption to the embargo.

A Cuba with more money to spend means more business for the port.

More importantly, we say open up Cuba to the full force of American tourism and business, and see how long Raoul Castro can maintain the kind of tyrannical grip his brother maintained.

Fidel always had the United States to blame for economic conditions in Cuba, pointing to the embargo and the ban against family members sending money to needy relatives.

In the end, who was hurt the most? The poverty-stricken people of Cuba.

Castro and his coterie of apparatchiks don't suffer. They have plenty to eat, nice homes and can travel to much of the world.

Certainly, Cuba's government is dictatorial. But if we can trade with, and U.S. citizens can travel to, Russia, China, Egypt and other such bastions of freedom, we can handle access to Cuba.

So let's be honest. This is about Florida's electoral votes, which presidential candidates fear might hang in the balance of the anti-Castro vote in South Florida.

But the specter of a supposedly free country barring its supposedly free citizens from traveling to a nation 90 miles from its border because of domestic politics is shameful.

Does anyone think that if Cuba had as much oil as, say, our trading partner Venezuela — a country whose rabidly anti-American leader would love to emulate Castro — that these restrictions would be in place?

We didn't think so.

End the travel restrictions, cancel the embargo — and begin the process of freeing Cuba.

Russian Advice to Obama; Boosts Ties with Cuba

2008-11-12T09:46:00.000-08:00

Russian Foreign Min Urges US To Lift Cuba Trade Embargo

Tuesday November 11st, 2008 / 19h13

MOSCOW (AFP)--Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday urged U.S. president-elect Barack Obama to lift Washington's 46-year-old trade embargo against Cuba.
"We hope that the voice of the international community, which has made itself heard again at the United Nations, will be taken into consideration," Lavrov said.

"I heard that relations with Cuba were among the questions on which the administration of the president-elect Barack Obama were going to reflect and take decisions," he said following talks with his Cuban counterpart, Felipe Perez Roque, during a visit to Moscow.

The U.N. General Assembly last month again called on the U.S. to lift the embargo.
The Russian foreign minister also described military and technical co-operation with Cuba as an "important element" of the partnership between the two countries.

Such cooperation, added Roque, was always aimed at "reinforcing the defensive potential of Cuba."

During the long U.S. election campaign, Cubans rooted for Obama, believing his victory would overturn the U.S. economic embargo on the communist island state, which was hardened under U.S. President George W. Bush.

Obama said during the election campaign that as soon as he became president, he would allow unlimited family travel and financial remittances to Cub, although he would maintain the economic embargo.

****************************

Medvedev: Russia to boost economic, political ties with Cuba

www.chinaview.cn 2008-11-11 21:58:24

MOSCOW, Nov. 11 (Xinhua) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday that Moscow will advance economic cooperation and political ties with Cuba.

"We've overcome the pause that appeared in our relations in the past decade and today our contacts are intensive and friendly," Itar-Tass news agency quoted Medvedev as saying during a meeting with visiting Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque.

Medvedev hailed cooperation between Russia and Cuba in the world arena, saying Cuba has been and remains one of Russia's "key partners in Latin America."

Medvedev accepted an invitation from the Cuban leadership for an official visit to the Caribbean country and Cuban leader Raul Castro is expected to visit Russia next year, Itar-Tass said.

Earlier Tuesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called military cooperation an important component of a Russian-Cuban partnership, but Roque said "no documents concerning military cooperation will be signed" during his stay in Moscow.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has pledged to reinforce Russia's global status, including its presence in such countries as Cuba amid rows with the United States over Washington's plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile components in Central Europe.

Roque rejected the possibility of resuming Russia's military presence in Cuba but vowed to boost energy cooperation and economic ties.

Miami Expects Small Obama Steps

2008-11-07T05:48:00.000-08:00

Smaller steps will come first in Obama's policy on Cuba

By JENNIFER KAY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: Friday, November 7, 2008 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, November 7, 2008 at 12:36 a.m.
Sarasota Herald Tribune

MIAMI - Campaigning before Cuban-Americans here last spring, Sen. Barack Obama promised that if elected he would immediately lift Bush administration restrictions on their travel back to the communist island and on the amount of money they can send home to relatives.

HERALD-TRIBUNE ARCHIVE / WILFREDO LEE / AP

Order photo

Sen. Barack Obama, at a Cuban Independence Day celebration in Miami last May, tells the Cuban American National Foundation that wants to pursue direct diplomacy with Cuba and Latin America.

The president-elect is widely expected by Cuba specialists to make good on that promise, but it is unlikely he will quickly move to end or ease this country's four-decade embargo that severely restricts trade and tourism with Cuba.

Much will depend on whether Cuba responds positively to the Obama administration by releasing political prisoners, improving its human rights record or moving toward a market economy, said Dario Moreno, a Florida International University political science professor.

"If Cuba makes some sort of gesture toward the United States, it could begin a diplomatic process," Moreno said.

President Bush has taken a hard line toward Cuba, imposing tough restrictions on travel and remittances in 2004, hoping to hurt the Castro government by choking off a major source of dollars.

Cubans in the U.S. can visit the island only once every three years and can send only quarterly remittances of up to $300 per household to immediate family members. Previously, they could visit once a year and send up to $3,000. The administration also tightened restrictions on travel for educational and religious groups and strengthened enforcement against travelers and businesses that subvert the embargo.

Obama has said he is open to a dialogue with Cuban President Raul Castro, who succeeded his ailing brother, Fidel, two years ago. He has also said he is open to diplomacy if there were an opportunity to advance U.S. interests and the cause of freedom for Cubans and that his administration would boost economic aid to the region and work with other countries on drug trafficking and alternative energy.

Some exile groups are optimistic that Obama's regional approach to diplomacy would work.

Individual Americans sharing resources and information and networking with their Cuban counterparts would help foster democratic change on the island better than cutting off their access to friends, family and money, said Carlos Saladrigas, chairman of the Washington-based Cuba Study Group, a nonpartisan organization of business and civic leaders who favor opening relations with Cuba.

"It's going to be more proactive," said Francisco Hernandez, the president of the Cuban American National Fund, which hosted an Obama campaign stop in May. "The policy of the Bush administration has been a wait-and-see policy in which for eight years they've been waiting and praying for the conversion of Fidel and Raul Castro to democratic leadership."

In winning Florida, Obama prevailed even in counties that re-elected three Republican Cuban-Americans known in Congress for staunchly defending hard-line policies against Cuba -- Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and brothers Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart.

DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS AND CUBA

John F. Kennedy: Shortly after taking office in 1961, he allowed the CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion that attempted to
overthrow Fidel Castro's fledgling government. It failed after Kennedy blocked airstrikes that would have supported the invading exiles, earning
the Democratic Party undying hatred among some Cuban-Americans. In 1962 he
imposed the economic embargo against the island that remains today. Later that year, the world came close to war when the Soviet Union placed nuclear
missiles on Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended two weeks later with the Soviets agreeing to remove the missiles for a U.S. pledge not to invade the island.

Jimmy Carter: He tried to improve relations with Cuba in
the 1970s, opening a diplomatic mission in Havana and allowing Cuban one in Washington. But Castro undercut Carter's 1980 re-election bid by announcing
that any Cuban who wanted to leave could, sparking the Mariel boatlift. About 125,000 Cubans, including some criminals and mental patients, fled to
the U.S., creating a refugee crisis.

Bill Clinton: He instituted the current "wet-foot, dry-foot" policy that allows Cubans who reach U.S. soil to stay but repatriates most interdicted at sea. He also returned to Cuba 6-year-old
Elian Gonzalez, rescued after his mother died when their boat sank as they tried to reach Florida. Elian was placed with relatives in Miami, but his
father -- and the Castro government -- wanted him back. Clinton used armed federal agents to seize him from the relatives' home and return him.

Miami Races Analysis

2008-11-07T05:44:00.000-08:00

Cuba issue vs. the power of incumbency

BY MYRIAM MARQUEZ

mmarquez@MiamiHerald.com

Standing in front of the big screen in the Kendall sports bar, Democrat Joe Garcia congratulated U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart for a hard-fought win, as the image of Republican John McCain giving his concession speech flickered behind him.

It was election night, and the crowd of college students, black activists and white and Hispanic supporters had been counting on Garcia's win in what polls showed as a nail-biter. This was supposed to be the year that tested Cuban-American voters' fierce allegiance to the GOP. Yet all three Cuban-American incumbents in Congress won handily even as Democrat Barack Obama made inroads among younger Cuban Americans and seized the non-Cuban Hispanic vote statewide.

Did the Cuba issue really fall from the political radar as some pollsters told us?

Or have Cuban Americans not budged an inch, as the Republican winners now tell us?

The answer is more nuanced.

In fact, Garcia's loss -- by 6 percentage points in a district with about 25 percent Cuban Americans -- has more to do with non-Cuban whites and Hispanics and blacks in his district, which covers Southwest Miami-Dade and a chunk of Collier County. Thousands embraced Obama but didn't bother to vote in that congressional race.

GOP HELP

Nicaraguan and Venezuelan voters also delivered for the Republicans. A Bendixen & Associates exit poll showed they voted for McCain. Like the Cubans, they fled Marxist regimes and fear promises of change will mean spreading the misery around.

No question that the incumbents' tough stand on communist Cuba was instrumental in getting the elderly exiles out to vote. They delivered for both Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, whose diverse district stretching from Key West to Miami Beach was never at risk.

U.S. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez had a titanic slugfest filled with dirty GOP campaign ads that focused on Martinez's conviction on corruption charges, later overturned on appeal.

Voters in Democrat-rich Broward County seemed unable to decide. Many simply didn't vote for either. The undervotes resulted in Democrat Martinez getting only a few hundred more votes than Diaz-Balart, who spent three months walking the southern Broward portion of his district.

ONE PRECINCT

Martinez, a hugely popular mayor in heavily Cuban blue-collar Hialeah for years, won in only one precinct in his ''city of progress.'' Even if many of the voters in Hialeah are more recent arrivals who would prefer to see Bush administration travel restrictions lifted to visit family they left behind, the majority chose Lincoln, one of the architects of the restrictions. But many split their vote, handing the presidency to Obama, who has promised to ease those limits on travel and remittances.

Florida International University professor Dario Moreno, whose preelection polls on the congressional races proved more prescient than any santero's seashell clairvoyance, said the results prove the power of incumbency.

He thinks Garcia lost in the tightest of the three races because the Democrat didn't do enough on Miami Cuban radio to make his case. ``He didn't try to peel off Cuban votes from Mario.''

Mario's district, which has seen a seismic shift in voter registration that has lost about 20,000 Republican voters, still managed to deliver. Bottom line, said Moreno: ``People underestimate how hard it is to unseat an incumbent.''

Nor can we underestimate the passion and pain of exile.

Analysis of Cuban American vote

2008-11-06T09:55:00.000-08:00

Posted on Thu, Nov. 06, 2008

Obama first Democrat to win Florida's Hispanic vote

BY CASEY WOODS

Marking a historic shift, Sen. Barack Obama won a majority of Florida's Hispanic vote statewide and nearly tied Sen. John McCain in Miami-Dade, where Republicans had long dominated the Hispanic vote.

No Democratic presidential candidate had ever achieved either milestone since the exit polling of Hispanics first began in the 1980s, pollsters say.

Nationwide, Obama won the Hispanic vote by a wider margin, garnering 66 percent to McCain's 32 percent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

In Florida, Obama won 57 percent of the Hispanics on Tuesday, compared to 42 percent for McCain, according to exit polling by Bendixen & Associates, a Democratic pollster.

By comparison, President Bush won 55 percent of the state's Hispanic vote to John Kerry's 44 percent in 2004, according to exit polls.

Polls indicate the state's Hispanic vote may now be divided. On one side are conservative older Cuban Americans, who vote reliably Republican. On the other are younger Cuban Americans coupled with an expanding number of non-Cuban Hispanics, who tend to lean Democratic.

''This is a demographic revolution happening in Miami-Dade County,'' said Fernand Amandi of Bendixen & Associates, which has been heralding a Hispanic electoral shift for years.

According to Bendixen's exit polls, Obama won 35 percent of the Cuban-American vote in Miami-Dade County, nearly 10 points higher than Kerry's showing in 2004. Within that community, the generational difference was stark. For example, 84 percent of Miami-Dade Cuban-American voters 65 or older backed McCain, while 55 percent of those 29 or younger backed Obama.

For evidence of the potential divide among Cuban Americans, consider Miami's Pujol family.

FAMILY DYNAMICS

Alexandra Palomo-Pujol, 24, helped persuade her mother Rose, a lifelong Republican, to back Obama -- but those arguments failed with her grandparents, who emigrated from Cuba in 1959.

''Over three generations, we grew up in completely different places and we all see things differently and it's hard to see eye-to-eye,'' said Palomo-Pujol, an executive assistant. ``It's hard not to have those differences change the most important relationships in your life.''

The family's debates over the election at times ended in slammed doors and days spent without speaking, Palomo-Pujol said.

Her grandfather Jose Luis Pujol regularly called into Cuban-American radio shows before the election, telling listeners that an Obama victory would mean that soon the little pioneros would be part of the U.S. education system. The ''pioneers'' are the children in Cuba's communist education system who are taught to support the revolution with mottoes such as ``we will be like Che [Guevara].''

Meanwhile, Rose Pujol, 53, became an enthusiastic Obama supporter, attending the Democratic Convention, volunteering for the Florida campaign and putting up a life-size cutout of Obama in her Coconut Grove offices.

When she went to tell her parents that she and her daughters were backing the Democratic candidate, they were appalled.

''I could see the hair rising up on their arms, even though I kept telling them that it's OK to realize 50 years later that the party you're part of needs to be revamped,'' Pujol said.

Despite the political divide in families like the Pujols, Cuban-American political observers say this year's presidential election did not signal a departure from the past.

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leading embargo lobbyist, said the polls suggest Cubans may have simply voted with their pocketbooks in the presidential contest and cast traditional votes for Miami-Dade's three long-standing Cuban-American lawmakers -- Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario and Lincoln Diaz-Balart -- to hold the line on Cuba sanctions.

''The message from the community was clearly a reaffirmation of the Cuba policy. There's no doubt about it,'' Claver-Carone said. ``They were comfortable taking the risk with an unknown president, but they've got the insurance policy, per se, with the members of Congress.''

CONGRESSIONAL RACE

But Jeff Garcia, campaign manager for Raul Martinez, Lincoln Diaz-Balart's opponent, said his candidate lost the race among non-Hispanic whites in Broward County -- not Cuban Americans. Although Obama captured 65 percent of Broward voters, Martinez got only half. The congressional district includes Hialeah and southwest Broward.

Yet in all three congressional contests, the subject of Cuba -- be it the decades-old embargo, lifting travel restrictions or Fidel and Raul Castro -- rarely arose on the campaign trail or over the television airwaves.

This was especially true among the growing non-Cuban Hispanic communities that contributed to Obama's victory.

That group has swelled the voter rolls in recent years with largely Democratic or independent voters. Statewide, Hispanic Democrats now outnumber Hispanic Republicans, 513,000 to 445,000.

The stark differences among the communities in Miami-Dade were apparent in a precinct-by-precinct analysis.

Stretching west along Flagler through Sweetwater, and in Hialeah, the mostly Cuban voters came out more than 2-1 for McCain. Not so in West Kendall, Doral, downtown Miami and Homestead, where non-Cuban Hispanics dominate. Obama won them all.

''I think ultimately Obama was able to connect with Hispanics because they were able to identify with what he stands for, because his story is the story of every immigrant,'' said Colombian-American Nelson Hincapie, 35, of Miami.

Hincapie wasn't always an enthusiastic Obama supporter. Like many Latin American immigrants, he was also concerned about how his vote might affect his South American homeland. He was planning to vote for McCain because of Obama's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia.

In the end, his doubts about McCain's ability to handle the rigors of the presidency led him to support Obama.

He eventually volunteered for the Democrat's campaign with several of his Colombian-American friends -- voters who had wanted to back McCain.

''The truth of the matter is we live here, our kids are here, and we have to think about that when we're voting,'' he said.

Miami Herald staff writers Lesley Clark and Rob Barry contributed to this report.

Latin American Leaders Prompt Obama on Cuba

2008-11-05T20:49:00.000-08:00

Latin America Leaders Seek to Mend U.S. Ties With Region, Cuba

By Helen Murphy

Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Latin American leaders seized on the election of Barack Obama as an opportunity to mend the U.S.'s rocky relations in the hemisphere, with two renewing calls for the end of the Cuban trade embargo.

``The hour has arrived to establish new relations among our countries and with our region,'' said an e-mailed statement from Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez regularly demonizes the U.S. ``The historic election of an Afro-descendant to the head of the most powerful country in the world is a sign that the change that's been carried out in South America may be reaching the doorstep of the U.S.''

The calls to normalize relations with Cuba after an almost five-decade estrangement came from Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, one of the region's closest U.S. allies, and Bolivian President Evo Morales, one of its most antagonistic leaders.

``I hope the blockade of Cuba ends, because it no longer has any justification in the history of humanity,'' Lula said yesterday in Brasilia. His comments were echoed an hour later in La Paz, Bolivia: ``My great desire is that Mr. Obama lifts the economic embargo on Cuba,'' Morales said.

Cuba is the ``most symbolically important issue'' for Latin America, said Michael Shifter, vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. ``Even a statement like he's going to review the Cuba policy would itself be a step forward.'' Such a move would ``appeal to the region without much economic or political cost,'' Shifter added.

Chavez on Nov. 2 also called on Obama to end the embargo.

More Travel

Obama said during the campaign that he won't lift the blockade, while making other pledges related to Cuba that would be a significant shift in American policy. He said he would ease travel for Cuban-Americans to go to Cuba and bring money to relatives, and close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Cuba and the U.S. have had strained relations since Fidel Castro's revolution in 1959. The U.S. imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1962, and President George W. Bush's administration recently sought to strengthen it by cracking down on U.S. dollar transactions between the Cuban government and international banks.

Castro, who handed governing authority over to his brother this year, on Nov. 4 wrote that Obama is ``without a doubt more intelligent, refined and even-handed than his Republican adversary.''

`New Era'

Mexico's President Felipe Calderon sent a letter to Obama urging ``a new era'' of trust. Chile's President Michelle Bachelet and Colombia's President Alvaro Uribe also made public statements of congratulations and called for closer ties.

Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who has criticized the U.S. role in creating the global economic crisis, said in a letter to Obama: ``I know we can count on you, and I want you to know that you can count on my sincere friendship.''

The U.S. will face an uphill battle to restore relations in the region and turn away from the image Bush presented, said Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research.

Bush's approval rating in the region sank during his two terms, with Argentina giving him a low of 6 percent, compared with 33 percent for Castro and 38 percent for Chavez, according to a 2006 poll by Santiago-based Latinobarometro.

That image differs from 2001 when Bush took office and made Mexico his first official overseas trip. There were hopes that Bush, who speaks Spanish and has a Mexican sister-in-law, could revitalize the region. Then al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. and Bush turned his attention to fighting terrorism.

New Image

``For the U.S. to recast its image in Latin America its going to need a whole slew of initiatives to refresh the region's memory that a relationship with the U.S. is important,'' said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a Washington-based research group.

``Obama will be offered an opportunity on a silver platter in the region to make amends,'' said Weisbrot.

Excluding Colombia, which gets about $600 million annually from the U.S. to help fight the war on drugs, financial incentives to the region are ``pretty meager,'' Birns said.

Colombia may be the country with the most to lose.

Obama has said he is against scheduling a congressional vote on a free-trade accord with Colombia. Concerns about violence against labor leaders and low worker organizing rates in the nation haven't been resolved and labor rights must be addressed in a meaningful way before a vote, Obama has said.

Bush repeatedly said Uribe is his closest ally in the region and the U.S. should back the nation in its bid for free trade. He made approval of the Colombia agreement a priority for his last year in office.

``Obama will criticize Uribe harshly, something Bush never did, and will be tougher on him over human rights abuses,'' said Myles Frechette, U.S. ambassador to Colombia from 1994 to 1997, and now an independent consultant on trade for Latin America and Africa. ``A trade agreement with Colombia will be much more difficult but not impossible. It may come eventually with conditions attached.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Helen Murphy in Bogota at Hmurphy1@bloomberg.net.

Impact of Obama in Cuba

2008-11-05T20:31:00.000-08:00

CUBA-US: Obama Awakens Hopes for a Thaw

Written by Patricia Grogg

Wednesday, 05 November 2008

HAVANA, Nov 5 (IPS) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has a positive image among most Cubans, who are hopeful regarding his promises of loosening some restrictions towards the island, although the government-controlled media here have refrained from commenting on the future of relations between the two countries.

The Democratic candidate who will become the first African-American president of the United States on Jan. 20 may also become the first to sit down to talks with the Cuban government after nearly half a century of conflict.

During his campaign, Obama pledged to lift travel restrictions so that Cuban-Americans can visit their families in Cuba, and to eliminate caps on the remittances they can send back to their families -- measures that were adopted in 2004 by the Republican administration of President George W. Bush.

Obama also said he was willing to pursue direct diplomacy with the Cuban government, without preconditions.

”I hope that with him as president, relations will be eased, and there won't be so many restrictions,” a 62-year-old woman told IPS, after complaining that in November 2007 she was refused a visa for the second time, on the argument that she posed a risk to U.S. interests.

”My parents and siblings have lived over there for years, and I never had any problem visiting them before. But for the Bush administration I'm a danger, and I can't see my mother, who is 92 years old and sick and wants to see me,” she added, asking not to be identified ”to avoid further complicating matters.”

A shift in Washington's policy towards Cuba would have several advantages for Cuban society, in the view of Reverend Raymundo García, director of the Christian Centre for Reflection and Dialogue, one of the few civil society organisations in Cuba that regularly analyses human rights questions.

Obama's offer ”to be open to dialogue with Cuba is a watershed for his country and his government, because it would require a dismantling of what has been called an embargo based on democracy and human rights questions,” he said.

The protestant minister said he had no doubts that a new attitude on the part of Washington would immediately contribute to bringing about closer ties between families divided between the two countries and would help the Cuban economy as a result of increased travel and remittances. ”God willing, this will be the start of an end to the mutual recriminations, accusations and spitefulness that have caused so much harm,” he said.

Academics who spoke to IPS, however, said they do not foresee significant short-term economic benefits, especially because of the financial crisis in the United States, which has already translated into a drop in remittances towards the rest of the Americas, as well as a reduction in travel due to soaring air ticket prices.

”Without a doubt, the situation could improve in the next few months, and that would be a positive signal, but for now, Obama's priority is to improve the U.S. economy and rebuild the nation's prestige,” economy Professor Omar Everleny Pérez Villanueva told IPS.

He also said, however, that he has no doubts that if the U.S. Congress passes laws favourable to Cuba, Obama will not veto them. ”He wouldn't have any reason to do so, and besides, the hard-line Cuban-Americans are Republicans, to whom Obama is not beholden.”

Luis René Fernández, assistant director of the University of Havana's Centre for the Study of the Hemisphere and the United States (CEHSEU), agrees that Cuba is not ”a priority” on Washington's agenda, but said a new stance towards this Caribbean island nation could ”be important for the world's perception of the United States.”

”That is, small changes in the policy towards Cuba, a degree of flexibility, an openness to diplomatic negotiations, however limited, could help improve something crucial to U.S. politics: the country's image, which has severely deteriorated after eight years of an administration that has been deeply unpopular at a global level,” said Fernández.

In the analyst's view, a more pragmatic Cuba policy could provide ”collateral benefits” to the government of Obama, who will take office only a few weeks after the Cuban government headed by Raúl Castro celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Cuban revolution, on Jan. 1, 2009.

Up to now, only former president Fidel Castro has publicly referred to the two candidates who faced off in Tuesday's elections. In his most recent column, he described Obama as ”more intelligent, educated and level-headed” than his Republican rival, John McCain.

”Obama came to these elections with the backing of the dominant class in the United States,” Ramón Sánchez-Parodi Montoto, international relations analyst and former head of the Cuban Interests Section in the United States wrote in an article Wednesday in Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba's governing Communist Party.

Opinions varied among dissident groups in Cuba. ”I don't believe in proposals for dialogue with this government,” Berta Soler, a member of the Ladies in White, a group of wives and daughters of imprisoned dissidents who were accused of ”conspiring” with the United States, told IPS.

By contrast, Eloy Gutiérrez Menoyo said that for Cuba, the change that lies ahead in Washington could open up a new horizon of ”infinite” possibilities and ”would also be an opportunity for enriching dialogue with Latin America.” Menoyo is the head of Cuban Change, which he describes as ”an independent opposition organisation.”

Bardach: If Obama Wins

2008-11-03T07:19:00.000-08:00

Florida: Ann Louise Bardach

As the final countdown begins, Team Obama has Florida’s 27 electoral votes in its crosshairs. To that end, Bill Clinton rallied the troops with Obama at a massive rally in Orlando on Wednesday night, and Al Gore was there on Friday. Democrats have learned the hard way that nothing can be taken for granted in The Sunshine State and have 350 paid staff statewide that have registered about 700,000 more voters than Republicans. In Miami-Dade County alone, the Obama campaign has 11 field offices.

Early voting began on October 20 and has been unusually heavy, with many waiting four hours on line. Whatever the outcome on November 4, the fate of the 48-year-old U.S. Embargo on Cuba and American policy toward Latin America will also be decided. The fight for Florida is being waged largely in a parallel universe, a good deal of it via Spanish-language media. It has long been an article of faith that a Democrat needed 35% of the Cuban vote to take Florida.

Should Obama carry Florida, restrictions on travel to Cuba and remittances for Cuban-Americans will likely end immediately. Soon after, diplomatic relations will likely be restored. He faces a steep climb in Cuban Miami, but has made headway and he is now leading in Florida by 3 to 4 points.

In the over-caffeinated precincts of Dade County, conspiracy perfumes the air. More than one Obama staffer told me Republican operatives are directing phone banks to urge folks to call the powerful Spanish-language radio talk shows to accuse Obama of being a “comunista” and a “marxista.”

One popular target among callers is Obama’s background as a “community organizer,” which has been likened to that of running a CDR [Committees for the Defense of the Revolution], neighborhood watch groups in Cuba renowned for their snitching. Joe Centorino of the State Attorney office said he was not surprised to hear of such doings in Dade, but responds, “What is the crime here? Remember that not all dirty tricks are illegal.”

Florida Congressional Races

2008-11-03T07:11:00.000-08:00

Trouble In Florida

by Ann Louise Bardach

October 30, 2008 | 8:32pm

The fate of the U.S. Embargo of Cuba rests on down and dirty campaigns in South Florida

I have been covering the nexus of Miami—Havana-Washington politics for almost two decades. It is a scorched-earth terrain of gladiator combat between Cuban strongman Fidel Castro, a small, dedicated army of his would-be assassins, and the Cuban exile powerbrokers who have run Miami and dictated policy to the White House.

I have reported on how this battleground has changed—from the mid 1970s, when bombs went off sometimes daily in Miami, to the post-9/11 era, when violence was shuttled to the side in deference to the ballot box.

This election is the end game: on November 4 the fate of the US Embargo against Cuba will likely be decided by the outcome presidential race, along with the political future of its most ardent champions, two members of Congress who also happen to be nephews of Fidel Castro: Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart.

Cuba hardliners Diaz-Balarts “will have to be crow-barred out of here,” says a Democratic rival.

The stakes are huge and the campaign is as down and dirty as any in Florida’s colorful history as the brothers try to fight off challenges from their Democratic rivals, both Cuban-Americans.

Dade and Broward counties, which include Miami and its surrounding suburbs, are the most populist in the state, with about a half million Cuban-American voters. The balloting there will likely determine which presidential candidate nails Florida’s 27 coveted electoral votes, along with the fate of the 48 year old U.S. Embargo against Cuba. During this election season, John McCain has morphed into a fierce hardliner on Cuba, aligning himself with the two Republican congressional incumbents.

Barack Obama has said that he is open to diplomacy with Cuba, regardless of whether Fidel or Raul Castro are in power, and has vowed to rescind the Bush Administrations’ harsh restrictions on travel and remittances. That is heresy to the Diaz-Balarts, who are also the sons and grandsons of a famous Cuban politicians, which means that there is little sunlight between the personal and the political in Miami. Think of the Castro/Diaz-Balart saga as the House of Atreus, an Hispanic Hatfields and McCoys or simply as a five decade running telenovela.

The Cuban-American community has undergone dramatic changes, with the majority now backing dialogue with Cuba. Still, hardliners control many of the major levers of power in Miami, their influence felt in media, law enforcement, even the courts.

Determined to maintain their power, the Diaz-Balarts have aired a series of ferocious attacks against their opponents. Last week, a voting scam was uncovered that threatens to end up in the courts, joining a long list of incidents that have made Florida synonymous with dirty elections.

"I don't think any other place in the United States has had such a history of absentee ballot voter fraud,” said Kendall Coffey, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. “Miami has a legacy of lawlessness going back to the 1920’s.”

Two weeks ago, after absentee ballots arrived in the mail, a gentleman calling himself “Juan” visited several supporters of Raul Martinez, the Democratic former mayor of Hialeah who is challenging Lincoln Diaz-Balart. “Juan” offered the voters assistance in filling out their ballots, which he then promised to deliver to the elections office. “Juan” had been dispatched to pro-Martinez household by callers claiming to work for Martinez. In fact neither “Juan” nor his dispatchers work for Martinez nor the Democratic Party - and no one knows what happened to the ballots.

The Miami Herald traced the phone number given to the duped residents to a consultant who works for Diaz-Balart. One duped voter summoned Jeff Garcia, the campaign manager for Martinez, who was able to videotape “Juan” as well as his car and license plate. Another mysterious visitor named “Angel” purporting to be from the office of Miami-Dade’s election supervisor was also videotaped. Cornered by a Martinez volunteer, “Angel” said he was employed by the Diaz-Balart office.

Jeff Garcia then delivered affidavits from the misled voters to the State Attorney’s office. But those wise in the ways of Miami are not holding their breath.

State Attorney Kathy Fernandez Rundle has been famously lax about enforcement, although following local media coverage, she has become more engaged. Lincoln Diaz-Balart’s spokesman told me that the fraud allegation is “a ludicrous charge coming from a desperate campaign.”

The Martinez camp disagrees, and notes that misrepresentations by telephone violate federal law. It gave the Juan tapes to local TV and also enlisted high-powered Miami lawyer, Michael Band. “Win or lose this election, we will pursue this case,” Garcia said.

The “Juan/Angel” saga caps a long list of election funny business in Dade County.

In 1998 the election of Miami’s Republican mayor, Xavier Suarez was overthrown by the courts for an array of irregularities. For example, a certain Manuel Yip had died in 1994, yet voted absentee every year thereafter. The presiding judge also ruled that some 5,000 absentee ballots were fraudulent. One Miami vegetable peddler had witnessed more than 70 absentee ballots while some of the city's poorest had been paid $10 to vote for Suarez.
In 2002, while chair of Florida’s House Redistricting Committee, Mario Diaz-Balart, in one of the great gerrymandering triumphs in recent memory, carved out a congressional district tailor made for himself. Then he stepped in and won.
In 2004, absentee ballots were reportedly sold on Little Havana's Calle Ocho for $25 apiece.

Democrats are mindful and have turned out a small army in Florida that has registered about 700,000 more voters than Republicans. “The Democrats are showing a Republican level of discipline this year,” said Miami columnist Jim DeFede. “They have money to burn and they are burning it.”

They will need every cent as the Diaz-Balarts are using all the weapons in their considerable arsenal. “They will have to be crow-barred out of here,” says Democratic rival Joe Garcia.

But the playing field is hardly level. Radio Mambi, which claims to be number one in the Spanish-language radio market in South Florida, is run by a colorful character named Armando Perez-Roura, who has become a kingmaker in exile politics. He is ardently anti-Castro and pro –McCain and Diaz-Balart, as is Mambi celebrity Ninoska Pérez Castellón, who hosts a morning show with Perez-Roura, another in the afternoon solo and another on Miami television.

“That’s three shows a day that Ninoska has to campaign against me,” complains Martinez. “Ninoska attacks me 24 hours a day, every single day,” says Garcia, “and I have complained to Univision [Mambi’s parent company] that the station is inciting violence.”

Florida's Cuban-American politics are known as The Third Rail. Of the one million registered Hispanic voters in the state, half are Cuban-Americans. It was always the conventional wisdom that a Democrat needed 35% of the Cuban vote to take Florida. But if Obama carries Florida with less--as may prove to be the case--politics in The Sunshine State will never be the same.

Once a rock-solid GOP constituency, the Cuban-American community has splintered. John McCain (and the Diaz-Balarts) will carry the majority of first-wave exiles--about 300,000 older, whiter Cubans known as el exilio historico, who arrived in the early 1960s. But even hardliners on Cuba tend to be social progressives who support bilingual education, expanded Social Security and Medicare spending, and a laissez faire immigration policy. That puts them at loggerheads with McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin, a Christian Right conservative. And the Iraq War, is as unpopular on Calle Ocho as it is in Manhattan.

Another slice of el exilio historico will not be voting for Obama because of his skin color, usually indicated in Miami by tapping two fingers against one’s forearm. Some refer to him as el negro, others allude to the nube negra [the black cloud].

Still pollster Sergio Bendixen doesn’t think racism is as strong a factor in la comunidad as it once may have been. The majority of Cuban-Americans in South Florida today are post-Mariel, having come after 1980, and most of them are of mixed raced background.

Polls at press time have Obama leading McCain in Florida by 3 to 4 points. Bendixen says early exit tallies indicate Obama is nailing about a third of older Cuban-Americans, who went only 25% for Kerry. But Obama is ahead two-to-one among the 100,000 who were born in the U.S. and doing even better with the 100,000 or so who came after 1980. Moreover, Obama is leading among the state's half million non-Cuban Hispanic voters--Colombians, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans and Nicaraguans.

The Diaz-Balarts, both in squeaker races, are fighting for their political lives. One ad put up by Lincoln Diaz-Balart begins with a mug shot of Martinez and the word “guilty” running across the screen. What the ad doesn’t tell viewers was that Martinez’s conviction for extortion was reversed on appeal – or that the charges in 1990 were leveled by an acting US attorney, Dexter Lehtinen, the husband of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who stepped in and took the congressional seat that Martinez seemed to have a lock on until he was charged.

Raul Martinez has responded with his own blitz of commercials charging Diaz-Balart with, among other things, accepting money from an indicted Puerto Rican politician, which has been vehemently denied by Diaz-Balart.

Joe Garcia, formerly Dade’s Democratic Party chair, was also a past Executive Director of the Cuban-American National Foundation. Once a hardline exile organization, CANF has shifted towards the political center and has endorsed Barack Obama. Mario Diaz-Balart's ads tie Garcia to the collapse of Enron and other misdeeds. “You can still do the Big Lie in Miami,” said Garcia. “And get away with it. This is a town where the basic institutions have collapsed.“ (Calls to the office Mario Diaz-Balart for a response were not returned.)

While the economy remains the central issue in Miami as elsewhere, Garcia never misses an opportunity to remind voters about some tricky family history. “The last time the Diaz-Balarts were removed from power,” quips Garcia. “It took a Revolution and we ended up with Fidel Castro.”

To that end, he has produced the most talked about ad in Miami. It begins with circus calliope music and shows Fidel Castro gesticulating wildly with a red letter text below him reading “Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.” Then we see Mario Diaz-Balart making virtually the same gestures with the red letters below him reading “U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.” Next up is the scowling face of his brother Lincoln Diaz-Balart. The images are repeated: Fidel, Mario, Lincoln. The dizzying music continues.

Then the message appears on screen: “This November ... Let’s end the family circus. Vote against Fidel’s nephews.

URL: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-30/trouble-in-florida/p/

LA Times: Obama better on Cuba

2008-10-30T13:15:00.000-07:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-cuba29-2008oct29,0,719882.story

From the Los Angeles Times

Editorial

The useless Cuba embargo

America's economic sanctions on Cuba, now 50 years old, are a failure.

October 29, 2008

Among New York's rites of autumn -- the marathon, the rainbow of leaves in Central Park, the sudden profusion of wool overcoats -- a new one has emerged at the United Nations. In each of the last 16 years, the General Assembly has voted to condemn the United States for its embargo of Cuba. This year's ceremonial vote takes place today, and if it's anything like last year’s, it will be overwhelming. Only Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau stood with the U.S. in the 184-4 tally last October.

Washington doesn't and shouldn't design its laws around U.N. opinion, but it's instructive to learn what even this country's closest allies think of the Cuban embargo. Colombia, one of only a handful of Latin American countries whose government remains firmly pro-U.S., stated in a U.N. report on the issue that it "thinks this kind of action should stop and that member states should move ahead with building relations of friendship." In the same report, the European Union said that it and its member nations "have been clearly expressing their opposition to the extraterritorial extension of the United States embargo."

More astonishing than our willingness to raise the ire of nearly the entire world with our embargo is that it has survived this long in the face of overwhelming evidence of its failure. For 50 years, this country has been trying to produce regime change on the island by strangling it economically. Last we checked, a Castro was still in power, and even the economic devastation wrought by the two worst hurricanes in Cuba's history weren't spurring mass popular uprisings. U.S. sanctions worsen poverty and its attendant ills but only strengthen the Castro regime, which can blame all of the country's problems on Washington rather than addressing their true cause -- Havana's misguided economic policies.

The presidential election offers a rare opportunity for change. John McCain favors business as usual with Cuba, but Barack Obama believes that Cuban Americans should have unrestricted rights to travel to the island and send remittances. It is absurdly contradictory to allow Americans to travel freely to Iran and Venezuela, which are genuine security and economic threats, but not to Cuba, which poses no threat at all. U.S. ideals would be more influential if Cubans were more frequently exposed to them by American visitors; our interference with remittances, meanwhile, hurts only the poor.

Cuba is an anti-democratic country with little respect for human rights, and its leaders must be held to account. But targeted sanctions that punish the regime without punishing the people would be far more effective than the blunt instrument of an embargo. Obama's proposals don't go far enough, but they're a good start.

A More Skeptical View from Havana

2008-10-25T07:33:00.000-07:00

Cuba not hopeful Obama, McCain will lift embargo

By WILL WEISSERT –

HAVANA (AP) — Washington's trade embargo costs Cuba an estimated US$232 million per year in lost foreign investment, and Havana is not hopeful that the nearly half-century-old sanctions will be lifted regardless of who becomes the next U.S. president, a top official said Friday.

Racial Proenza, U.S. and North America director for Cuba's Ministry of Foreign Investment, said authorities studied U.S. investment in other Latin American countries in recent years to come up with the figure.

"It's true we don't have real statistics with the United States, but we have estimates and can see that we would have achieved an average of US$232 million if the embargo didn't exist," Proenza said at a news conference. Total foreign investment would top US$300 million a year without the sanctions, he said.

From 1999 through 2007, more than 3,500 American business representatives traveled to Cuba without U.S. permission to investigate investing on the island if U.S. policy changes, Proenza said. Last year, however, only nine visited.

He blamed the decline on the Bush administration, which has tightened trade and travel restrictions since 2004.

Proenza also said Havana does not expect either Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama or Republican John McCain to lift the sanctions once in the White House.

"We don't think that either one who wins will break the embargo," he said. "This fight will continue."

Obama has said he would be willing to meet with President Raul Castro without preconditions. He also would ease restrictions on family-related travel and on money Cuban-Americans want to send to their families on the island.

McCain has called the offer to meet "the wrong signal," but also has said he favors easing restrictions if Cuba moves toward democracy.

Proenza's comments are part of a publicity campaign the government mounts every year in the days before Cuba asks the U.N. General Assembly to condemn the U.S. embargo. For the past 16 years, the assembly has approved Cuba's resolution calling for it to be lifted. The next vote is Oct. 29.

The full embargo took effect in 1962 and has been tightened since, although a U.S. law passed in 2000 allows American farm producers to sell directly to Cuba for cash.

Cuba blames the sanctions for more than US$93 billion in total economic damage over the decades.

A Cuban Perspective on Obama's Impact

2008-10-21T06:57:00.000-07:00

POLITICS-US:

New Cuba Policy in Sight?

Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Oct 20 (IPS) - If elected, Democratic candidate Barack Obama could become the first United States president to engage in talks with Cuba after almost five decades of severed relations, but it will all depend on his refraining from trying to "control" a process that involves two sides, say academics from this Caribbean island nation.

Even before his official nomination, the U.S. presidential hopeful had talked of the possibility of pursuing "direct diplomacy" with Havana "without preconditions," and had promised to put an end to the restrictions imposed by Washington in 2004 on the freedom of Cuban-American families to travel and send remittances to their relatives in Cuba.

"Obama was very clever in setting out his alternative policy, as he brought up two issues that are key to the Cuban-American community (economic and travel sanctions) and declared his willingness to sit down and talk with officials in Havana," Esteban Morales, a Cuban academic and researcher, said in an interview with IPS.

In Morales’s opinion, the proposal marks a step forward, as it "takes the situation to a fresh starting point by eliminating unpopular restrictions set by the George W. Bush administration and raising the possibility of opening official talks, something which until now was unheard of." However, on this last point, Obama has made a mistake that "puts Cuba on its guard," according to Morales.

Speaking in Miami, Florida before the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF) -- traditionally the most hard-line and influential anti-Castro group --, Obama said during the primary campaign in May that "there will be careful preparation" for such negotiations, and that these would be based on "a clear agenda."

"As president, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people," he added.

Morales finds this approach "rather arrogant." "He went as far as to say that the groups that represent Cuban emigrés should be included in these talks, and the way he expressed himself was as if he should be the one to determine when the talks would take place, what issues would be on the agenda and who would participate," he said.

Morales, a researcher at the University of Havana’s Centre for the Study of the Hemisphere and the United States (CEHSEU), went on to say that Obama is wrong in wanting to steer the process down the path of U.S.-controlled talks. "This is an issue that must be decided by mutual agreement, and must be negotiated with Cuba," he said.

He pointed out that Cuban President Raúl Castro has said on more than one occasion that Cuba is willing to negotiate to find a solution to the long-standing bilateral conflict, provided that its "independence" is respected and that discussions be "guided by the principles of equality, reciprocity, non-interference and mutual respect."

With regard to defining a possible agenda for such talks, Morales said that "the key factor is that the parties cannot come to the negotiating table with preconditions." "If that is achieved, the rest is just drawing up a smart list of issues mutually agreed on, ranging from the most simple matters to the most complex," he said.

In Morales’s view, the embargo imposed in the early 1960s, which Obama says he will not lift, is a "political problem" that could be left out of the debate if both countries decide not to discuss it.

In that case, the two nations could begin to regularise economic relations on the basis of the already existing trade flow, which is limited to food imports by Cuba paid up front in cash.

The talks, he says, could then address ways to expand current trade to include other products, the possibility of exporting Cuban goods to the U.S., the negotiation of new terms of trade, and the question of credit, with the aim of facilitating transactions.

In spite of the restrictions in place, since 2001 the U.S. has become a major supplier of foodstuffs to Cuba, which now purchases 35 percent of its food imports from that country.

Morales believes Obama has a firm chance of prevailing over his opponent, Republican Party candidate John McCain, in the Nov. 4 elections. "I’d like to see him win. I think that with Obama in office, the possibilities for change would be richer," the analyst told IPS.

However, he says it would be "easier" for a Republican to dismantle the current U.S. Cuba policy than for a Democrat.

"Republicans are very pragmatic, more consistent from an ideological point of view. Such decisions would be questioned far less if they came from someone in their ranks than from a Democrat," he said.

Morales views the nomination of an Afro-American as presidential candidate as an unprecedented decision. "I believe that racism and intolerance have declined in the last 30 or 40 years, but not to the point of disappearing entirely. We still have to see if people in the U.S. are truly prepared to accept a black president. We won’t know until the elections," he said.

Click here for full article

Miami Herald Endorses Obama

2008-10-18T12:23:00.000-07:00

Miami Herald endorses Obama-Biden, cites difference in Cuba Policy with McCain

Closer to home, Sen. McCain strongly supports Bush administration policies on Cuba. Sen. Obama also supports the embargo, but would be more likely to dissolve recently imposed restraints on travel and remittances to Cuba.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/730751.html

Comment: But they also backed anti-travel Mario Diaz-Balart against his pro-family travel challenger Joe Garcia! Go figure

McCain vs. Obama on Cuba in Miami, Menendez

2008-10-16T21:17:00.000-07:00

John McCain vs. Barach Obama, with a comment from Bob Menendez

excerpt from Miami Herald, 10/16/08 (full text here)

[Senator Robert] Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, campaigned at Florida International University and the Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Center a week ago on Obama's behalf. He has made the same trek south during the past three presidential elections.

A WINNING ISSUE

''This was one of the best receptions I got,'' Menendez said in a telephone interview from Washington. ``The economic message that Obama is delivering is falling on receptive ears among those who in the past were driven more by ideological issues, like Cuba.''

Obama has said he would be willing to meet with the communist regime to talk about democratic reforms, a position that amounts to heresy among some Cuban exiles. He also wants to allow Cuban Americans to travel and send money freely to the island.

McCain has ridiculed Obama for being willing to sit down with the Castro government and says the United States needs to hold firm on the restrictions President Bush placed on travel and remittances.

Comment: a good summary of where the candidates stand, with an intriguing comment from Menendez. If Cuba is now an ideological issue, is he supporting Obama now on family travel? Will he go further or try to stop Obama from going further?

Martinez and Diaz-Balart debate Cuba

2008-10-16T20:56:00.000-07:00

Raul Martinez and Lincoln Diaz-Balart debate Cuba policy

excerpt from the Miami Herald, 10/15/08 (full text)

REGARDING CUBA

The pair also diverged on U.S.-Cuba policy, with Diaz-Balart cautioning against loosening any restrictions ``until there is the liberation of all political prisoners and scheduling of free elections.

''And by the way, that's the position I supported with regard to Iran, and the position that I supported with regard to South Africa,'' Diaz-Balart said. ``I'm consistent and I think we have to fight for human rights not only in Cuba, but around the world.''

But Martinez said he hears complaints about Cuba travel restrictions from folks in factories and beauty parlors who want to visit family but are barred from going more than once every three years because of U.Spolicy.

''That's not what America is all about, and I'm saying lift those restrictions,'' Martinez said. ``Allow family-to-family travel. Allow the families to connect to each other and then we can work on all the other issues.''

Garcia and Diaz-Balart debate Cuba

2008-10-16T20:33:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from Miami Herald report on a debate between Joe Garcia and Mario Diaz-Balart (full story here) 10/16/08

TRAVEL TO CUBA

Regarding restricting travel to Cuba, Diaz-Balart reiterated his support of the current once-every-three-years limit on exile travel to the island. Diaz-Balart noted that Cubans, once in the United States, are given a quicker path to citizenship than other immigrants.

''With every privilege comes responsibility,'' Diaz-Balart said. ``If you're a Colombian and you receive political asylum here, you can't go back and just travel at will back to Colombia.''

Garcia, however, called the travel rules ''an absurdity'' and ''un-American.'' He told the story of one exile who had to choose between visiting a dying mother or being able to return for the funeral after she passed.

''It's not right, and we shouldn't do that,'' he said.

On other foreign policy matters, Garcia distanced himself from Obama's willingness to hold presidential-level meetings with foreign leaders such as Raúl Castro.

''What I think he said, and I think he's pretty clear, is that if it promotes democracy and change in those countries, then he's willing to do it, and those are very important steps,'' Garcia said, adding: ``My policy has always been that we shouldn't meet with those dictatorships.''

Diaz-Balart also said he frowned on such meetings, describing Castro and Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez as ``terrorist thugs.''

Comment: Joe goes halfway with Obama and not nearly far enough on travel, but is still preferable to Lincoln.

The View from Cuba

2008-10-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

From Havana

Obama in Havana

By Manuel Alberto Ramy

No, Barack Obama has not traveled to Havana. But his campaign has. I learned this when I saw a T-shirt with a slogan in his favor, hanging from a clothesline in the El Cerro neighborhood, which, according to the old song, "has the key."

"It was brought to me by my son, who is an Obama fan," said the owner, a lady who asked that her name not be published because her son "lives in Miami and, as you know, things over there are not easy."

To many Cubans (not only to the Cuban government), Obama and McCain are the same when it comes to their general attitude toward the island. "A little tougher or a little kinder, but they want to mess with what we have achieved," says Rigoberto, who identifies himself as a transport retiree. "I am not an apapipio," an unconditional supporter of the government, he hastens to say, but "we have good things to retain, other things to change, like letting people make a better living because things are tough," he says, raising his arms and eyes toward the crumbling walls of his house.

The old house must have been built in the 1920s or '30s. It's easy to see that it has been poorly -- or not at all -- maintained in the past 40 years.

When it comes to Obama, Rigoberto agrees with his nephew, "whom I could see this year, thanks to my sister, who is his mother, whom he can visit. He couldn't visit me, though. We uncles were removed from the family," he says, smiling ironically.

In 2004, President George W. Bush imposed rules that limit the relationship of Cuban families on both sides of the Straits of Florida. One of them was a redefinition of the concept of family, from which Bush excluded uncles, cousins and nephews. He also reduced the number of visits to one every three years, as well as the remittances of money for family assistance, to $300 every quarter. All that as part of the chain that links the Cuban-American ultraright with the island rightwingers.

It's worthwhile to see how people's appraisal of the candidates changes when legitimate individual interests come into play, both in Cuba and in Florida, where the topic of family is weakening the control of the ultraconservative, aggressive "historic exiles."

"Obama was in Miami and said that, if he were elected, he would lift those regulations. How could we -- my son, his uncle and myself -- not agree with him?" She tells me her son "is already an American citizen."

From the presidential campaign, our chat drifted to the races for three Congressional seats that are setting Florida on fire.

"My son told me that those two -- what's their names?" she asks her brother, who answers: "The Diaz-Balarts." "Well, them, they are against the trips. Imagine. You can tell they have no relatives here."

The brothers Lincoln and Mario Díaz-Balart, along with Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, three Republican members of Congress, recently wrote a letter to the governor of Florida asking him to sign a law that enables the state to paralyze flights to the island and end family visits -- all in the name of consumer protection. The governor signed the law, which has been challenged by travel operators and is under judicial review.

Somewhat sadly, the woman says she doesn't want to be identified because she can travel to Miami ("I'm hoping to go soon," she says) and fears that any publicity "might harm me when I go ask for a visa."

She describes her son as a hard-working man who has never been involved in politics "neither here nor there. He went [to the States] to improve his life," she says, but in the Congressional elections "he will vote for someone who supports the trips. I don't remember his name, but it's a candidate in his district."

Clearly, his son was part of the migratory waves that, since the 1990s, have gradually changed Miami's social composition, a fact recorded by several polls done in the past 20 years. Different motivations and interests seek channels that suit them.

I look at the T-shirt with the pro-Obama slogan. If it's on the clothesline it's because it was washed. And if it was washed, who wore it?

"My grandson," Rigoberto answers. "He is 19 and wears it to every party he attends. You know why? 'Cause he wants to rile 'em up, as kids say nowadays."

Lucky for me, the young man who wears the T-shirt "to rile 'em up" arrives in the house and parks his old Chinese bicycle (Forever brand) in the alley next to the old house.

"Yes, I wear it and I've had no problems," he says, airily. "Why wouldn't I wear it, when people around here wear T-shirts with the American flag?"

"Look," he adds, "I have a Chinese bike, an Obama T-shirt and bought a Vietnamese computer. I am globalized and want peace and normal relations and the ability to travel."

To motivate him, I mention that popular singer Silvio Rodríguez recently spoke in favor of eliminating exit permits.

"Silvio is not the government, and the government has said nothing" about exit permits, he comments. "Besides, I prefer Ray Fernández."

Ray is a singer who's singing his own compositions outside the radio and TV circuit. He has attracted a sizeable audience that follows him wherever he goes.

"Once the Americans change their policy, [the leaders] here will change theirs, too," he opines. And he adds, as a final message: "I told my uncle when he came to visit that he had to fight for his yucca up there."

"Fight for your yucca" is a refrain from one of Ray Fernández's popular songs, the young man explains, as he hangs a baseball cap with the word "Industriales" (his favorite team) from the bicycle handlebar.

Does the young man study? The grandfather hesitates. Does he work? The question is like a fly ball that drops between two players, because neither reaches for it. Finally, the young man answers. "I'm into it."

I thank the three and leave. With this report, I, too have "fought for my yucca."

Manuel Alberto Ramy is Havana bureau chief for Radio Progreso Alternativa and editor of Progreso Semanal, the Spanish-language version of Progreso Weekly.

Loss of Florida Could Liberate Next President

2008-09-28T21:41:00.000-07:00

Posted on Sun, Sep. 28, 2008

Florida vote may affect U.S.-Cuba policy

By ANDRES OPPENHEIMER

Here's one way of anticipating what will be the next U.S. president's policy on Cuba, Venezuela and other anti-American governments in the region: If either candidate wins the White House without winning Florida, he will feel much freer to change current U.S. policies toward these nations.

It sounds complicated, but it isn't. As we know, Florida is one of the key swing states in the November election, and has a significant Hispanic population that cares deeply about Latin American affairs.

RIVAL PLATFORMS

Democratic candidate Barack Obama's Latin America platform calls for a relaxation of restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba without lifting U.S. trade sanctions. Let's say Obama loses Florida, but wins the November election. He could be tempted to go all the way and propose doing away with the U.S. embargo on the island, the theory goes. Key Democratic members of Congress are already calling for an end to trade sanctions.

Republican candidate John McCain's Latin American platform calls for a continuation of the Bush administration's tough line against the Cuban regime and pretty much echoes the stands of hard-line Cuban exile groups. Let's say McCain loses Florida, but wins the general election. He could conclude that he doesn't owe much to his Cuban exile constituency, the theory goes.

Much like fellow Republican Richard Nixon made history by opening ties to Communist China, McCain could surprise everybody by starting talks toward a normalization of ties with Cuba. That would draw enthusiastic support of key congressional Republicans from Midwestern farm states eager to export to Cuba.

PRESIDENT LIMITED

Granted, the next president will not be able to change U.S.-Cuba policy by himself. Under the 1996 Helms-Burton law, the White House cannot lift the embargo without congressional approval, nor recognize any transitional Cuban government that includes Fidel or Raúl Castro.

But many long-time observers of U.S.-Cuban affairs note that the next U.S. president will be the first one in five decades to face a new reality in Cuba, following the recent resignation of Fidel Castro as president and his replacement by his 77-year-old brother Raúl.

''If you win the presidency without Florida, you don't feel as committed to abide by the current policy, and you can move to change it,'' says Crescencio Arcos, a former senior Homeland Security and State Department official. ``It's not that you can change it overnight, but you would have a tremendous bully pulpit to modify it.''

Jaime Suchlicki, head of the University of Miami's Institute of Cuban Studies and a supporter of the U.S. sanctions on the island, disagrees.

''Both parties are going to continue to try to seduce the Cuban exiles anyway, regardless of whether they win or lose Florida,'' Suchlicki says. 'If Obama loses the Cuban vote by a wide margin, he may think, `Look, we may have won one or two seats in Florida this time, and the congressional elections are close, so I can't just go and lift the embargo overnight.' ''

According to the latest polls, Obama is ahead nationwide, but trailing in Florida. A nationwide Washington Post/ABC poll with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points showed Obama leading with 52 percent and McCain trailing with 43 percent. Other polls have Obama ahead by two or three points, within the margin of error.

In Florida, a Fox News/Rasmussen poll with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points gave McCain 51 percent and Obama 46 percent. Other polls also have McCain leading, but within the margin of error.

My opinion: Regardless of who wins Florida, what may influence future U.S. policy toward Cuba the most will be whether the Democrats can increase their support among Cuban Americans, and -- more importantly -- whether they can unseat any of the three South Florida Cuban-exile Republicans in Congress.

McCain is expected to win the Cuban-American vote by about 70 percent. But the Democrats are outpacing Republicans in voter registration and fundraising in several South Florida districts.

If Obama exceeds expectations and wins around 40 percent of the Cuban-American vote, or a Democrat unseats one of the three South Florida Cuban-Americans in the House, it will be seen as a significant shift in Cuban exile politics. U.S. policy toward Cuba has long been a domestic political issue, and it may become more so this time around.

Presidential and Congressional Race Differences

2008-09-16T06:24:00.000-07:00

Fidel's fading but what is next?

McCain and Obama clash over policy, island's embargo

David R. Sands

Washington Times

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

For the first time since the Kennedy administration, the next U.S. president won't have Cuban President Fidel Castro to deal with when he takes office in January.

Nevertheless, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democrat Sen. Barack Obama have clashed sharply over a post-Fidel policy and on the wisdom of easing the nearly 50-year-old embargo on the island. The fight is spilling over - once again - into politics across the Straits of Florida, where three Cuban-born Republican House members face strong challenges in November.

Democrats have set their sights on Republican incumbents Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in the 18th District, Rep. Lincoln-Diaz-Balart in the 21st District and his brother Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart in the 25th District - all born in Cuba and stalwarts of the fiercely anti-Castro Cuban-American community.

A key question in the contests is whether younger Cuban-Americans and non-Cuban Hispanics will embrace the uncompromising stands long favored by the older generation of Cuban exiles, said David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report. He says the Diaz-Balart brothers face especially difficult races.

The marquee matchup, according to Mr. Wasserman, pits Lincoln Diaz-Balart against fellow Cuban native and former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez. Dogged in the past by ethics investigations, Mr. Martinez has proved himself to have a populist touch and boasts a strong political base in Hialeah.

"People in Washington tend to think all these races will turn on Cuba issues exclusively," Mr. Wasserman said. "The three Democratic candidates are on a mission to prove that that is false, that the economy, the war in Iraq, the Bush record also matter."

With Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Martinez both tough, experienced campaigners, "the race in the 21st District might be one of the ugliest in the country," he predicted. "We will see a race that operates in a different universe from the others we're watching."

In the presidential fight, Mr. McCain has touted his "maverick" image, but he is unequivocally backing the Bush administration's hard line in support of the embargo, accusing Mr. Obama of naivete in thinking new President Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's 77-year-old younger brother, presents an opportunity for a new policy tack.

Mr. McCain's views "have been totally consistent," said Adolfo Franco, a top spokesman on Latin American issues for the campaign, at a packed briefing on Cuban issues late last week at the Inter-American Dialogue. "A pariah state like Cuba should not be rewarded until it makes a demonstrable commitment toward democracy, and that hasn't happened."

Dan Restrepo, a senior fellow on Latin American issues at the Center for American Progress and a spokesman for the Obama campaign, argued that the long embargo had failed to undermine the Castro regime and it was time for a new approach.

"We certainly should not reward the repressive regime in Cuba, and maintaining a policy that hasn't worked for 50 years is a reward," he said. "We cannot continue doing more of the same and somehow expect a different result."

Mr. Restrepo said Mr. Obama would roll back limits imposed by Mr. Bush on Cuban-Americans sending money back to their families on the island and on travel to Cuba. The restrictions have been unpopular with many Cuban-Americans in southern Florida, who have proved a critical voting bloc in one of the nation's premier swing states.

More ambitiously, Mr. Obama would be ready to "start down the road to normalization" if Raul Castro's government releases unconditionally all of the regime's political prisoners, Mr. Restrepo said. During the Democratic primary debates, Mr. Obama listed Mr. Castro along with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as hostile foreign leaders with whom he would be prepared to meet during his first year in office if he thought it would advance U.S. interests.

"That's not rewarding the regime. It's a case of not being afraid to use the bully pulpit," Mr. Restrepo insisted.

Mr. Adolfo, however, countered that Raul Castro had introduced only minor "window-dressing" reforms since succeeding his brother in mid-2006 and that U.S. concessions would be a "colossal mistake."

"It would in Sen. McCain's view be a tragedy at the twilight of this regime that we actually would sit down without preconditions and reward the Castro brothers," he said. Fidel's fading but what is next?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/16/fidels-fading-but-what-is-next/

Obama: Lift Cuba Restrictions To Aid Gustav Victims

2008-09-04T21:58:00.000-07:00

Obama: Lift Cuba Restrictions To Aid Gustav Victims

Wed, September 03, 2008 - 6:11 PM

Sen. Barack Obama today called on President Bush to lift U.S. travel for and other restrictions on family remittances, visits and humanitarian care packages to Cuba because of damage to the island country for 90 days because of Hurrican Gustav.

“I wish to express my deepest sympathies for those affected by Hurricane Gustav, particularly the untold number affected in Cuba, who face the daunting task of reconstructing their lives with the weight of the failed Castro regime on their shoulders,” said Obama in a statement.

“This is a time when the Cuban people – not (Fidel) Castro – need and deserve American compassion and assistance. Make no mistake – the embargo must remain, and I strongly oppose any aid to the Castro regime,” said Obama.

“The Cuban American community stands ready to directly assist their family members in this time of need. A failed Bush administration policy, however, stands in the way of moral and necessary aid,” he added.

Raul Martinez, the former Hialeah mayor now running for Congress as a Democrat against Miami-area incumbent Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, also called for a temporary suspension of the restrictions in a separate statement, because of the damage in Cuba from Hurricane Gustav is heavy and Cubans need help.

http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/2008electionblog/blog_index/obama-lift-cuba-restrictions-to-aid-gustav-victims/1652/

Democratic and Republican Platform Texts on Cuba

2008-09-04T19:48:00.000-07:00

Democratic Platform, page 37

Recommit to an Alliance of the Americas

We recognize that the security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the
future of the Americas. We believe that in the 21st century, the U.S. must treat Latin America
and the Caribbean as full partners, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast
of authoritarian bullies. Our relationship with Canada, our long-time ally, should be strengthened
and enhanced. An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on the bedrock of
mutual respect and works to advance democracy, opportunity, and security from the bottomup.

We must turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. We must work with close partners like Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia on issues like ending the drug trade, fighting poverty and inequality, and immigration. We must work with the Caribbean community to help restore stability and the rule of law to Haiti, to improve the lives of its people, and to strengthen its democracy. And we must build ties to the people of Cuba and help advance their liberty by allowing unlimited family visits and remittances to the island, while presenting the Cuban regime with a clear choice: if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the unconditional release of all political prisoners, we will be prepared to take steps to begin normalizing relations.

Republican Platform, p 8-9

Strengthening Ties in the Americas

Faith and family, culture and commerce, are enduring bonds among all the peoples of the
Americas. Republicans envision a western hemisphere of sovereign nations with secure borders,
working together to advance liberty and mutually beneficial trade based on sound and proven free enterprise principles. Our relations with our immediate neighbors, Canada and Mexico, are grounded on our shared values and common purpose, as well as our steadily increasing trade. We pledge to continue this close association and to advance mutually beneficial trade agreements throughout Latin America, promoting economic development and social stability there while opening markets to our goods and services. Our strong ties with Canada and Mexico should not lead to a North American union or a unified currency.

Two factors distort this hemispheric progress. One is narco-terrorism, with its ability to destabilize societies and corrupt the political process. In an era of porous borders, the war on drugs and the war on terror have become a single enterprise. We salute our allies in the fight against this evil, especially the people of Mexico and Colombia, who have set an example for their neighbors. We support approval of the free trade agreement with Colombia, currently blocked by Capitol Hill Democrats and their union boss supporters, as an overdue gesture of solidarity for this courageous ally of the United States.

The other malignant element in hemispheric affairs is the anachronistic regime in Havana, a
mummified relic from the age of totalitarianism, and its buffoonish imitators. We call on the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean to join us in laying the groundwork for a democratic Cuba. Looking to the inevitable day of liberation, we support restrictions on trade with, and travel to, Cuba as a measure of solidarity with the political prisoners and all the oppressed Cuban people. We call for a dedicated platform for transmission of Radio and Television Marti into Cuba and, to prepare for the day when Cuba is free, we support the work of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba. We affirm the principles of the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966, recognizing the rights of Cubans fleeing Communist tyranny, and support efforts to admit more of them through a safe, legal, orderly process.

Joe Biden on Cuba

2008-09-01T21:02:00.000-07:00

BIDEN Issues Statement on the Resignation of Cuban President Fidel Castro

http://biden.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=9fe90af2-c349-405c-a319-7119988f8e0f

February 19, 2008

Washington, DC - Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) issued the following statement after the official announcement that Cuban President Fidel Castro is stepping down:

"With Castro's resignation, Cuba's darkest days could finally be coming to an end, opening up a new age of possibility for the Cuban people and Cuban-American relations. But a possibility is not a guarantee.

"Whether Raul Castro, or another, is named successor, we should not consider lifting the embargo until Cuba frees political prisoners, respects human rights and allows independent civil organizations. However, we should not sit back and wait for the successor to act; there are steps we should take now to support the Cuban people and to start to put in place a strong foundation for freedom and free enterprise.

"First, we should allow increased travel of Cuban Americans to the island for family or humanitarian visits. Second, we should expand family remittances from Cuban Americans to include extended family. Third, we should allow U.S.-based companies and non-profits to send remittances to Cubans to support small business, and we should establish an Enterprise Fund, like the ones we set up after the end of communism in Eastern Europe, to jump start small and medium-sized private enterprise. Finally, we must establish direct mail service to Cuba.

"The Cuban-American community has a lead role to play in these efforts. Together, we can build the kind of bright future Cuba's people deserve after decades in the dark."

At Brown and Black Forum, Des Moines, 12/01/07:

http://candidatecubawatch.blogspot.com/2007/12/brown-and-black-democratic-forum.html

Joe Biden: (1:38:31) We have to reach out to the Cuban people right now because he’s not going to last no matter what you say and the bottom line is we have to have a plan. There is no plan. Chris is right. You’ve got to normalize relations with them eventually and it seems to me that’s going to come very quickly.

MN: (1:28:43) Normalize relations whether or not Fidel Castro is in power?

JB: (1:28:47) Not as long as he in fact has his human rights policy but you’ve got to compete with it.

His "Chris" reference:

Chris Dodd: (1:27:20) I served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic and spent a lot time on Latin American issues and chaired the [sub]committee of the Foreign Relations Committee for the last 26 years dealing with Latin American. I think we are making a huge mistake by not normalizing relations with Cuba. The only one who is benefiting from this in my view, the only one who has benefited is Fidel Castro. This is outrageous in my view. If you want to create change in the country as we did with the eastern block countries, this is the way, is to allow travel to occur. This is the only country in the world where Americans are not allowed to travel there because our country forbids them from going there. That is how you create change in these countries. This embargo has done nothing but keep Fidel Castro in power. I think we ought to abandon
the embargo, open up travel restrictions and he’ll create change immediately in my view of Cuba.

Also, in 2003 Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY), Max Baucus (D-MT), Larry Craig (R-ID) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND) offered an amendment to the Transportation/Treasury appropriations bill that would end funding for the travel ban to Cuba. A motion to table (kill) the amendment failed 59-36 and the amendment itself passed on a voice vote. Biden voted against tabling, i.e. a vote for allowing all travel.

http://www.lawg.org/tools/scorecard/03/senate03.htm

Obama Statements on Cuba

2008-09-01T20:11:00.000-07:00

From Obama web site

Promote Democracy in Cuba and Throughout the Hemisphere: Barack Obama will support democracy that is strong and sustainable in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas. In the case of Cuba, he will empower our best ambassadors of freedom by allowing unlimited Cuban-American family travel and remittances to the island. Using aggressive and principled bilateral diplomacy he will also send an important message: if a post-Fidel government takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with freeing all political prisoners, the U.S. is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. Throughout the hemisphere, Obama will increase support for the building blocks of durable democracies—strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#onlatinamerica

*********************************

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas at program organized by Cuban American National Foundation

Miami, FL | May 23, 2008

It is my privilege to join in this week's Independence Day celebration, and in honoring those who have stood up with courage and conviction for Cuban liberty. I'm going to take this opportunity to speak about Cuba, and also U.S. policy toward the Americas more broadly.

We meet here united in our unshakeable commitment to freedom. And it is fitting that we reaffirm that commitment here in Miami.

In many ways, Miami stands as a symbol of hope for what's possible in the Americas. Miami's promise of liberty and opportunity has drawn generations of immigrants to these shores, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes on their back. It was a similar hope that drew my own father across an ocean, in search of the same promise that our dreams need not be deferred because of who we are, what we look like, or where we come from.

Here, in Miami, that promise can join people together. We take common pride in a vibrant and diverse democracy, and a hard-earned prosperity. We find common pleasure in the crack of the bat, in the rhythms of our music, and the ease of voices shifting from Spanish or Creole or Portuguese to English.

These bonds are built on a foundation of shared history in our hemisphere. Colonized by empires, we share stories of liberation. Confronted by our own imperfections, we are joined in a desire to build a more perfect union. Rich in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.

What all of us strive for is freedom as FDR described it. Political freedom. Religious freedom. But also freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At our best, the United States has been a force for these four freedoms in the Americas. But if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that at times we've failed to engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner.

When George Bush was elected, he held out the promise that this would change. He raised the hopes of the region that our engagement would be sustained instead of piecemeal. He called Mexico our most important bilateral relationship, and pledged to make Latin America a "fundamental commitment" of his presidency. It seemed that a new 21st century era had dawned.

Almost eight years later, those high hopes have been dashed.

Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia – notably China – have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.

That is the record – the Bush record in Latin America – that John McCain has chosen to embrace. Senator McCain doesn't talk about these trends in our hemisphere because he knows that it's part of the broader Bush-McCain failure to address priorities beyond Iraq. The situation has changed in the Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally. We have not offered a clear and comprehensive vision, backed up with strong diplomacy. We are failing to join the battle for hearts and minds. For far too long, Washington has engaged in outdated debates and stuck to tired blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development -- even though they won't meet the tests of the future.

The stakes could not be higher. It is time for us to recognize that the future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the past, then we won't be able to shape the future. The Bush Administration has offered no clear vision for this future, and neither has John McCain.

So we face a clear choice in this election. We can continue as a bystander, or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President of the United States, we will choose to lead.

It's time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future. After decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy towards the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what's good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners heard from jails in Havana.

The first and most fundamental freedom that we must work for is political freedom. The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy.

I grew up for a time in Indonesia. It was a society struggling to achieve meaningful democracy. Power could be undisguised and indiscriminate. Too often, power wore a uniform, and was unaccountable to the people. Some still had good reason to fear a knock on the door.

There is no place for this kind of tyranny in this hemisphere. There is no place for any darkness that would shut out the light of liberty. Here we must heed the words of Dr. King, written from his own jail cell: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba.

Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba. That's what John McCain did the other day. He joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade. Instead of offering a strategy for change, he chose to distort my position, embrace George Bush's, and continue a policy that's done nothing to advance freedom for the Cuban people. That's the political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you can't take his so-called straight talk seriously.

My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.

Now let me be clear. John McCain's been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I'm looking for a social gathering. That's never what I've said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

I will never, ever, compromise the cause of liberty. And unlike John McCain, I would never, ever, rule out a course of action that could advance the cause of liberty. We've heard enough empty promises from politicians like George Bush and John McCain. I will turn the page.

It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.

I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba – through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.

And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.

We've heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.

That is what is so badly needed – not just in Cuba and Venezuela – but just to our southeast in Haiti as well. The Haitian people have suffered too long under governments that cared more about their own power than their peoples' progress and prosperity. It's time to press Haiti's leaders to bridge the divides between them. And it's time to invest in the economic development that must underpin the security that the Haitian people lack. And that is why the second part of my agenda will be advancing freedom from fear in the Americas.

For too many people in our hemisphere, security is absent from their daily lives. And for far too long, Washington has been trapped in a conventional thinking about Latin America and the Caribbean. From the right, we hear about violent insurgents. From the left, we hear about paramilitaries. This is the predictable debate that seems frozen in time from the 1980s. You're either soft on Communism or soft on death squads. And it has more to do with the politics of Washington than beating back the perils that so many people face in the Americas.

The person living in fear of violence doesn't care if they're threatened by a right-wing paramilitary or a left-wing terrorist; they don't care if they're being threatened by a drug cartel or a corrupt police force. They just care that they're being threatened, and that their families can't live and work in peace. That is why there will never be true security unless we focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That's what I'll do as President of the United States.

For the people of Colombia – who have suffered at the hands of killers of every sort – that means battling all sources of violence. When I am President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and – if need be – strong sanctions. It must not stand.

We must also make clear our support for labor rights, and human rights, and that means meaningful support for Colombia's democratic institutions. We've neglected this support – especially for the rule of law – for far too long. In every country in our hemisphere – including our own – governments must develop the tools to protect their people.

Because if we've learned anything in our history in the Americas, it's that true security cannot come from force alone. Not as long as there are towns in Mexico where drug kingpins are more powerful than judges. Not as long as there are children who grow up afraid of the police. Not as long as drugs and gangs move north across our border, while guns and cash move south in return.

This nexus is a danger to every country in the region – including our own. Thousands of Central American gang members have been arrested across the United States, including here in south Florida. There are national emergencies facing Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Mexican drug cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico's effort to crack down. But we must stand for more than force – we must support the rule of law from the bottom up. That means more investments in prevention and prosecutors; in community policing and an independent judiciary.

I agree with my friend, Senator Dick Lugar – the Merida Initiative does not invest enough in Central America, where much of the trafficking and gang activity begins. And we must press further south as well. It's time to work together to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to tailor approaches to fit each country. That's why I will direct my Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to sit down with all their counterparts in the Americas during my first year in office. We'll strive for unity of effort. We'll provide the resources, and ask that every country do the same. And we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted.

We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I'll make it clear that we're coming after the guns, we're coming after the money laundering, and we're coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And we'll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on our own streets if we're going to secure the region.

The third part of my agenda is advancing freedom from want, because there is much that we can do to advance opportunity for the people of the Americas.

That begins with understanding what's changed in Latin America, and what hasn't. Enormous wealth has been created, and financial markets are far stronger than a decade ago. Brazil's economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and perhaps the second richest person in the world is a Mexican. Yet while there has been great economic progress, there is still back-breaking inequality. Despite a growing middle class, 100 million people live on less than two dollars a day, and 40 percent of Latin Americans live in poverty. This feeds everything from drugs, to migration, to support for leaders that appeal to the poor without delivering on their promises.

That is why the United States must stand for growth in the Americas from the bottom up. That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws. It means bringing 12 million unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows. But it also means working with Mexico, Central America and others to support bottom up development to our south.

For two hundred years, the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle – not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept – not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better.

We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach. Responsibility rests with governments in the region, but we must do our part. I will substantially increase our aid to the Americas, and embrace the Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty by 2015. We'll target support to bottom-up growth through micro financing, vocational training, and small enterprise development. It's time for the United States to once again be a beacon of hope and a helping hand.

Trade must be part of this solution. But I strongly reject the Bush-McCain view that any trade deal is a good deal. We cannot accept trade that enriches those at the top of the ladder while cutting out the rungs at the bottom. It's time to understand that the goal of our trade policy must be trade that works for all people in all countries. Like Central America's bishops, I opposed CAFTA because the needs of workers were not adequately addressed. I supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement because there were binding labor and environmental provisions. That's the kind of trade we need – trade that lifts up workers, not just a corporate bottom line.

There's nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalization, instead of steering them to special interests while we short-change workers at home and abroad. If John McCain believes – as he said the other day – that 80 percent of Americans think we're on the wrong track because we haven't passed free trade with Colombia, then he's totally out of touch with the American people. And if John McCain thinks that we can paper over our failure of leadership in the region by occasionally passing trade deals with friendly governments, then he's out of touch with the people of the Americas.

And we have to look for ways to grow our economies and deepen integration beyond trade deals. That's what China is doing right now, as they build bridges from Beijing to Brazil, and expand their investments across the region. If the United States does not step forward, we risk being left behind. And that is why we must seize a unique opportunity to lead the region toward a more secure and sustainable energy future.

All of us feel the impact of the global energy crisis. In the short-term, it means an ever-more expensive addiction to oil, which bankrolls petro-powered authoritarianism around the globe, and drives up the cost of everything from a tank of gas to dinner on the table. And in the long-term, few regions are more imperiled by the stronger storms, higher floodwaters, and devastating droughts that could come with global warming. Whole crops could disappear, putting the food supply at risk for hundreds of millions.

While we share this risk, we also share the resources to do something about it. That's why I'll bring together the countries of the region in a new Energy Partnership for the Americas. We need to go beyond bilateral agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy.

Leadership must begin at home. That's why I've proposed a cap and trade system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of energy. We'll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. And we'll increase research and development across the Americas in clean coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.

We'll enlist the World Bank, the Organization of American States, and the Inter-American Development Bank to support these investments, and ensure that these projects enhance natural resources like land, wildlife, and rain forests. We'll finally enforce environmental standards in our trade deals. We'll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories to share technology with countries across the region. We'll assess the opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we'll call on the American people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean energy solutions.

This is the unique role that the United States can play. We can offer more than the tyranny of oil. We can learn from the progress made in a country like Brazil, while making the Americas a model for the world. We can offer leadership that serves the common prosperity and common security of the entire region.

This is the promise of FDR's Four Freedoms that we must realize. But only if we recognize that in the 21st century, we cannot treat Latin America and the Caribbean as a junior partner, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on a bedrock of mutual respect. It's time to turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. It's time to listen to one another and to learn from one another.

To fulfill this promise, my Administration won't wait six years to proclaim a "year of engagement." We will pursue aggressive, principled, and sustained diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people.

And we must tap the vast resource of our own immigrant population to advance each part of our agenda. One of the troubling aspects of our recent politics has been the anti-immigrant sentiment that has flared up, and been exploited by politicians come election time. We need to understand that immigration – when done legally – is a source of strength for this country. Our diversity is a source of strength for this country. When we join together – black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and native American – there is nothing that we can't accomplish. Todos somos Americanos!

Together, we can choose the future over the past.

At a time when our leadership has suffered, I have no doubts about whether we can succeed. If the United States makes its case; if we meet those who doubt us or deride us head-on; if we draw on our best tradition of standing up for those Four Freedoms – then we can shape our future instead of being shaped by it. We can renew our leadership in the hemisphere. We can win the support not just of governments, but of the people of the Americas. But only if we leave the bluster behind. Only if we are strong and steadfast; confident and consistent.

Jose Marti once wrote. "It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom with epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at moments that appear critical. Every moment is critical for the defense of freedom."

Every moment is critical. And this must be our moment. Freedom. Opportunity. Dignity. These are not just the values of the United States – they are the values of the Americas. They were the cause of Washington's infantry and Bolivar's cavalry; of Marti's pen and Hidalgo's church bells.

That legacy is our inheritance. That must be our cause. And now must be the time that we turn the page to a new chapter in the story of the America.

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/05/23/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_68.php

McCain Statements on Cuba

2008-09-01T20:08:00.000-07:00

Thursday, January 24, 2008

John McCain

The Candidate submitted the following statement to the Cuban American National Foundation in lieu of questionnaire.

John McCain supports the Cuban people’s quest to be free and the U.S. economic embargo on the Cuban dictatorship to deny the Castro regime the resources to continue its repression.

We should increase support for the growing human rights, dissident, and civil society movement in Cuba to promote a peaceful transition to democracy.

We should reject concessions to the Castro dictatorship until democracy is restored, and Cubans are allowed to elect their own leaders and choose their own destiny.

The U.S. should continue to pressure the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally and to hold free and fair elections. Unless these conditions are met, lifting the economic embargo would only serve to strengthen the Castro dictatorship and delay Cuba’s inevitable transition to democracy. John McCain favors U.S. Government funding for political prisoners and their families, human rights activists, and others seeking a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba.

*********************

Remarks by John McCain on Cuban Independence Day

By Press Office

May 20, 2008

ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery in Miami, Florida, today at 11:00 a.m. EDT:

Today, on Cuba's Independence Day, we have occasion to celebrate the rich cultural heritage and deep-rooted traditions of the Cuban people. Cuban Americans, many of whom have ascended to the heights of business, government, and the arts, have enriched and enlivened our country. In every field, and in states across America, they bring to our communities their custom of hard work and personal initiative. And for many of these patriotic individuals, while their lives and work are here in the United States, a bit of Cuba will always endure in their hearts.

So must it be for all Americans who cherish those freedoms we so often take for granted at home. For today is not a cause for celebration alone. Those inspired freedom fighters who secured Cuba's independence over 100 years ago could hardly know that their descendants would be engaged in a struggle for freedom and democracy a century later. And yet today, the Cuban people continue to live under tyranny, and their struggle goes on.

It is not a fruitless struggle, not by any means. One day, America will again have warm relations with a Cuban government that represents the sovereign will of its people, one that respects their fundamental human and political rights. One day, Cuba will be an important ally in advancing democracy throughout our hemisphere. Make no mistake: Cuba is destined to be free.

Today, as so many of you know too well, the situation is very different. Fidel Castro has passed the titles of power to his brother in a fashion suited more for a personal fiefdom than to a government purporting to represent that proud and dynamic people. A few recent news articles have labeled as "reforms" the smattering of small changes that have taken place since Raul Castro has formally taken charge. Such characterizations must sound quite cynical to the political prisoners that fill Cuban jails, to the millions who suffer under poverty and repression, and to all those who wish to choose their leaders, not suffer under them. The Castro regime enforces strict limits against freedom of expression, of association, of assembly, of movement, of speech. Last year, as many as 5,000 citizens served sentences for the vague crime of "dangerousness."

Yet tyranny will not forever endure, and as President, I will not passively await the day when the Cuban people enjoy the blessings of freedom and democracy. It is in our national interest to support their aspirations and oppose those of the Castro regime, one that harbors fugitives from U.S. justice, expresses unrelenting hostility to America, and shoots down unarmed civilian aircraft. I wish the other presidential candidates felt similarly. Just a few years ago, Senator Obama had a very clear view on Cuba. When asked in a questionnaire about his policy toward Cuba, he answered: "I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene." Now Senator Obama has shifted positions and says he only favors easing the embargo, not lifting it. He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raul Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba's dictators – there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in US policy. I believe we should give hope to the Cuban people, not to the Castro regime. My administration will press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions, and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections. The embargo must stay in place until these basic elements of democratic society are met.

Maintaining the embargo is, however, just one element of a broader approach my administration would make to the people of Cuba. I would provide more material assistance and moral support to the courageous human rights activists who bravely defy the regime every day, and increase Radio and TV Marti and other means to communicate directly with the Cuban people. My Justice Department would vigorously prosecute Cuban officials implicated in the murder of Americans, drug trafficking, and other crimes. While our Cuba policy will not always be in accord with that of our hemispheric and European partners, my administration will begin an active dialogue with them to develop a plan for post-Castro Cuba, a plan that will spark rapid change and a new awakening in that country. The Cuban people have waited long enough.

As we work with our hemispheric partners, we must be clear about the kind of leadership America seeks to provide. For decades, in Republican and Democratic administrations alike, the United States has treated Latin America as a junior partner rather than as a neighbor, like a little brother rather than as an equal. As a resident of a state that borders Mexico, I am acutely aware of the extraordinary contributions that our neighbors make to the United States – from trade to culture to a commitment to democracy and human rights. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States, and Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny. It is time to embrace this destiny for the benefit of all our peoples.

We have made progress toward this vision by expanding the benefits of free commerce, through NAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and our free trade agreements with Peru and Chile. But the progress has stalled; our longstanding bipartisan commitment to hemispheric prosperity is crumbling. We see this most vividly in Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's opposition to the free trade agreement with Colombia. The failure of the Congress to take up and approve this agreement is a reminder why 80 percent of Americans think we are on the wrong track. Congress can find time to pass a pork-filled farm bill, but it cannot stir itself to support a key ally and further American prosperity.

The Colombia FTA would benefit American workers and consumers – the U.S. International Trade Administration estimates that over $1 billion in tariffs have been imposed on U.S. exports to Colombia since the FTA was signed, tariffs that would be eliminated once the agreement takes effect. Here in Florida, trade has created new markets for the Sunshine State's world-class produce, manufactured goods, and professional services. Florida's exports to Canada and Mexico rose by some 208 percent since NAFTA was enacted, and its exports to Chile grew 99 percent in the first four years of its free trade agreement. Colombia today stands as Florida's fifth largest export market – Florida exported $2.1 billion worth of goods there last year – and now the Colombians are offering to drop their barriers to American goods. Yet Senators Obama and Clinton oppose the agreement, wishing to retreat behind protectionist walls and undermine a key hemispheric ally.

The strategic implications of rejecting this agreement are profound. Colombia is a beacon of hope in a region where the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, and others are actively seeking to thwart economic progress and democracy. Delaying approval of the Colombian Free Trade Agreement will not create one American job or start one American business, but it will divide us from our Colombian partners at a time when they are battling the FARC terrorists and their allied drug cartels. It will undercut America's standing with our allies in a critical region and across the world, at a moment when rebuilding these relationships has never been more important. It will set back the goal of deepening relations with our neighbors to the south and enhancing the stability, peace, and prosperity of our hemisphere.

If I am elected president, the United States will not bow to the special interests seeking to block progress. Instead, we will forge a new policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean Basin, one founded on peace and security, shared prosperity, democracy and freedom, and mutual respect. We will work to prevent Venezuela and Bolivia from taking the same road to failure Castro has paved for Cuba, and we will broaden and strengthen ties with key states like Brazil, Peru, and Chile. We will make clear to all countries in the region that if they share our values of freedom and openness, they can count on us as a friend. We will not abandon our partners to demagogues, drug lords, and despair, but expand the benefits of security, trade and prosperity to all.

My vision embodies the interests and the values of America and seeks the betterment of all people, everywhere in our hemisphere. And it is a vision that includes the people of Cuba.

Courageous men found their calling at the beginning of the last century in winning for Cuba its independence. And those brave men and women who stand up for their rights today will, one day soon, win for Cuba its freedom. When they do, they will enjoy not only the fruits of their own liberation, but also the firm and fast friendship of all Americans who have stood with them throughout the years of struggle. On this Cuban Independence Day, let us take a moment to pray that Cubans everywhere can one day soon enjoy the liberty for which their forefathers fought.

http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/Speeches/c6208dbe-e868-4917-b4e6-f56c363d20c7.htm

Wasserman Schultz opposes Florida revote

2008-03-10T07:39:00.000-07:00

March 07, 2008

FL's Schultz Says Primary Redo Is "Totally Unworkable"

FL Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on a press call with other Hillary Clinton supporters that a revote in Florida is "far too expensive" and "totally unworkable."

"A do-over in this case is absolutely inappropriate," she said, adding, "You don't rerun an election until you get the result you want."

(JENNIFER SKALKA)

My online comment:

Maybe Wasserman Schultz is concerned that a real contest in Florida would expose the close similarity of HRC's position on Cuba to that of George Bush, and mobilize Cuban American Democrats who want to be able to visit family more often than once every three years.

Or maybe she is afraid that HRC might have to disavow DWS's refusal to support the Democratic candidates running against her political allies on Cuba (and big backers of John McCain), the Diaz-Ballarts and Ros-Lehtinen.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/03/fls_schultz_say.html

Wasserman Schultz Prefers McCain Supporting Republicans to Democrats

2008-03-10T07:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/449521.html

Posted on Sat, Mar. 08, 2008

Democrats torn between party, GOP friends

BY LESLEY CLARK

Party leaders have tapped Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz to raise money and coach candidates in a high-stakes, aggressive bid to expand the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

But as three Miami Democrats look to unseat three of her South Florida Republican colleagues, Wasserman Schultz is staying on the sidelines. So is Rep. Kendrick Meek, a Miami Democrat and loyal ally to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That wasn't the case just two years ago when the pair flouted a long-standing Florida delegation agreement to not campaign against colleagues and vigorously backed Ron Klein in his winning bid to oust veteran Republican Rep. Clay Shaw.

This time around, Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their relationships with the Republican incumbents, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart and his brother Mario, and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, leave them little choice but to sit out the three races.

''At the end of the day, we need a member who isn't going to pull any punches, who isn't going to be hesitant,'' Wasserman Schultz said.

The decision comes as Democrats believe they have their best shot in years to defeat at least one of the Cuban-American incumbents with a roster of Democrats that include former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, outgoing Miami-Dade Democratic party chair Joe Garcia and businesswoman Annette Taddeo.

But Wasserman Schultz and Meek say their ties to the three Republicans are personal as well as professional: Both served in the state Legislature with Mario Diaz-Balart and say they work in concert with all three on South Florida issues.

Wasserman Schultz has also played a leading role in persuading the new Democratic majority to sustain the economic embargo against Cuba and has established close ties to the staunchly pro-embargo U.S.-Cuba Democracy political action committee, which has contributed thousands to Wasserman Schultz and Meek's campaigns.

Both Democrats can be ultra-partisan: Meek, a member of Pelosi's 30-Something Working Group, is a familiar face late night on C-Span, hammering Republicans and the Bush administration. He has served as vice chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, traveling the country to raise money on behalf of Democratic candidates.

And Wasserman Schultz, for the second election cycle in a row, co-chairs the campaign committee's Red to Blue program, which raises money for and provides strategic advice to top Democratic House candidates.

The national party, enthusiastic about the three Democratic challengers, has not yet selected Red to Blue participants. But Wasserman Schultz has already told the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee that if any of the three make the cut, another Democrat should be assigned to the race.

''It needs to be somebody who can roll up their sleeves,'' Wasserman Schultz said. ``I'm just not that person; it's just too sensitive for me.''

She said the situation is not unprecedented. For years, members of Florida's Congressional delegation agreed to refrain from campaigning against each other -- a pact that serves to foster goodwill among lawmakers and potentially bring more federal dollars to Florida. It also can provide incumbents with a measure of protection against challengers.

''It's quite a quandary for Debbie,'' said Miami-Dade Commissioner Sally Heyman, a former legislator who roomed with Wasserman Schultz in Tallahassee. ``They've developed this working relationship that has them entirely united on South Florida issues. But Debbie has to maintain or enhance the majority or she's no longer in a position to help us.''

Meek also has told national party leaders that he won't play a role in the races. He and his mother, former Rep. Carrie Meek, are close to Martinez, the former Hialeah mayor. But Meek said the ties between his family and the Diaz-Balarts are deeper.

''I wish Raul the best,'' Meek said. ``As a Democrat, I hope he succeeds. This is the only race I wouldn't get involved in. It's just something I can't do.''

Martinez, whose strained relations with the three GOP incumbents are legendary, played down the pair's decision, noting that politics creates odd allegiances.

''I understand the dilemma they have, and I respect it,'' Martinez said. ``Everyone has to do their own thing, and I'm going to do my own thing for my race.

''If they lived in the district,'' he quipped, ``I would only ask them to quietly vote for me.''

Joe Garcia notes such nonaggression pacts are ``part of why progress is so difficult in Washington. The status quo is hard to move. But when all of this is said and done, we're going to be elected by people who live in the disticts we're running in.''

The three challengers have all been endorsed by former Florida Gov. Bob Graham. Meek said he's confident they'll prosper without a boost from the House members.

However, Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks political campaigns, said the lack of support from top Democrats could make donors leery.

''Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a favorite of leadership, somebody on the move,'' Rothenberg said. ``When somebody like that doesn't want to be a major player in taking on a Republican, that's a signal.''

Yet Rothenberg says the situation is not without precedent: He noted several Republican and Democratic senators from the same states honor nonaggression pacts.

Both Meek and Wasserman Schultz have benefited from a close affiliation with the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, which since its founding in 2003 has contributed $22,000 to Wasserman Schultz's campaign committee and $10,500 to Meek's.

Wasserman Schultz said the PAC support played no role in her decision, but she acknowledges she's closer to the Republican incumbents on Cuba issues than she is to the Democratic challengers, who favor easing restrictions on family travel to the island.

Wasserman Schultz has courted the Cuban-American community since she came to Washington: As a freshman legislator, she helped found the Cuba Democracy Caucus, a bipartisan group of pro-embargo legislators that works to thwart efforts to ease the embargo. She worked last year, Ros-Lehtinen says, ''like a tiger'' to help quash a push to ease travel and trade restrictions, delivering pro-travel advocates one of their biggest losses.

''When she and [Rep. Albio Sires, a Cuban-American Democrat from New Jersey] work within their party and get 65-66 votes to join us, that has made all the difference,'' Lincoln Diaz-Balart told a group of Cuban-American exiles at a recent press conference. His brother, Mario, introduced Wasserman Schultz as ``an incredible advocate who has taken the cause of a free Cuba as her own.''

A day later, Wasserman Schultz and Ros-Lehtinen lavished compliments on each other at a Washington luncheon with visiting Miami-Dade commissioners. ''I can't say enough good things about Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; she has been my friend since I was first elected to office,'' Wasserman Schultz said, noting that she relied on Ros-Lehtinen's advice to help her balance the demands of elected office and motherhood.

''She's cultivated this enormous political capital, and that's a lot to risk embracing those not entirely in line with her views,'' suggests Mauricio Claver-Carone, a director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC.

The Democratic trio is unlikely to count on another lawmaker: Sires, who like Martinez and Garcia, is a Cuban-American Democrat.

''I'm concentrating on my own race,'' said Sires, who acknowledged close ties to the three Republicans. ``What binds us together is this issue of Cuba. I respect how they have fought for Cuba all these years.''

McCain, Obama trade fire over Cuba

2008-02-23T16:32:00.000-08:00

Posted on Sat, Feb. 23, 2008 Kansas City Stat
http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/502235.html#recent_comm

By LESLEY CLARK
McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.herald.com/
Barack Obama's offer to meet face to face with Fidel Castro's successor is "dangerously naive," Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday, testing out a potential fall campaign strategy to cast the Democratic presidential candidate as too inexperienced for the world stage.

Obama, who made the comment at a Thursday night debate with rival Hillary Clinton, rapidly returned fire, saying McCain "would give us four more years of the same Bush-McCain policies that have failed U.S. interests and the Cuban people for the last 50 years."

Though neither man has wrapped up his party's nomination, the volleys over Cuba policy provide a glimpse into what is shaping up to be their lines of attack: McCain will present himself as an experienced, steady hand and criticize Obama's lack of foreign policy experience; Obama, if the Democratic nominee, will present himself as a fresh start and McCain as a return to the Bush years.

"This is the thrust and parry we'll hear throughout the campaign," said David Johnson, former executive director of the Republican Party of Florida. "Obama's going to try to tie McCain to the less popular parts of the Bush administration ... and McCain is going to say, `This is most important job in the world and he doesn't have the relevant experience to do it.' "

Asked at Thursday's debate in Texas whether he'd meet with Raul Castro, his brother's likely successor, Obama said he would. "I do think that it's important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies," he said. "That's where diplomacy makes the biggest difference."

Though Obama said he would be willing to meet with the Cuban leader "without preconditions," he added that the encounter would happen only after both sides came up with an agenda that included human rights, the release of political prisoners and freedom of the press.

Clinton took a more cautious approach, saying she wouldn't meet with Fidel Castro's successor without "evidence that change was happening."

McCain noted Friday that Obama, as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2003, supported the "normalization of relations with Fidel Castro." Obama said Thursday night he supports "the eventual normalization."

"Obama said that as president he'd meet with the imprisoned island's new leader `without preconditions,"' McCain said. "So Raul Castro gets an audience with an American president, and all the prestige such a meeting confers, without having to release political prisoners, allow free media, political parties, and labor unions, or schedule internationally monitored free elections."

"Meet, talk and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature," McCain said in a dig at Obama's experience as a state senator before his 2004 Senate election. "But it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill."

A McCain adviser said his campaign didn't criticize Clinton's remarks because she didn't say she'd meet with Castro with no restrictions.

Obama didn't retreat Friday, saying in an e-mail that he'd call for an "immediate change in policy to allow for unlimited family travel and remittances to the island." President Bush tightened restrictions on family travel and remittances in 2004, limiting Cuban-Americans to visiting their relatives on the island once every three years and capping remittances at $100 per month.

"In November, the American people will have a clear choice: a new direction versus more war in Iraq, more not talking to leaders we don't like and more of a Cuba policy that has failed to achieve freedom for the Cuban people," Obama said. "I am confident that the American people will choose the promise of the future over the failed policies and predictable political attacks of the past."

The remarks on meeting with Castro could be troublesome for Cuban Democrats, many of whom support lifting restrictions on travel and remittances but stop short of advocating talks with Cuban leaders unless democratic changes occur on the island.

The state Republican Party used the remarks to fire a broadside at the three Democrats challenging South Florida's three Republican Cuban-American members of Congress.

One of the challengers, former Hialeah Mayor Raul Martinez, who wants to unseat Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, said he disagrees with Obama.

"Unless the Castros show a willingness to change the way they conduct business, release political prisoners, allow more participation of the Cuban people, we should not sit down with them," said Martinez, who has endorsed Clinton.

"If Obama becomes the official nominee I'm pretty sure he will have modifications to some of his positions," Martinez said.

My comment:

Actually if Obama is the nominee, Raul Martinez will no longer be bound to support Hillary Clinton's position which is very similar to the Bush Administration's.

Obama needs to also speak out for non-tourist travel. At a time when Cuba is engaged in wide ranging discussions of economic and social reform, world affairs councils, religious and humanitarian organizations, short term study programs, cultural groups, sports teams, etc. should be going to Cuba as they did before 2004.

It doesn't mean much economically, but it does mean a diversity of Americans can make their own judgment about the process underway in Cuba, as well as help create a bilateral atmosphere favorable to reform. Of course that is exactly what the hard liners in Miami are afraid of.

Clinton vs. Obama on Cuba in Austin Debate

2008-02-22T06:02:00.000-08:00

Univision’s Jorge RAMOS: Thank you very much (SPEAKING IN SPANISH). Thank you so much for being with us, and let me start with a little news. After nearly half a century in office, Fidel Castro resigned as the head of the Cuban government. Ninety miles off the coast of the United States, we might have a new opportunity. The question for you, Senator Clinton: Would you be willing to sit down with Raul Castro, or whoever leads the Cuban dictatorship when you take office at least just once, to get a measure of the man?

CLINTON: Well, Jorge, I hope we have an opportunity. The people of Cuba deserve to have a democracy. And this gives the Cuban government, under Raul Castro, a chance to change direction from the one that was set for 50 years by his brother.

I’m going to be looking for some of those changes: releasing political prisoner, ending some of the oppressive practices on the press, opening up the economy. Of course the United States stands ready. And, as president, I would be ready to reach out and work with a new Cuban government, once it demonstrated that it truly was going to change that direction.

I want to bring the region together, our European allies who have influence with Cuba, to try to push for some of those changes, and to make it very clear that, if Cuba moves toward democracy and freedom for its people, the United States will welcome that.

And as president, I would look for opportunities to try to make that happen and to create the momentum that might eventually lead to a presidential visit. But there has to be evidence that indeed the changes are real; that they are taking place; and that the Cuban people will finally be given an opportunity to have their future determined by themselves.

RAMOS: Very simply, would you meet with him or not, with Raul Castro?

CLINTON: I would not meet with him until there was evidence that change was happening, because I think it’s important that they demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction. Then I think, you know, something like diplomatic encounters and negotiations over specifics could take place.

But we’ve had this conversation before, Senator Obama and myself, and I believe that we should have full diplomatic engagement where appropriate. But a presidential visit should not be offered and given without some evidence that it will demonstrate the kind of progress that is in our interest, and in this case, in the interests of the Cuban people.

BROWN: Senator Obama, just to follow up, you had said in a previous CNN debate that you would meet with the leaders of Cuban, Iran, North Korea, among others, so presumably you would be willing to meet with the new leader of Cuba.

OBAMA: That’s correct. Now, keep in mind that the starting point for our policy in Cuba should be the liberty of the Cuban people. And I think we recognize that that liberty has not existed throughout the Castro regime. And we now have an opportunity to potentially change the relationship between the United States and Cuba after over half a century.

I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda, and on that agenda was human rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time. But I do think that it’s important for the United States not just to talk to its friends, but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that’s where diplomacy makes the biggest difference. (APPLAUSE)

One other thing that I’ve said, as a show of good faith that we’re interested in pursuing potentially a new relationship, what I’ve called for is a loosening of the restrictions on remittances from family members to the people of Cuba, as well as travel restrictions for family members who want to visit their family members in Cuba. And I think that initiating that change in policy as a start and then suggesting that an agenda get set up is something that could be useful, but I would not normalize relations until we started seeing some of the progress that Senator Clinton was talking about.

BROWN: But that’s different from your position back in 2003. You called U.S. policy toward Cuba a miserable failure, and you supported normalizing relations. So you’ve backtracked now…

OBAMA: I support the eventual normalization. And it’s absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton’s entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba. So I think that we have to shift policy. I think our goal has to be ultimately normalization. But that’s going to happen in steps. And the first step, as I said, is changing our rules with respect to remittances and with respect to travel.

And then I think it is important for us to have the direct contact, not just in Cuba, but I think this principle applies generally. I recall what John F. Kennedy once said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. And this moment, this opportunity when Fidel Castro has finally stepped down, I think, is one that we should try to take advantage of. (APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Senator Clinton, do you want a quick response?

CLINTON: Well, I agree, absolutely, that we should be willing to have diplomatic negotiations and processes with anyone. I’ve been a strong advocate of opening up such a diplomatic process with Iran, for a number of years. Because I think we should look for ways that we can possibly move countries that are adversarial to us, you know, toward the world community. It’s in our interests. It’s in the interests of the people in countries that, frankly, are oppressed, like Cuba, like Iran.

But there has been this difference between us over when and whether the president should offer a meeting, without preconditions, with those with whom we do not have diplomatic relations. And it should be part of a process, but I don’t think it should be offered in the beginning. Because I think that undermines the capacity for us to actually take the measure of somebody like Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad and others.

And, as President Kennedy said, he wouldn’t be afraid to negotiate, but he would expect there to be a lot of preparatory work done, to find out exactly what we would get out of it. And therefore, I do think we should be eliminating the policy of the Bush administration, which has been very narrowly defined, and frankly against our interests, because we have failed to reach out to countries, we have alienated our friends, and we have emboldened our enemies.

So I would get back to very vigorous diplomacy, and I would use bipartisan diplomacy. I would ask emissaries from both political parties to represent me and our country, because I want to send a very clear message to the rest of the world that the era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush administration is over and we’re going to… (APPLAUSE)

BROWN: Very briefly and then we’re going to move on. (APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: I think, as I said before, preparation is actually absolutely critical in any meeting. And I think it is absolutely true that either of us would step back from some of the Bush unilateralism that’s caused so much damage. But I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.

Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it’s important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.

That is the kind of step that I would like to take as president of the United States. (APPLAUSE)

http://polstate.com/?p=5254

Obama on Latin America

2008-02-14T12:00:00.000-08:00

Senator Barack Obama
TC Williams High School
Alexandria, VA
Feb 10, 2008

Transcript:

I don't actually agree with Chavez's policies and how he's dealing with his people. I think he has consolidated power. I think he has strong despotic tendencies. I think that he has been using oil revenue to stir up trouble against the United States. So, he is not a leader that I admire.
But we can't, our Latin America policy can not just be "I oppose Castro" and "I oppose Chavez" and that's the end of it. Because we've been neglecting, (applause) we've been neglecting Latin America even in our own back yard. We've been so obssessed with Iraq and so obsessed with the Middle East.

In the meantime, China has been sending diplomats and economic development specialists and building roads all throughout, all throughout, Latin America. They are securing trade agreements and contracts. And we ignore Latin America at our own peril.

So, I intend to visit the countries of Latin America. I intend to put together a alliance for progress in the 21st century. We are going to strengthen trade ties. We are going to talk about human rights. (applause) We are going to talk about human rights and we are going to talk about freedom of the press and we are going to talk about political prisoners in Cuba.

But we're also going to recognize that over time what we want to develop is the kind of relationship of mutual dignity, mutual respect. We don't have, the notion that Latin American countries are a junior partner to the United States, that is outmoded. We need to be full partners with those countries, show them the respect that they deserve.

Thanks to Center for Democracy in the Americas. See video here.

Fareed Zakaria Compares Candidates on Cuba; McAuliff response

2008-02-04T12:26:00.000-08:00

Fareed Zakaria

The Wrong Experience

Clinton has immense experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs.

Feb 11, 2008 Issue of Newsweek

The Democratic Party's two remaining candidates have become so cordial toward one another that you could easily believe there are few substantive differences between them. At last Thursday's debate, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton heartily agreed on most issues and added that they were having a wonderful time chatting with one another. The Republican race, by contrast, is bubbling over with tensions and personal animosities. Watch any encounter between John McCain and Mitt Romney and you can almost see the smoke steaming out of each one's ears.

This Democratic amity is not just about making up. The party is far more united than in the past. And yet there are important distinctions between Obama and Clinton—and not simply in the broad, almost gassy talk of inspiration versus experience. They come to today's challenges from very different places.

Consider Cuba policy. Almost anyone who is being honest will acknowledge that America's approach toward Cuba is brain dead. No one even remembers why we've imposed a total embargo on the country. A policy that was put into place at the height of the cold war, when fears of Soviet missiles and communist penetration were at their peak, has been maintained even though the threat that prompted it has collapsed. What exactly are we afraid this moth-eaten island will do to America today?

Our policy has the additional burden of having failed, by any measure. We've been trying to force regime change in Cuba for 45 years. Instead Fidel Castro is now the longest-lived head of government in the world. Every tightening of the Cuban embargo has resulted in further repression and isolation. And yet the only changes George W. Bush has made to our Cuba policy have been to impose more restrictions on travel and trade, a cruel and futile doubling down on a bad bet.

Obama has advocated easing the Bush-imposed ban on Cuban-Americans visiting the island and sending money to their relatives. He makes a broader case for a new Cuba policy, arguing that capitalism, trade and travel will help break the regime's stranglehold on the country and help open things up.

Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough. But this is really not the best way to understand Clinton's position. In all probability, she actually agrees with Obama's stand. She is just calculating that it would anger Cuban-Americans in Florida and New Jersey.

This is the problem with Hillary Clinton. She is highly intelligent, has real experience and is an attractive candidate. But she is terrified to act on her beliefs. In fact, she seems so conditioned by what she sees as political constraints that one can barely tell where her beliefs begin and where those constraints end.

Partly, this is a generational difference. Bill and Hillary Clinton grew up in an era of Republican dominance. For much of the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been the party of ideas (a point made repeatedly by Daniel Patrick Moynihan), and Ronald Reagan was seen by much of the country to have rescued America from malaise and retreat. The Clintons' careers have been shaped by the belief that for a Democrat to succeed, he or she had to work within this conservative ideological framework. Otherwise one would be pilloried for being weak on national security, partial to taxes and big government and out of touch with Middle America's social values.

For 30 years this has been the right bet. It's why Bill Clinton was the only successful national Democratic politician in that period. But is it still the right wager? Obama has grown up in a different landscape—with vastly different geopolitics, economics and culture. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have been the defining political figures of the recent past. Conservatism has lost its monopoly role. As a result, the new generation is not defensive about its beliefs, nor does it feel trapped into the old categories like hawks versus doves and markets versus taxes.

This is not naiveté. Obama's position on Cuba is not all hope. Most of the older generation of Cuban-Americans are hard-line Republicans anyway, so it's probably pointless courting them. And the younger ones—under 45 or so—are far less wedded to the punitive approach and symbolic battles of the past. So Obama is taking a calculated risk that the time is right.

Cuba policy is a microcosm for this difference in attitudes. Obama has spoken in favor of a proposal—made by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn—that in order to get the world more serious about nuclear nonproliferation, the United States should begin to fulfill its end of the treaty and reduce its own nuclear arsenal. Again, for all I know, Hillary Clinton agrees with this approach. But she won't say so. Her long years of experience—in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s—warn her against such audacity. But the world has changed so much—the cold war is a distant memory, capitalism has spread across the world, new threats come not from states but small bands of people, unilateralism is discredited—that perhaps it is time for America to change as well.

*******************************

My comment

Finally someone noticed the big contradiction between Clinton and Obama on Cuba.

In a contest devoted to change and restoring America's standing in the world, more attention is deserved for a policy that is as damaging as Iraq in international opinion--as reflected for the sixteen year at the United Nations where the vote last October to condemn our unilateral embargo grew to 184 to 4.

Barack Obama has pledged unrestricted family travel and remittances, not just "easing" Bush restrictions of one visit every three years. He also has called for negotiations with Raul Castro without preconditions.

Hillary Clinton is Bush light on Cuba, seeming to take her cue from Sen. Bob Menendez and her Miami based Cuban American sister in law.Both candidates would do well to listen to the 2/3 of Americans who support normalization of relations and the right to travel to Cuba.

As a first step let's get back to the non-tourist people to people exchanges that Bill Clinton allowed and neither candidate has so far mentioned.

John McAuliff
Executive Director
Fund for Reconciliation and Development
Dobbs Ferry, NY

Clinton and Obama answers to CANF

2008-01-25T09:04:00.000-08:00

The anti-normalization Cuban American National Foundation obtained interesting answers from most candidates about their position on Cuba policy. The Clinton and Obama responses are compared below. Where they differ is indicated by boldface. Edwards and Paul declined to respond. Responses of all candidates can be found here at CANF website.

1. Do you support sending direct U.S. government aid to Cuban dissidents?

Yes__HC BO_ No______

2. Do you support the ability to send direct private aid to Cuban dissidents?

Yes___HC BO__ No______

3. Do you support Radio and Television Martí as a vehicle for providing objective news and information to Cuba?

Yes__HC_ No______

BO Comment on No. 3: I support Radio Martí but have voted against Television Martí. The U.S. government funded Television Martí tries to broadcast TV news and cultural programs to Cuba, but it is unfortunately jammed by the Cuban government and does not provide objectives news and information to Cuba.

4. Do you support restrictions on American tourist travel to Cuba?

Yes___HC BO__ No______

5. Do you support restrictions on Cuban-American family, humanitarian related travel to Cuba?

Yes_____ No___HC BO___

HC Please also see statement.

6. Do you believe that the United States should negotiate with Raul Castro once it is announced that Fidel Castro has died?

Yes__BO___ No__HC__

BO Comments on No. 6: A crucial component of the Obama plan to promote freedom and democratic change in Cuba will be aggressive and principled bilateral diplomacy. I will send an important message: if a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom.

7. Should the United States require a new Cuban government to make concessions such as freeing political prisoners or allowing a free press before the United States moves to negotiate with them?

Yes__HC__ No__BO____

8. Do you support maintaining current restrictions on trade with Cuba until there is a transition to democracy?

Yes__HC BO __ No______

9. Do you believe the wet-foot/dry-foot policy should be reverted back to the original policy of accepting Cuban refugees into the United States for processing regardless of whether they reach dry land or are intercepted at sea?

Yes_____ No__HC BO___

10. Should United States policy provide for increased assistance for independent Cuban civil society, i.e. independent entrepreneurs, medical clinics, libraries, etc.?

Yes__HC BO__ No______

11. Do you believe in supporting the growth of independent micro-enterprises in Cuba with the goal of helping promote independent Cuban civil society?

Yes__HC BO__ No______

12. Do you believe the United States should negotiate direct mail service to Cuba?

Yes__HC BO__ No______

13. Do you believe U.S. policy should allow for the upgrade of telecommunications equipment in order to facilitate communication between the people of Cuba and their relatives abroad?

Yes__HC BO__ No______

14. Which statement most closely reflects your views on current U.S.-Cuba policy? (you may choose more than one)

I believe current policy is effective and does not need any change___

I believe current policy is effective but is missing a proactive element in support of Cuba’s dissidents___

I believe U.S. policy is not restrictive enough and should be toughened___

I believe U.S. policy is too restrictive and some elements of it should be relaxed___

I believe U.S. policy towards Cuba is a failure and should be completely revised___

HC Please see statement
BO Commentary on No. 14: I believe U.S. policy has failed. That’s why I have called for a new policy that would permit unlimited family travel and cash remittances, but maintain the embargo as an inducement for democratic change on the Island.

15. Do you believe it is important to establish an International Democracy Fund for Cuba through an international or regional body like the U.N. or the O.A.S. in order to provide incentives for democratic change?

Yes__HC BO___ No________

16. Please summarize (1-2 paragraphs) your vision for a U.S.-Cuba policy under your Administration.

HC Democracy, human rights, and the fundamental freedoms all nations of the hemisphere, including the United States, have struggled to protect, will form the foundation of my policy toward Cuba when I am President of the United States.

Over the last quarter century we have seen an unprecedented movement toward democracy and respect for fundamental rights across the world. Cuba, unfortunately, has remained under one-party rule, under a regime and a leadership that is responsible for terrible human rights abuses and political oppression that has held back 11 million talented and hardworking citizens of the Americas. The Cuban people deserve better.

I believe that this is not the time or place to consider wholesale or broad changes to our Cuba policy, including the embargo. The American people must let the Cuban people know that we are on their side in their struggle for freedom and democracy. We can do this by supporting brave voices for freedom like Oswaldo Paya and the Damas de Blanco. The Castro dictatorship has divided Cuban families for nearly half a century. I have voted to support flexibility to allow visits for immediate family members in humanitarian cases. Such ties give hope to the Cuban people and to their families in the diaspora. And they send a message that the American people recognize that the Cuban people, not their repressive government, represent the promise and possibility for a democratic future.

Likewise, supporting other humanitarian measures that will help bring direct material and moral support to Cuban civil society will help the Cuban people gain the confidence and independence to imagine a society free of repression, one in which freedom and social justice, two core values of the Cuban nation for centuries, can exist side by side.

During my presidency, I hope there may be an opportunity to undertake a review of our policy toward Cuba, because there may be changes and fundamental reforms that merit a new approach. Now, however, is not a time for unilateral steps such as lifting the embargo. We must retain a policy of support for the Cuban people, without strengthening the Cuban regime.

BO After nearly 50 years of failure, we must turn the page and begin to write a new chapter in U.S.-Cuba policy to help advance the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba. To write this new chapter, I will keep U.S. national interests, and not partisan or electoral interests, at the forefront. I will strive to empower the Cuban people and aim to position the United States to help foster a stable and peaceful transition in Cuba to avoid potential disasters that could result in mass migration, internal violence, or the perpetuation of the Cuban dictatorship. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. I believe we need a clear strategy to achieve this objective—one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government. The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways.

My approach is built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold Cuba’s destiny in their hands. There are few better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. And the money they send to Cuba makes their families less dependent on the Castro regime. Cuban American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grassroots democracy on the island. As President, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island. But as we reach out in some ways, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island. I will also do what this President has not done, engage in aggressive and principled bilateral diplomacy.

McAuliff Letter to Sun Sentinel on Democrats' Positions

2008-01-21T08:02:00.000-08:00

Summary of Democratic candidates' stands on Cuba misses the main point of conflict
January 18, 2008

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/sfl-brmail961sbjan18,0,3444871.story

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel's summary of Democratic candidates' positions on Cuba is inaccurate and misses the main point of conflict between them.

Barack Obama has called for unrestricted travel and remittances by Cuban-Americans.

John Edwards has agreed with unrestricted travel.

Hillary Clinton supports the harsh once-every-three-years restrictions on family travel imposed by President Bush rather than the annual plus emergency travel permitted by her husband.

None of them has spoken about the non-tourist purposeful travel authorized by President Bill Clinton but largely eliminated in 2004.

When economic and social reforms are being discussed in Cuba, it is a grave error that the United States has eliminated or drastically reduced people-to-people exchanges by world affairs councils, students, professionals, alumni, museums, religious and humanitarian groups, sports teams, etc.

Such visits do not bring the economic benefit to Cuba of large scale tourism but do help diverse American opinion leaders understand better what is really taking place. They also create a more positive atmosphere between our countries, which encourages the process of reform.

John McAuliff

Executive Director, Fund for Reconciliation and Development Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.

Endorsements of candidates by Cuba activists

2008-01-08T09:59:00.000-08:00

Please send notice of additional endorsements to jmcauliff@gmail.com

Obama

pro normalization or travel

Rep. Bill Delahunt

Rep. Barbara Lee

(organizations listed for identification purposes only)

John McAuliff, Executive Director, Fund for Reconciliation and Developement
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/cubadialog

Carlos Lazo, US Army reservist and Iraq veteran, blocked from traveling to Cuba to see his sons
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/carloslazo

Steve Clemons, Washington Note, New America Foundation

Tom Miller, General Counsel, Global Exchange

Ben Treuhaft, Send A Piana To Havana

Clinton

pro normalization or travel

Rep. Charles Rangel

Rep. Jim McGovern

Rep. Lynn Woolsey

anti normalization

Sen Robert Menendez

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Mc Cain

pro travel

Rep. Jeff Flake

anti normalization

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Ballart

Rep. Mario Diaz-Ballart

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Sen. Mel Martinez

Huckabee

anti normalization

Marco Rubio, Florida's Cuban American state House speaker

Cuba as a National Issue

2007-12-31T06:49:00.000-08:00

“The right to know, to converse with others, to consult with them, to observe social, physical, political, and other phenomena abroad as well as at home gives meaning and substance to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.”
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

A Gallup Poll in December 2006 showed that 67% of Americans believe that we should be free to travel to Cuba and that the US should normalize relations.

Yet the issue of US-Cuba relations has been absent from Presidential campaign discussion with the notable exception of two niche events, Univision’s Spanish language debates and the December 1st Brown and Black Forum in Des Moines.

During a campaign in which “change” and the US role in the world play a prominent role, Cuba should be attracting more attention as a symbol both of America’s international isolation and of the control of foreign policy by special interest groups and Washington insiders.

At least as much as Iraq, the unilateralism of the US embargo of Cuba and the Bush Administration’s interventionist obsession with regime change, have puzzled and angered our own Hemisphere and long time international allies. For sixteen years, the UN General Assembly has condemned US policy, most recently by a record setting 184 to 4. (Our only significant ally, Israel, votes with us but does not prevent its own people from traveling and doing substantial business in Cuba.)

Big differences do exist among the candidates about Cuba and the issue has occasionally been a flash point.

Except for Ron Paul, the Republicans vie with each other to take a harder line than President Bush. At stake are 10% of Republican primary votes cast by Cuban Americans in Florida.

When Mike Huckabee’s opposition to the embargo as Governor of rice exporting Arkansas was outed by a Fred Thompson campaign press release, Huckabee did a complete flip-flop within 24 hours, and received the endorsement of one of the most intransigent Cuban American leaders, the speaker of the Florida House.

(Thompson does not let his anti-Castro polemics interfere with embargo violating possession and consumption of Cuban cigars, as reported by the conservative Weekly Standard.)

On the Democratic side, the picture is more complicated, as brought out during the Brown and Black Forum in Des Moines.

Before he withdrew, Chris Dodd, as befits the chair of the Senate’s Western Hemisphere subcommittee (and a former Peace Corps volunteer in the Dominican Republic), was the only candidate to make a comprehensive policy statement on Cuba, calling for the end of the embargo, all travel restrictions, and the privileged status of illegal Cuban immigrants. Dennis Kucinich agrees on ending the embargo on trade and travel.

Barack Obama supports unrestricted family reunion travel and remittances for Cuban Americans(as did Bill Richardson). Obama deserves great credit for breaking with misleading stereotypes of the Cuba issue by publishing an Op Ed in the Miami Herald in August and following up to an enthusiastic audience in Little Havana. John Edwards favors family travel but not remittances.

Only about a third of Florida’s Cuban Americans are Democrats, but most of them are angry at the restrictive family travel policy of the Bush administration.

During the Forum, Obama reiterated that he saw family travel as a first step that, “would send a signal that we can build on once Castro is out of power.”

Candidates have not been asked about their position on the civil liberties issue of whether all Americans simply should have the same right to travel to Cuba as they do to every other country in the world. Nor have they been pressed on what they think of Bill Clinton’s policy of allowing non-tourist people to people travel by students, professionals, world affairs councils, religious and humanitarian organizations, sports teams, cultural groups, etc. Cuba’s ongoing transition makes it especially timely to renew such channels for informal “track two” contact.

Although Hillary Clinton has not been overtly challenged for her position on Cuba, she is the outlier among the Democrats. Her stance ironically is closer to the policy of Bush rather than that of her husband. She supports the current administration’s harsh move in 2004 to limit remittances to a narrow definition of family and to reduce Cuban American visits from annual, plus emergencies, to one visit every three years.

During the Brown and Black Forum, Clinton also echoed Bush’s belief that, “when Fidel Castro finally does pass on, there will be a tremendous pent up desire on the part of the Cuban people for freedom and for democracy.” This sentiment is common among the old guard in Miami, but not supported by first hand accounts in Cuba by journalists and diplomatic observers.

Clinton’s position is out of sync with the opinion of most Democrats. However, absent the kind of active pressure from potential caucus goers and primary voters that she gets on Iraq and Iran, Clinton reflects the inertia and conventional wisdom of inside-the-beltway foreign policy advisers. Her campaign staff may also have made a political judgment last spring that she had less need for liberal Cuban American voters in the Florida Democratic primary than for their more conservative brethren in the November election.

Clinton has more direct ties than any other Democratic candidate to the Cuban American community. Within days of her public embrace of the Bush policy last June, it was announced that New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez had signed on as National Co-chair of her campaign. Menendez is progressive on every issue but Cuba and a prodigious fund raiser in Miami. In addition her sister-in-law, Maria Victoria Arias, is a well-connected Cuban American who actively opposed US-Cuba normalization within Bill Clinton’s administration.

Nevertheless, neither Clinton nor the other Democrats echo the Republican in simplemindedly equating Fidel and Raul Castro. Nor, however, do they acknowledge the broad gauged debate over economic and social reform that has distinguished Raul’s tenure as acting head of state.

The test will come if Fidel Castro passes away or officially retires during the campaign. Will the Democratic candidates follow Bush and say there is no reason to change US policy? Or will they recognize a new page has been turned and declare that as President they will allow Americans to freely travel and sell agricultural products and will begin serious negotiations to resolve obstacles to normal diplomatic, economic and cultural relations?

--John McAuliff
The author is executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development in New York

Questions for Presidential Candidates

2007-12-26T07:12:00.001-08:00

To Hillary Clinton:

Why do you support President Bush's post 2004 policy on travel rather than that of the Clinton Administration?

[Bush post 2004--Cuban Americans limited to one trip every three years, virtually no licenses for non-tourist purposeful travel;
Clinton-- annual plus flexibility for emergency visits by Cuban Americans; liberal licensing for short term student programs and for professional, religious, cultural and people to people exchanges]

To John Edwards and Barrack Obama:

I applaud your support for unrestricted Cuban American family reunions, but have noticed you do not address the kind of travel by other Americans that was permitted by the Clinton Administration. As President would you also immediately authorize a general license for non-tourist purposeful travel sponsored by not-for-profit organizations (short term student programs; cultural, professional and people-to-people exchanges)?

To Representatives Kucinich and Paul:

I applaud your support for the end of travel restrictions and the embargo of Cuba if you become President. What will you do in the coming session of Congress to at least return us to the travel policies of Presidents Clinton and even of President Bush prior to the 2004 election?

Broader questions for any candidate:

Is travel one of the Constitutional rights that needs to be redeemed from politics and fear-mongering?

If you are campaigning as an agent of change, shouldn't you be addressing the need to change an outdated and unproductive US foreign policy which is opposed by two-thirds of Americans and virtually every other country in the world?

How can the goal of restoring US international standing be achieved when our hostile policy towards Cuba is strongly opposed by the rest of the Western Hemisphere and virtually every other country in the world?

Which is more important, the desire of two-thirds of Americans to have normal relations and travel with Cuba or the views of a hard line minority of exiles in Florida?

Would your approach to Cuba continue the regime change strategy of the Bush Administration or treat Cuba like Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia, Libya and other countries with which the US has normal but critical diplomatic and trade relations?

Or, if you can't ask a question, print out and distribute the Voter Pledge on Cuba at the event, and present a copy to the candidate signed by you or a group.

Huckabee Flip Flops

2007-12-13T07:18:00.001-08:00

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-huckabee11dec11,1,96861.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

From the Los Angeles Times

Huckabee does a flip-flop on Cuba

The GOP candidate now supports a trade embargo against the island nation, a stance sure to satisfy hard-line Cuban exiles.

By Peter Wallsten
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

December 11, 2007

MIAMI — As governor of Arkansas five years ago, Mike Huckabee joined a bipartisan chorus of politicians who concluded that the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba was bad for businesses. Now that he's a top-tier candidate for president, Huckabee has decided he favors the embargo -- so much so that he vowed Monday to outdo even President Bush in strangling the regime of Cuban President Fidel Castro and punishing those who do business there.

It was a change of heart sure to please hard-liners among the Cuban exiles who could make up 10% or more of the electorate in Florida's crucial Jan. 29 Republican primary. But it also reflected the latest move by a once-obscure candidate now grappling with how to transform a burst of momentum into a sustainable bid for the White House.

Huckabee's Cuba flip-flop comes just days after he released a new, hard-line plan on illegal immigration described as "radical" by some of the same immigrant-rights advocates who once lauded him for more liberal views. As governor, Huckabee supported in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants and stood up for illegal workers caught in a raid of a meatpacking plant. Now he wants all illegal immigrants to return to their native countries within 120 days.

Huckabee all but acknowledged the political expediency of his shifting views as he stood Monday in a Cuban restaurant in Miami and explained why he wrote a letter to Bush in 2002 describing how the Cuba trade embargo was hurting Arkansas rice growers.

"Rather than seeing it as some huge change, I would call it, rather, the simple reality that I'm running for president of the United States, not for reelection as governor of Arkansas," he said. "I've got to look at this as an issue that touches the whole country."

Huckabee has rocketed to the front of the GOP pack by emphasizing his roots as a plain-spoken Southern Baptist preacher with staunchly conservative views. A CNN survey released Monday puts him in a statistical tie nationally with GOP front-runner Rudolph W. Giuliani.

But Huckabee's evolving views on certain issues are giving his rivals for the Republican nomination ammunition as they try to halt his rise.

On Monday in Miami, former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee criticized Huckabee for changing his stance on Cuba "on a dime to appeal to a particular group of people right before an election," according to the Associated Press.

The night before -- when the GOP candidates jockeyed to appear toughest on Castro during a debate on the Spanish-language network Univision -- Thompson's campaign gave reporters quotes from Huckabee's 2002 letter. Thompson had hoped to win support from the social conservatives flocking to Huckabee.

Huckabee on Monday won an endorsement from Marco Rubio, Florida's Cuban American state House speaker, handing the upstart candidate instant cachet in a community that some of his rivals have been courting for years. He said his decision was based largely on Huckabee's new views on Cuba.

Rubio, who has been wooed by all the major GOP candidates, said he decided to back Huckabee after searching for "someone that will fight for what they truly believe in the depths of their heart."

The letter Huckabee wrote in 2002 reportedly argued that the embargo "continues to harm our own agricultural and business interests here at home and has certainly not helped the people of Cuba."

His views on Monday were equally firm in the opposite direction, as he vowed, if elected president, to veto any effort to end the sanctions.

Huckabee pledged to adhere to provisions of a 1996 law that would permit U.S. citizens to sue in American courts for property taken from them during the 1959 Cuban revolution.

Those lawsuits could threaten European businesses with holdings on the island. Bush and President Clinton have routinely avoided conflict on the issue by suspending those provisions of the 1996 law.

"I really wasn't that aware of a lot of the issues that exist between Cuba and the United States," Huckabee said Monday, adding that his flexibility on policy should be viewed as a good thing.

"I'll be the first to tell you I'm always subject -- and I hope we all are -- to learning, to growing, and never being so stubborn and maybe bull-headed," he said.

Huckabee appears to be applying that same approach to his views on immigration, another issue that is important to conservative voters in early GOP contests and an area where he is being attacked by his opponents.

Like former New York Mayor Giuliani, Huckabee has long been viewed with admiration among advocates for immigrants. He supported legislation two years ago in Arkansas that would have given in-state tuition to certain children of illegal immigrants.

And two years ago he reacted with outrage after federal agents raided an Arkadelphia, Ark., poultry plant and arrested and deported many Mexican workers. Huckabee was incensed that federal authorities had separated many parents from their children, and he called for a White House investigation.

"Our first priority should be to secure our borders. I'm less threatened by people who cross the line to make beds, pick tomatoes, or pluck chickens as I am by people like those in Canada making 3-ton bombs," he said in an e-mail to The Times last year. "While we should certainly enforce the law, we need to prioritize." He called in the e-mail for a "process that avoids amnesty, but does provide a path for workers to become legal by paying a fine, getting in the back of the line to register."

But Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant rights group, said he was stunned last week when Huckabee released a new plan calling for all illegal workers to register with federal authorities and return to their native countries within 120 days.

Those who did would face no penalty under Huckabee's plan if they later applied to immigrate to or visit the United States. Those who did not return home would be barred, when caught, from future reentry to the United States for 10 years.

"To me, it's like night and day," Sharry said. "One day he's saying children of [illegal] immigrants should go to college, and the next day he's saying there should be mass expulsion."

Huckabee on Monday said his anger over the Arkadelphia raid stemmed from the fact that local authorities were not told in advance so they could make preparations for the children who were left alone when their parents were arrested and deported. Often, illegal workers have children who were born on U.S. soil and are therefore citizens.

He said raiding a business employing "vast amounts" of illegal workers was a "legitimate thing to do" as long as local officials knew in advance.

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

Huckabee Statements as Governor Against Embargo

2007-12-10T21:03:00.000-08:00

The following was distributed by the Fred Thompson campaign. See below re Thompson's hypocrisy.

Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com

MEDIA ADVISORY, Dec. 9 /Standard Newswire/ -- In 2002, Governor Huckabee strongly advocated lifting the embargo against Cuba saying it "harm[s] our own agricultural and business interests," "has not helped the people of Cuba" and has "provided Castro with a convenient excuse for his own failed system of government."

"All four House members, both senators and Governor Huckabee strongly support doing away with the trade embargo." (Kevin Freking, "Legislators Call For Ending Ban On Cuba," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/22/02)

"'The United States' policy of unilateral embargo against Cuba continues to harm our own agricultural and business interests here at home and has certainly not helped the people of Cuba,' Huckabee wrote in his Feb. 14 letter [to President Bush]. It's not right to continue to make American farmers bear the burden of a policy that hasn't worked, he said. Huckabee cited a study by Texas A&M University reporting that the embargo hurt Arkansas more than other states, costing Arkansas lost farm exports of $ 167 million a year and a loss of almost 4,000 jobs." (Michael Wickline, "End of Cuban Trade Embargo Benefits Children, Snyder Says," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 3/29/02)

"In a letter to President Bush, Mr. Huckabee wrote, 'U.S. policy on Cuba has not accomplished its stated goal of toppling the Castro regime and instead has provided Castro with a convenient excuse for his own failed system of government.'" (Letters, "Time To End Embargo Against Cuba," Washington Times, 2/27/02)

"Huckabee, the GOP governor of Arkansas, wrote to President Bush seeking action against the embargo." (Jeffrey Birnbaum, "Business to Bush: Let Us Into Cuba!", Fortune, 5/27/02)

**********************

[Fred] Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana.

The presence of the cigars and the absence of a press chaperone were clues that Thompson is taking a different approach to his potential candidacy. A campaign flack would have insisted on hiding the cigars--Senator, how did you get those Cuban cigars? Isn't there a trade embargo?

“From the Courthouse to the White House: Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role” by Stephen F. Hayes The Weekly Standard 04/23/2007

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13528&R=1136E33842

Brown and Black Democratic Forum

2007-12-10T10:02:00.000-08:00

Brown and Black Forum, Des Moines, Iowa 12/01/07

http://www.hd.net/brownandblack.html

Michelle Norris: (1:24:57). This question is for Senator Clinton. A large percentage of Americans support normalizing relations with Cuba and
loosening travel restrictions. What would you do as president with regard to normalizing relations, ending the trade embargo, opening the door to travel and to diplomatic relations with Cuba?

Hillary Clinton: (1:25:22) Well I think we are going to have that opportunity because I believe that when Fidel Castro finally does pass on, there will be a tremendous pent up desire on the part of the Cuban people for freedom and for democracy. Certainly if they were to make steps right now to recognize human rights, to release political prisoners, there could be perhaps some reciprocal action taken by the United States but until there is some recognition on the part of whoever is in charge of the Cuban government that they have to move towards democracy and freedom for the Cuban people, it will be very difficult for us to change our policy. But I look forward as president to perhaps being there when that opportunity arises.

You know it’s tragic that in the last seven years we’ve lost ground in Latin America. We’ve lost it as more and more countries have moved away
from democracy [toward] authoritarian even dictatorial rule. We see what’s happening in Venezuela with the big power grab going on by Chavez and I hope that when I’m president we can get re-engaged and we pay more attention to Latin America and we start building relationships again. I think that’s important for us and important for the people of those countries.

MN: (1:26:44) Thank you; just a very quick follow-up. You said that the US may have soon an opportunity, but Fidel Castro is very strong. And if he does last into 2008, in January of 2009 and beyond, would you normalize relations with Cuba.

HC: (1:27:01) No. Not unless he made, or whoever was then the head of government in Cuba made, significant changes in the way that they treated their own people and I think that has to be a precondition.

MN: (1:27:16) Thank you very much Senator. Senator Dodd very quickly? Very
quickly.

Chris Dodd: (1:27:20) I served in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic and spent a lot time on Latin American issues and chaired the [sub]committee of the Foreign Relations Committee for the last 26 years dealing with Latin American. I think we are making a huge mistake by not normalizing relations with Cuba. The only one who is benefiting from this in my view, the only one who has benefited is Fidel Castro. This is outrageous in my view. If you want to create change in the country as we did with the eastern block countries, this is the way, is to allow travel to occur. This is the only country in the world where Americans are not allowed to travel there because our country forbids them from going there. That is how you create change in these countries. This embargo has done nothing but keep Fidel Castro in power. I think we ought to abandon
the embargo, open up travel restrictions and he’ll create change immediately in my view of Cuba.

MN: (1:28:08) Very quickly for the sake of fairness another very quick yes no
question. Normalize relations with Cuba just down the line, starting with you.

John Edwards: (1:28:18) Without respect to what’s happening with Castro.

MN: (1:28:22) Irregardless.

JE: (1:28:23) No. Not unless and until something has happened with Castro.

MN: (1:28:28) Representative Kucinich?

Dennis Kucinich: (1:28:29) Yes.

MN: (1:28:30) Senator Biden?

Joe Biden: (1:38:31) We have to reach out to the Cuban people right now because he’s not going to last no matter what you say and the bottom line is we have to have a plan. There is no plan. Chris is right. You’ve got to normalize relations with them eventually and it seems to me that’s going to come very quickly.

MN: (1:28:43) Normalize relations whether or not Fidel Castro is in power?

JB: (1:28:47) Not as long as he in fact has his human rights policy but you’ve got to compete with it.

MN: (1:28:51) Thank you. Senator Obama?

Barack Obama: (1:28:52) No, but there are two things we can do right now to prepare for that. And that is loosen travel restrictions for family members, Cuban Americans who want to visit and open up remittances so that they are able to support family members, many of them who are fighting for their liberty in Cuba right now.

MN: (1:29:10) But for right now?

BO: (1:29:12) I would not normalize relations but those two things, those two shifts in policy would send a signal that we can build on once Castro is out of power.

MN: (1:29:20) Very quickly Governor Richardson?

Bill Richardson: (1:29:22) Michelle as the only brown member in this debate, is there any chance we could have civil rights equity and have the brown guy get a little more time?

MN: (1:29:34) When you put it like that.

BR: (1:29:42) This is what I, Cuba. You always want to get something in return. The embargo has not worked. In return for lifting the embargo, there have to be some democratic reforms, release of political prisoners in Cuba. But we should stop preventing Cuban Americans from going back and forth with family visits. We should in addition to that permit remittances that are not taking place.

But most importantly we should send a signal to Latin America, as we should to Africa that we care about the third world. That we care about problems that relate to the relationship with our southern hemisphere. That we care deeply about the fact that Hugo Chavez has more influence than we do because we are not paying enough attention to the region. That we need creative trade relations that we need renewable energy ties with Latin America. That we also need to make sure that we resolve the immigration issue, which effects not just Mexico but Central American and the Caribbean and the whole hemisphere.

(Slightly edited for clarity and consistency from on line transcript.)

Republicans on Cuba at Univision Debate

2007-12-09T20:30:00.000-08:00

PAUL: Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba.

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

(APPLAUSE)

But let me -- let me tell you -- let me tell you why -- let me tell you why we have a problem in South America and Central America: because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We have been meddling in their business.

(APPLAUSE)

We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they respond by throwing out their leader.

**********

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor.
(APPLAUSE)

When talking about Cuba, Cuban dictatorship has survived nine U.S. presidents. What would you do differently, that has not been done so far, to bring democracy to Cuba? We're going to start with Senator Thompson.

THOMPSON: I'm going to make sure that he didn't survive 10 U.S. presidents.

(LAUGHTER)
Castro is unique in many respects.

THOMPSON: He represents the only non-democratic, at least, elected government in the hemisphere. He is uniquely brutal. He is still tyrannizing his own people.
He lures the vulnerable and the naive Americans down there and puts on shows for them and they come back and do his propaganda. There are not many people who can pull that sort of thing off.
He's obviously in bad health. That situation, probably, is in God's hands. He will probably be succeeded by someone who's no better than him, and that is Raul.
And we should treat Raul with the same contempt that we show Castro, including keeping the embargo on Cuba.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR: Governor Romney, what would you do differently that has not been done so far?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, you've got to think about who Castro is, and who Raul Castro is as well.

ROMNEY: We call them strongmen -- dictators, authorative totalitarian leaders. And yet these are individuals who are not strong. Look at what they have done? Brothers to the rescue. They shoot a small aircraft out of the sky. People wearing a wristband that says change, are arrested -- 25 of them just for wearing a wristband; a Catholic church is edited and people are terrified because a priest is just speaking his sermon.

These people, these Castro brothers are cowards, and we have to recognize they are cowards.

(APPLAUSE)

And for that reason, the course for America is to continue our isolation of Cuba. It is not to say, as Barack Obama on the Democratic side said, that he would dignify the Castros with a personal visit to Cuba. That's not the way to go. Instead, it's to bring our friends together to isolate Cuba, to put together a strategy that helps all of Latin America, weakens Hugo Chavez who is propping up Castro.

ROMNEY: We need a Latin American policy that frees Cuba and that eliminates a threat of people like Hugo Chavez.

(APPLAUSE)

MODERATOR: Thank you. Governor?

MODERATOR: Senator McCain, the same question. What would you do differently?

MCCAIN: First of all, could I again congratulate the people of Venezuela for rejecting this dictator's attempt to become a president for life? And I also would like to echo the words of Prince Juan Carlos, Por que no te callas? Why don't you shut up?

I'm pleased to have the support of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario and Lincoln Diaz-
Balart, who advise me and know these issues, and Mel Martinez, every day. My friends, tonight our thoughts and prayers go out to Dr. Bucet (ph), who fights for freedom, who is now in prison, because Dr. Bucet (ph) resisted and fought against a state-controlled and state-mandated abortion.

MCCAIN: God bless him and those students who wore this bracelet called Cambio, who are now under arrest today.

(APPLAUSE)
Of course we need to keep our embargo up. Of course we cannot allow economic aid to flow to Cuba. And if I were president of the United States, I would order an investigation of the shoot-down of those brave Cubans who were killed under the orders of Raul and Fidel Castro, and, if necessary, indict them.
(APPLAUSE)

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=867

How the candidates currently line up on Cuba

2007-11-18T10:05:00.000-08:00

Following are capsule summaries of the positions of candidates for President on travel to Cuba from most open to most closed. A link is provided to donate to candidates who have expressed a positive position on travel during the campaign.

Democrats

Dodd (withdrew candidacy)
end the embargo and all restrictions on travel, cosponsor S 721
http://action.chrisdodd.com/my/donate.jsp?supporter_my_donate_page_KEY=132

Kucinich
end the embargo, cosponsor HR 654
[web does not offer personalized donation pages]

Obama
end all restrictions on family travel and remittances
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/cubadialog

Richardson (withdrew candidacy)
favors family travel and remittances, begin lifting embargo if political prisoners released
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/outreach/view/raise/Cubatravel

Edwards
favors family travel but not remittances
http://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=Mjg2MTg

Biden (withdrew candidacy)
has voted for travel but not on record during campaign

Clinton
supports Bush policy with exception only for family emergencies

Republicans

Paul
has cosponsored HR 654 to end all restrictions on travel , supports end of embargo
[web site does not offer a personalized donation page: read full position here]

All other Republican candidates endorse the Bush Administration's harsh restrictions on travel.

To support legislation to end all travel restrictions, go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Cubatravelbill/

Ron Paul Column advocates freedom of trade and travel

2007-11-15T07:16:00.000-08:00

Texas Straight Talk

Weekly on line column by Representative Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst102807.htm

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars

Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba 's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on US Capitalism instead of Cuban Communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the US , and are "awash" with development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regards to Cuba , meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.

In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for "multibillions" of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US . Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!

The irony of supposed Capitalist, free-marketeers inducing Communists to freedom with government hand-outs should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the US government run Radio/TV Marti has wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.

It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba ? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China . Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government.

Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba , it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

Village Voice: Hillary Clinton on Travel

2007-10-13T05:33:00.000-07:00

Hillary's Infidelity
Obama's strategy makes her spurn Bill's Cuban advances and embrace Bush and the GOP's anti-Castro right.
by Kirk Nielsen
October 9th, 2007 6:04 PM

(excerpt, for full story go to http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0741,nielsen,78030,2.html )

There's a missing piece in the apple pie that Hillary Clinton has been serving up to Americans on the campaign trail. "Americans from all walks of life across our country may be invisible to this president," she says. "But they won't be invisible to me."
They won't be, that is, unless they are Americans who just want to visit their moms in Cuba once a year.

That missing piece is why Barack Obama's recent Cuba-policy offering looked so nice: He called for an end to the Bush administration's restrictions on Cuban-Americans who want to visit or send money to relatives in Cuba. Obama's proposal was as layered and complex—and as sweet—as the cake called tres leches (three milks: whole, condensed, and powdered). It smacked of family values, and it was in keeping with the thrust toward dialogue, trade, and other human contact with Cuba that Bill Clinton had pursued as president.

In effect, Obama has pushed Hillary into the Bush camp on Cuba policy. She has even parroted the neocon hard line against the lefties who have taken over several Latin American governments. Obama thus distinguished himself from her on an important geopolitical issue besides the Iraq War (and her initial support for it). He may also have opened a serious fissure in the GOP's last Hispanic stronghold—Cuban-Americans—from which at least a trickle of new Democratic votes could flow.

This Clinton-Obama split has exposed a rift among national Democratic leaders over how to capitalize on weakening Cuban support for Republicans in the battleground state of Florida as part of an effort to solidify Democratic support among the growing number of Hispanic voters nationwide.

Moreover, Obama dished out a sweet antidote to the bitter brew that George W. Bush had served up in the 2004 campaign. To the pleasure of hardcore Republican exiles, Bush reduced Cuban-Americans' freedom to travel to Cuba from once per year to once every three years; they could stay only 14 days and spend only $50 per day; and they needed the Treasury Department's permission. Bush also limited their remittances to relatives to $300 every three months. His Commerce Department created a new list of items—including such subversive things as hand soap, toothpaste, and clothes—that all Americans are forbidden from sending to Cuba. (In general, U.S. law prohibits all other U.S. citizens from traveling to Cuba at all.)

Senator Dodd's Cuba Policy Speech

2007-09-29T07:37:00.000-07:00

Remarks of Senator Christopher J. Dodd, as delivered

Cuba Policy Roll-outThe Biltmore, MiamiSaturday, September 8, 2007

http://chrisdodd.com/issues/cuba_speech (text and video)

·
Every four years candidates seeking the Presidency rediscover Cuba. They travel to Florida and pledge to maintain sanctions against the government of Fidel Castro until democracy flowers on the Island of Cuba.
Today, with our election 14 months away, the Miami pilgrimage has already begun.
One of my Democratic opponents has already pledged to maintain the embargo.
Another proposes to slightly change the policy.
Today, United States policy toward Cuba has been essentially the same for almost fifty years.
I believe the time has come to say publicly what many Americans believe including many Cuban-Americans – our Cuba policy has neither served America’s interests nor brought democracy to Cuba. It has been an abject failure.
I have the deepest respect for the Cuban American community and the pain, hardship and suffering the entire community has been through. I harbor no illusion about the current state of affairs in Cuba and the extreme difficulties Cubans live under.
But, today I believe that we are at a critical moment in Cuba’s changing political landscape, with Fidel Castro having recently turned over day-to-day authority of running Cuba to Raoul Castro and a small number of loyalists.
I believe we must make a choice – the United States can either be players in helping to shape the Cuba landscape for the next fifty years, or remain on the sidelines while the future of Cuba is determined by others.
To be sure, there is no reason to believe that a policy that has failed to promote the peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba for the last fifty years would succeed in bringing democracy to Cuba in the next fifty.
We all know the dubious achievements of the current policy:
Denying Americans their fundamental right to travel freely and visit their families in Cuba;
Restricting the access of American farmers to Cuban markets;
And, preventing American families from benefiting from potentially lifesaving medical advances that are today underway in Cuban laboratories and medical clinics in the fight against cancer and other incurable diseases.
The current policy has also made the lives of the 11 million Cubans living on the island more difficult.
Current policies have denied them access to most American goods and services.
It has restricted visits from their family members and loved ones residing in America, allowing only a single visit every three years, for up to 14 days.
And the policy has barred their American family members from sending more than $300 every three months to their impoverished Cuban relatives – a mere $1,200 per year.
In addition, this policy has been yet another source of tension in our relations with allied and friendly governments throughout the Americas and the world.
Other than the war in Iraq, perhaps no other American policy is more broadly unpopular internationally.And at a time when our standing in the world is already in tatters, compromising our ability to address threats through international cooperation, we can ill afford to continue this failed policy.
But perhaps the most dubious achievement of this 50-year old policy is the gift it has been to Fidel Castro. I am totally convinced that the current policy has had more to do with sustaining Fidel Castro’s control over the Cuban people than anything else we have done.
This policy has been little more than a straw man Fidel Castro has been able to point to, to justify economic failures of his regime and political repression he practices in the name of national security.
I come here today to say that the fiftieth anniversary of this policy will be its last.
In a Dodd presidency, on January 20, 2009, America’s failed Cuba policy will end – and a new era will begin. An era of greater American safety and security, an era of strength, optimism and confidence, and an era without fear.
Let me tell you what that era will look like and how we will make it possible – beginning with a new policy on Cuba.
I will begin by working to unravel the embargo by seeking the repeal of the Helms Burton Act – a law that has placed onerous restrictions on the ability of the United States to play any meaningful role in the ongoing transition in Cuba.
As President, I will amend the Trade Sanctions Reform Act which places restrictions on Americans’ rights to travel and American farmers’ ability to access Cuba markets.
I will instruct the Secretary of State to authorize our diplomats to meet more regularly with their Cuban counterparts at all levels and open an embassy in Havana to better serve Americans and American interests in Cuba.
Further, I will reinvigorate the US/Cuba Migration Agreement bilateral talks. They will serve as a forum to discuss outstanding bilateral issues, which this administration has flatly disregarded.
And, I will shut down TV Marti.
American taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize a television station that virtually no one in Cuba can ever see.
And as President, I will repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act – a law which has only encouraged Cuban migrants to risk their lives at sea and fall prey to international smuggling organizations with the promise of gaining legal resident status here in the United States.
I know some will ask, “Why are you doing this? Why now?”
I am proposing these changes to the current policy because they make sense and are the right thing to do – for the Cuban people, but more importantly for America.
And I refuse to let Fidel Castro or his successor determine the timetable for setting America’s foreign policy.
Setting America’s policy is for the American President to decide and the American people.
I also believe now more than ever before the United States has an opportunity to be a player in influencing the ongoing transition to a post-Castro Cuba.
If Cuban authorities want to stand in the way of these changes they can, but it will be clear to the world—and more importantly to the Cuban people—who is responsible for the impoverished and repressive state of affairs in Cuba – the Cuban government.
The fig leaf of an excuse provided by the U.S. embargo will be gone, and the Cuban people will not only know who bears the responsibility for failure – they will demand accountability and change.
And when that day comes, the road to the peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba will be well underway and America’s interests -- our safety and security -- enhanced.
Thank you.

Web page http://chrisdodd.com/issues/cuba

Univision Debate: Clinton, Dodd, Gravel, Richardson on Cuba

2007-09-16T19:10:00.000-07:00

Following are Cuba related excerpts from the transcript of the Univision debate yesterday.

The audience reaction that is indicated is interesting but someone who is on the spot or watched it needs to comment about whether the audience was more favorable to Senator Clinton's echo of President Bush or the pro-normalization sentiments of Senator Dodd and former Senator Gravel.

Clinton seems to want it both ways. 'the Cuban people deserve freedom and democracy and we're all hopeful that that can be brought about peacefully' vs. 'Look at what we face today because of the misguided, bullying policies of this president. So let's reverse it and get ready for freedom in Cuba!' Was she referring to Bush bullying Chavez or Cuba? What else is her veiled prediction/threat of unpeaceful change than the same kind of bullying? (When will a journalist have the smarts to ask why her position on family and purposeful travel is Bush's rather than her husband's poliicy?)

Richardson was disappointing and Dodd again set the standard for a rational policy. Obama was not asked about his position which makes one wonder what Univision's agenda was.

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2007/09/09/23/English_transcript.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdfGOV.

RICHARDSON: Well, what I would do is -- for one, I would pay attention to Latin America if I'm president. This president does not.Number two, we've got to fix the immigration issue. That is centralnot just to Mexico but Central America.Number three, we've got to deal with the Cuba issue. What we needthere is possibly start lifting the embargo but only -- (applause) -- afterFidel Castro releases political prisoners and their democratic freedoms.

*******************
Senator Gravel, the same question. Do you consider Hugo Chavez adictator? Would you break relations with him?

MR. GRAVEL: No, not at all. In fact, I would reach out to him. Do weforget that on a weekend our CIA tried to depose him? Do we forget that? And of course -- so, is he an enemy? No, he's not an enemy. We've created him as an enemy. We're doing the same thing with Iran. What's the difference if Chavez deals with Iran? We hope that a lot of countries begin to interchange their leadership and begin to think about the globe as one entity. There's nothing wrong.The same thing with Fidel Castro. Why can't we recognize Cuba? Why --what's the big deal, after 25 years -- (applause) -- that these people 125 miles from this country are discriminated against? It makes no sense at all. We need to open up our arms to all nations and treat them as friends,not start looking for enemies. (Applause.)

*********************
This is the chance to speak about Cuba now. Senator Clinton, what dothink would happen in Cuba without Fidel Castro? And what role would theU.S. play after his death or in that transition?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, the Cuban people deserve freedom and democracy,and we're all hopeful that that can be brought about peacefully. It appears as though the reign of Castro is reaching an end. We don't know what will follow Fidel Castro, but we need to do everything we can to work with our friends in Latin America who are democratic nations, with the Europeans and others, to try to bring about a peaceful transition to democracy and freedom for the Cuban people.Now, that requires that we work with the entire hemisphere. You know,in 1994 I remember being here in Miami when my husband hosted the Summit of the Americas.At that time, there was only one anti-democratic, anti-American leaderin the hemisphere, namely Castro. Look at what we face today because of themisguided, bullying policies of this president. So let's reverse it and getready for freedom in Cuba! (Cheers, applause.)

MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Dodd, the same question. What would Cuba be like withoutCastro? And what's the role of the United States?

SEN. DODD: Well, a very important one, and the transition is alreadyoccurring, I would suggest to you here. You don't have to wait for it tohappen. The question is whether or not we're going to sit on the sidelines or be a part of this transition here.Certainly what we've done over the last 50 years I don't think hasworked. Fifty years of this policy, of the embargo has basically left the same man in power, the same repressive politics, an economy that's been failing in the country. He has been using that as an excuse for his own failures. As president of the United States, I would begin to unravel that embargo. I would lift travel restrictions, so Cuban Americans can go visit their families. (Cheers, applause.) I would be lifting the restrictions on remissions -- (still get back ?).We need to engage in a constructive and positive way. This is hurting us as well throughout the Americas here. Our ability to engage the rest of this hemisphere is directly related to our ability to engage intelligently in this transition. It takes new, bold leadership to do this. We need to understand that the hopes and aspirations of the Cuban people are as important as anything to us. We need safety and security; we need not fear Fidel Castro. We need to understand it and be part of the transition to make a difference for that country as it is occurring. (Applause.)

How the candidates currently line up on Cuba

2007-09-04T11:48:00.000-07:00

Following are capsule summaries of the positions of candidates for President on travel to Cuba from most open to most closed. A link is provided to donate to candidates who have expressed a positive position on travel during the campaign.

Democrats:

Dodd: end the embargo and all restrictions on travel, cosponsor S 721
http://action.chrisdodd.com/my/donate.jsp?supporter_my_donate_page_KEY=132

Kucinich: end the embargo, cosponsor HR 654
[web does not offer personalized donation pages]

Obama: end all restrictions on family travel and remittances
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/cubadialog

Richardson: favors family travel and remittances, begin lifting embargo if prisoners released
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/outreach/view/raise/Cubatravel

Edwards: favors family travel but not remittances
http://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=Mjg2MTg

Biden: has voted for travel but not on record during campaign

Clinton: has voted for travel but now supports Bush policy with exception only for family emergencies

Republicans:

Paul: has cosponsored HR 654 to end all restrictions on travel , supports end of embargo
[web site does not offer a personalized donation page: read full position here]

All other Republican candidates support the Bush Administration's draconian restrictions on travel.

To support legislation to end all travel restrictions, go to http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Cubatravelbill/

Obama: Allow Family Travel, Remittances

2007-09-04T11:28:00.000-07:00

Op Ed in Miami Herald

Posted on Tue, Aug. 21, 2007

By BARACK OBAMA www.barackobama.com

When my father was a young man living in Kenya, the freedom and opportunity of the United States exerted such a powerful draw that he moved halfway around the world to pursue his dreams here. My father's story is not unique. The same has been true for tens of millions of people, from every continent -- including for the many Cubans who have come and made their lives here since the start of Fidel Castro's dictatorship almost 50 years ago.

It is a tragedy that, just 90 miles from our shores, there exists a society where such freedom and opportunity are kept out of reach by a government that clings to discredited ideology and authoritarian control. A democratic opening in Cuba is, and should be, the foremost objective of our policy. We need a clear strategy to achieve it -- one that takes some limited steps now to spread the message of freedom on the island, but preserves our ability to bargain on behalf of democracy with a post-Fidel government.

The primary means we have of encouraging positive change in Cuba today is to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways. U.S. policy must be built around empowering the Cuban people, who ultimately hold the destiny of Cuba in their hands. The United States has a critical interest in seeing Cuba join the roster of stable and economically vibrant democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Such a development would bring us important security and economic benefits, and it would allow for new cooperation on migration, counter-narcotics and other issues.

These interests, and our support for the aspirations of the Cuban people, are ill served by the further entrenchment of the Castro regime, which is why we need to advance peaceful political and economic reform on the island. Castro's ill health and the potentially tumultuous changes looming ahead make the matter all the more urgent.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has made grand gestures to that end while strategically blundering when it comes to actually advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in Cuba. This is particularly true of the administration's decision to restrict the ability of Cuban

Americans to visit and send money to their relatives in Cuba. This is both a humanitarian and a strategic issue. That decision has not only had a profoundly negative impact on the welfare of the Cuban people. It has also made them more dependent on the Castro regime and isolated them from the transformative message carried there by Cuban Americans.

In the ''Cuban spring'' of the late 1990s and early years of this decade, dissidents and human-rights activists had more political space than at any time since the beginning of Castro's rule, and Cuban society experienced a small opening in advancing the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

U.S. policies -- especially the fact that Cuban Americans were allowed to maintain and deepen ties with family on the island -- were a key cause of that ''Cuban spring.'' Although cut off by the Castro regime's deplorable March 2003 jailing of 75 of Cuba's most prominent and courageous dissidents, the opening underscored what is possible with a sensible strategic approach.
We in the United States should do what we can to bring about another such opening, taking certain steps now-and pledging to take additional steps as temporary openings are solidified into lasting change.

Cuban-American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grass-roots democracy on the island. Accordingly, I will grant Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

But as we reach out in some ways now, it makes strategic sense to hold on to important inducements we can use in dealing with a post-Fidel government, for it is an unfortunate fact that his departure by no means guarantees the arrival of freedom on the island.

Accordingly, I will use aggressive and principled diplomacy to send an important message: If a post-Fidel government begins opening Cuba to democratic change, the United States (the president working with Congress) is prepared to take steps to normalize relations and ease the embargo that has governed relations between our countries for the last five decades. That message coming from my administration in bilateral talks would be the best means of promoting Cuban freedom. To refuse to do so would substitute posturing for serious policy -- and we have seen too much of that in other areas over the past six years.

We must not lose sight of our fundamental goal: freedom in Cuba. At the same time, we should be pragmatic in our approach and clear-sighted about the effects of our policies. We all know the power of the freedom and opportunity that America at its best has both embodied and advanced. If deployed wisely, those ideals will have as transformative effect on Cubans today as they did on my father more than 50 years ago.

[A concrete way to express your appreciation for Obama's statement is through this donation page http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/cubadialog ]

Dodd: End All Travel Restrictions

2007-09-04T11:16:00.000-07:00

August 15, 2007 - 3:12pm http://chrisdodd.com/node/2127

Senator Dodd has been a long-time advocate for free travel to Cuba and ending the economic restrictions that prevent American food and medicines from reaching Cuba. Here's a statement from Dodd on his thoughts about US policy on Cuba.

I want to see the peaceful transition to democracy occur on the Island of Cuba in my life time. That isn't going to happen if we continue the misguided policies of the last forty-six years.
We must open the flood gates to contacts with the Cuban people. We must remove restrictions on the ability of Cuban Americans to provide financial assistance to their loved ones. Even small sums of money in the hands of ordinary Cuban families can serve as catalysts for private investment to gain a foothold in Cuba.

I have long supported the freedom to travel to Cuba, which is why I have joined with twenty of my colleagues in a bi-partisan way to co-sponsor S.721 the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2007.

It is simply un-American to bar American citizens from traveling to foreign countries. In fact, Americans are currently free to travel to both Iran and North Korea, two countries which pose far more serious threats to American national security than the government of Cuba.
But more than that, the United States' most potent weapon against totalitarianism is the influence of ordinary American citizens. They are some of the best ambassadors we have, and the free exchange of ideas and the interaction between Americans and Cubans are important ways to encourage democracy in Cuba.

For more than forty-six years, the United States has maintained an isolationist policy toward Cuba, which I believe has not achieved its intended objectives, namely to hasten a peaceful and democratic transition on the Island of Cuba. Rather, it has solidified the authoritarian control of Fidel Castro, and has adversely affected the already miserable living conditions of 11 million innocent men, women, and children on the Island.

I have long opposed restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to the Cuban people. Frankly I believe it is immoral to deprive innocent people from access to American medical and farm products. Moreover, we hurt our American farm families with such an ill conceived policy. It is a commonsense policy to encourage Cuban authorities to purchase US food and medicine rather than other foreign purchases that may impact adversely on our nation's security.

The Island of Cuba is in the throes of a transition to a post-Castro Cuba. A US policy of staying the course leaves us on the sides as the future of Cuba is being written. It is time to engage before it is too late to have a positive influence on the political landscape which is rapidly taking shape there. In a Dodd administration the United States will engage with the Cuban people in support of a peaceful transition to democracy.

[To express your appreciation for Sen. Dodd's position, donate to his campaign through this page http://action.chrisdodd.com/my/donate.jsp?supporter_my_donate_page_KEY=132 ]

2005 and 2003 Senate Voting Records

2007-06-05T13:46:00.000-07:00

2005

Voting in favor of an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill offered by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to facilitate family travel to Cuba in humanitarian circumstances:
Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Hagel, Obama

2003

S-950, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act to end the travel ban. Among the 32 co-sponsors: Dodd, Hagel (non sponsors: Biden, Clinton)

Cuba Travel Amendment by Senators Enzi, Baucus, Craig and Dorgan to the Transportation/Treasury appropriations bill that would end funding for the travel ban. A motion to table the amendment failed 59-36 and the amendment itself passed on a voice vote. Voting against tabling, i.e. for travel: Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Hagel

Fred Thompson Violates Embargo While Attacking Michael Moore

2007-06-05T10:43:00.000-07:00

[Fred] Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like--though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars--Montecristos from Havana.

The presence of the cigars and the absence of a press chaperone were clues that Thompson is taking a different approach to his potential candidacy. A campaign flack would have insisted on hiding the cigars.

“From the Courthouse to the White House: Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role” by Stephen F. Hayes The Weekly Standard

04/23/2007

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13528&R=1136E33842

Richardson on Family Travel in Miami

2007-06-05T10:28:00.000-07:00

CUBA SANCTIONS

"Richardson also favors making it easier for Cuban-Americans to visit family on the island and send money. Some exiles believe those contacts strengthen Fidel Castro's regime.

' I believe that would enhance family reunification and values,' he said. "

Miami Herald, Posted on May 30, 2007

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/122659.html

Dodd and Obama Signed Letter Supporting Religious Travel

2007-06-05T10:18:00.000-07:00

Christopher Dodd, Barack Obama and fifteen other senators signed a letter on March 8, 2006 to Secretary of Treasury Snow expressing concern about restrictions on travel by religious organizations.

http://www.lawg.org/docs/Senate-CubaReligTravel.pdf

excerpts

Over the past several months, we have become aware that a number of long-established national U.S. religious institutions, who in the past have received licenses from the Office of Foreign Asset Control allowing them regular travel to Cuba to develop and maintain relations with church counterparts there, are now suddenly being denied their licenses for
reasons that do not appear well-founded. We are disturbed that OFAC appears to be defining what is and is not a religious organization -- in itself a precarious role for a U.S. Government agency -- and that its operating definition appears to be prejudiced against recognized, mainstream national religious institutions....

We understand the complicated political reality that exists between the United States and Cuban governments. However, we believe it is inappropriate and unacceptable for politics and government to serve as a hurdle and now as a barrier to faith-based connections between individuals. If anything, these connections foster greater religious
freedom in Cuba and contribute to a severely-lacking free-flowing exchange of ideas between the two countries.

Sincerely,

Max Baucus
Michael Enzi
John Sununu
Jeff Bingaman
Byron Dorgan
Patrick Leahy
Ron Wyden
Dianne Feinstein
Edward Kennedy
Christopher Dodd
Tom Harkin
Mary Landrieu
James M. Jeffords
Barack Obama
Dick Durbin
Lincoln Chafee
Kent Conrad

2005 Votes on TV Marti

2007-06-05T10:04:00.000-07:00

Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate VotesRecords Can Be Baggage In Bids for White House

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 1, 2007; A01

One budget-related vote with broader political implications would have stripped funding for TV Marti, which beams television programming to Cuba, though the Cuban government jams the signal. Critics in Congress complain that the United States has spent almost $200 million on the failed effort and have targeted the program year after year.

Obama twice voted to cut off TV Marti funding, while Clinton supported maintaining it. Those votes will have resonance in Florida, which is a key primary state and may reschedule its 2008 primary date from March to February.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator's opposition to TV Marti was primarily about cost. But within Florida's large Cuban exile population, one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, Clinton's and Obama's stances ally them with distinct groups: the older hard-liners and a younger, more progressive group of second-generation Cuban Americans and more recent immigrants whose numbers are growing. Clinton "is going with the status quo," said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who specializes in Hispanic voters. Obama, he said, "is with the position of change."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123101004_pf.html

******************
2005

Senator Dorgan's amendment, which would have eliminated funding for TV Marti.

"We fund broadcasts into Cuba on something called Radio Marti which are very effective. The Cuban people listen to Radio Marti. Of course, they can listen to Miami radio stations as well. But we also fund something called TV Marti, and we have done it for years. The Government of Cuba, of Fidel Castro, jams the signals. We have Fat Albert, an aerostat balloon up there thousands of feet in the air, and the American taxpayer is paying for a fancy studio down on the ground. And up through this cable to Fat Albert we actually send signals into Cuba, television signals that the Cuban people can't see. Traditionally, they have been broadcast from 3 to 8 in the morning, and they are systematically jammed."

On the Motion to table the Dorgan amendment, Senator Clinton voted YEA, along with Bayh, Biden, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Salazar, Sarbanes, Schumer and 53 Republicans. Senator Obama voted NAY along with Dodd and 31 other Democrats as well as Enzi and Sununu.

Dorgan amendment, again regarding Television Marti (see above) Senator Dorgan:

"The amendment I offer today is very simple. It is an amendment that will eliminate the $21 million in this appropriations bill for something called Television Martí and will instead use that $21 million to restore funding for the Peace Corps."

The vote on this amendment was the same as the one above (#3) except that Senator Corzine decided that it made sense to vote against it to lock up the Cuban vote in his gubernatorial race. Mary Landrieu did not vote.

Bill Richardson on Cuban Aid Offer After Katrina

2007-05-25T16:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/22/1334217

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you something -- in the last few days, because of the big U.N. Summit, the meeting of global leaders in New York, we interviewed the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez and also the number two man in Cuba, Ricardo Alarcon, Cuba's head of the national assembly, and both countries offered aid. Cuba offered over 1,500 doctors with hurricane backpacks. Even Florida senator, Mel Martinez said the U.S. Should have accepted that offer. What are your thoughts on that?

BILL RICHARDSON: Well, we should accept it, that's because of political reasons. Both Cuba and Venezuela, as you know, Amy, have very bad relations with the United States right now. We should not look in the eye of who is ready to help, especially in a disaster like we had, especially with the proximity of the Gulf coast and Cuba and Venezuela, and Venezuela provides a lot of our energy supply. So, we should have taken it.

But at the same time, I'm sure Castro and Chavez were kind of putting their thumb in our eye a little bit, but look, this is a case where we should have been prepared. Should we accept international assistance? Of course, if it helps.

Hillary Clinton Interview by AP on Cuba

2007-05-25T16:14:00.000-07:00

http://www.miamiherald.com/692/story/114204.html

Clinton also said she doesn't want to see immediate changes in the U.S. embargo against Cuba and travel restrictions to the communist country, but there may be need for change in the next presidency if Fidel Castro is no longer in power.

"There may be an opportunity when I'm president to do a review of our policy toward Cuba because there may be changes in Cuba," Clinton said. "I want to see how things develop, who's actually going to be in charge there and whether there may not be some openings."

She said she wants commitments to human rights and more openness in return for changes in U.S. policy. Castro has not been seen in public since July, when he underwent emergency intestinal surgery and ceded his presidential functions to his 75-year-old brother Raul, the defense minister.

***********

Transcript of interview:

Interview with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Florida AP May 21, 2007

Reporter: I need to ask you about a couple of things that are really a huge interest especially in South Florida and in the state, and let me begin with Cuba.

United States citizens can travel to Iran and North Korea. They may not travel to Cuba. As President, would you look at that policy and say, gee why are we prohibiting our citizens from traveling to this country even if it is ruled by a tyrant?

HRC: Well, when I’m President, we’re maybe going to have a chance to take a broad view of our relations with Cuba. Things seem to be changing there at least in terms of changing the guard. But I don’t know yet what the future holds because we’re not at all clear that anyone who comes after either of the Castros will be more open to democracy and human rights.

Reporter: Well, in the interim, however, for the last ten years or so, we had what is called a wet foot, dry foot policy, I know you know this, where Cubans who are picked up in the sea are sent back and those who reach US soil get to stay. And then we see Haitians and Dominicans and other people arrive here and reach US soil and they get shipped back. Now, is that disparity in treatment strike you as unjust?

HRC: Well, I hope in the course of this debate over comprehensive immigration reform we’re going to be looking at a range of issues over enforcement. It is certainly heartbreaking when people risk their lives; lose their lives, in trying to get to this country. That happens in the deserts of Mexico, and it happens on the high seas. So, I’m hoping we’re going to be able to have a more uniform approach for immigration enforcement.

Reporter: And finally, I’m just going to say, there have been a lot of Cuban-Americans who live here, still have family on the island. They may only go to Cuba once every three years. And, if family reunification is a goal of our general immigration policies, does that make sense?

HRC: Well, I know there are a number of hardship cases. I’ve visited with people who have elderly relatives who are not expected to live long, and I think there ought to be some discretion. But, I also believe, you’ve got to see where the changes in Cuba are leading us.

Comment: In the past, Senator Clinton has always voted favorably on Cuba travel. (See accompanying posting comparing Clinton, Dodd and Obama votes.)

In the actual transcript, she is far more cautious. Unrestricted travel for all Americans is not addressed and her view on modification of family travel does not even advocate the policy of the Clinton Administration (annual trips plus emergencies).

On the other hand, she is breaking new ground by linking illegal migration from Mexico, Haiti and the Dominican Republic with the currently priviledged situation of Cubans.

While anticipating the need to take a "broad view" of future relations with Cuba, it is not clear whether she is making that conditional on internal changes in democracy and human rights (the Bush Administration position).