Paul breaks with GOP on Cuba

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/227557-paul-backs-obamas-cuba-moves

December 18, 2014, 12:21 pm
Paul breaks with GOP on Cuba
By Peter Sullivan

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is breaking with other Republican presidential hopefuls and backing President Obama's decision to launch talks normalizing relations with Cuba.

Paul criticized the trade and travel embargo on Cuba as ineffective, separating himself from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who have criticized Obama and backed the embargo.

All four men are considered likely contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

"In the end, I think opening up Cuba is probably a good idea," Paul told Tom Roten of WVHU radio in West Virginia, The Associated Press reports.
"The 50-year embargo just hasn't worked," Paul said. "If the goal is regime change, it sure doesn't seem to be working, and probably it punishes the people more than the regime because the regime can blame the embargo for hardship."

Paul made the comments to the Huntington, W.Va., station, just over the border from Kentucky, on Thursday morning, after declining to comment on the issue on Wednesday.

The Kentucky Republican has a history of libertarianism, and his comments are not a surprise. Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the senator's father, introduced a bill to lift the embargo.

Still, the remarks are striking, since it is rare for a mainstream Republican contender for the White House to break firmly from support for the Cuban embargo.

Obama's surprise announcement on Wednesday includes moves to open an embassy in Cuba, and ease travel and economic restrictions. Obama said he would work with Congress to consider fully lifting the embargo.

[truth_seeker]

I am with Sen. Paul on this topic.

I think Rubio, Cruz are bound by their ethnic heritage to HAVE to oppose relaxing our position, and Bush is likewise bound by his Florida location.

But through other eyes, continuing the old policy looks like supporting ineffectiveness for tradition's sake.

Relaxing has more upside and less downside.

[Scottftlc]

I agree with truth_seeker here...at the risk of sounding like a politician, I understand the opposition to this and the depth of feeling of the Cuban community in Florida about it.  But it (the embargo) just has not been effective.  It has become a tradition.  I do think Obama's timing is politically motivated - this is yet another action trying to show himself as relevant and in comeback after being devastated in the mid-terms.  But as a policy, the embargo served very little purpose and was wholly unsuccessful in effecting regime change in Cuba.  There is no real harm at this point in relieving the embargo.

[truth_seeker]

I agree with truth_seeker here...at the risk of sounding like a politician, I understand the opposition to this and the depth of feeling of the Cuban community in Florida about it.  But it (the embargo) just has not been effective.  It has become a tradition.  I do think Obama's timing is politically motivated - this is yet another action trying to show himself as relevant and in comeback after being devastated in the mid-terms.  But as a policy, the embargo served very little purpose and was wholly unsuccessful in effecting regime change in Cuba.  There is no real harm at this point in relieving the embargo.

Agreed that Obama is using this politically. And going into the final quarter of his presidency, damaged by public opinion and without majorities, he has to try to make some chicken salad from chicken shite, so to speak.

How skillfully he manages issues like this, will determine part of his legacy. History watches how people handle.

I don't expect Paul to get the nomination. His willingness to apply new paradigms of thought is interesting. He is not his father, but I expect he's too far out of the GOP mainstream for this cycle.

Bush is a contender, Rubio and Cruz are not. Based on real polls as opposed to internet forum popularity.

[massadvj]

I agree with Paul.  Free and open trade has always been the best possible posture for the USA.  We trade with Venezuela and China.  Both of those countries are as repressive as Cuba.  It's time to close the book on this little residual political problem from the cold war. 

[Kansas]

I think this is a good thing.  Ofcourse as a Kansas Wheat Farmer I am always in favor of selling commodities to anyone who has cash in hand.  But this generation of Cubans only know what Fidel has told them.  Once the see Americans visiting Cuba and get ahold of a cell phone things will change in Cuba.  For 50 years the Communist have told Cubans that their suffering is because of the American embargo.  Now we have removed Castro's excuse for his failure.

[Scottftlc]

Yes, my wife is from Florida and she is solidly behind Jeb Bush...absolutely loves the guy (she loved W too).  I am less inclined in that direction as I hate the idea of political aristocracy families...though in our age of celebrating celebrity above everything else, that kind of thing is going to happen whether we like it or not.

I am intrigued by the idea of some libertarian thought - aka Rand Paul - making serious headway in the party.  Sometimes different ways of thought catch fire, especially in troubling times like these after years of crony capitalism and a drift toward some modern form of fascism.  I would like to see it happen because societies need to be shaken up at times.  But that's not to say that I think it will happen, it is more likely that we must hope someone like a Jeb Bush can rise to the occasion in the campaign and become better than we think he is...it is hard to win in a country like this with ideological purity - Obama did it only because he is black and a novelty.  I don't think Rand Paul can pull that off on the right.  The voters are more likely to be in a careful mood after the last eight years, so a Jeb Bush may be enough of a celebrity in name, a resume, and a safe choice for an electorate that will likely prefer center/right to absolute right.

[massadvj]

Yes, my wife is from Florida and she is solidly behind Jeb Bush...absolutely loves the guy (she loved W too).  I am less inclined in that direction as I hate the idea of political aristocracy families...though in our age of celebrating celebrity above everything else, that kind of thing is going to happen whether we like it or not.

I am intrigued by the idea of some libertarian thought - aka Rand Paul - making serious headway in the party.  Sometimes different ways of thought catch fire, especially in troubling times like these after years of crony capitalism and a drift toward some modern form of fascism.  I would like to see it happen because societies need to be shaken up at times.  But that's not to say that I think it will happen, it is more likely that we must hope someone like a Jeb Bush can rise to the occasion in the campaign and become better than we think he is...it is hard to win in a country like this with ideological purity - Obama did it only because he is black and a novelty.  I don't think Rand Paul can pull that off on the right.  The voters are more likely to be in a careful mood after the last eight years, so a Jeb Bush may be enough of a celebrity in name, a resume, and a safe choice for an electorate that will likely prefer center/right to absolute right.

Interesting post.  I don't think of Rand Paul as "ideologically pure."  Far from it when it comes to social issues and foreign policy.  He might be fairly ideologically pure libertarian, but not conservative.  I'd say Ted Cruz or Beb Carson were more "ideologically pure" conservatives than Rand Paul.

[DCPatriot]

I love Jeb Bush too!  He would make a fantastic leader to bring us out of the Obama era.

He is bi-lingual and speaks fluent Spanish.  How many other GOP candidates with HIS resume can say that?

That said, it's political suicide to make him the nominee.  The Bush name has been savaged in the public square since 'mission accomplished'.  2003?

I'd rather he go into the race seeing himself as the steady, forward looking sage, articulating what the GOP message should be...and consider that his contribution.

Give me Rick Perry or Scott Walker.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I agree with truth_seeker here...at the risk of sounding like a politician, I understand the opposition to this and the depth of feeling of the Cuban community in Florida about it.  But it (the embargo) just has not been effective.  It has become a tradition.  I do think Obama's timing is politically motivated - this is yet another action trying to show himself as relevant and in comeback after being devastated in the mid-terms.  But as a policy, the embargo served very little purpose and was wholly unsuccessful in effecting regime change in Cuba.  There is no real harm at this point in relieving the embargo.

I really don't want to post here any longer, but I have to address this issue.

"... as a policy, the embargo served very little purpose."

Liberals have so successful at defining the purpose of the embargo, that they have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

The embargo has been highly successful. It has ruined Cuba's economy to the degree that they've needed to be maintained afloat by the USSR, China, Venezuela and now Russia. The Castro brothers rose to power by blaming US Imperialism and American companies doing business for all that was (allegedly) wrong with Cuba, at a time when Cuba's economy was second only to the US in this hemisphere, and as compared to other nations in the world. Then as the Cuban economy failed, he blamed that on the US "embargo".

In other words... what Castro was saving Cuba from back in 1959 was the evil influence of American businesses, then when Cuba's economy tanked under his policies, that was because the US refused to do business with Cuba.

If the US has wanted to effect "regime change" as the left would have us believe, they would have simply found a way to invade the island and dispose of the Castro brothers. Instead, they used the same policy of containment that was used against the USSR, so te purpose of the "embargo" was to prevent the spread of Castrocommunism throughout our hemisphere by destroying Cuba's economy. Communism has spread in our hemisphere, but it wasn't Castro exporting it.

Another way that the alleged (more on that in a minute) embargo was indirectly successful, was the constant drain on the Soviet economy created by the need to subsidize Cuba's failing economy.  Cuba is one of the world's worst credit risks, owing billions to its enablers.

More on that fictional embargo.

There is no "embargo" per se.

The US is one of Cuba's top five trading partners. We have been for over a decade. What Cuba lacks (and wants) is access to credit lines. Right now Cuba has to pay cash for all goods purchased from the US. If Obama does what he says he's going to do, and lifts the "embargo", Cuba will buy on credit with all receivable guaranteed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States, A.K.A. the US taxpayer.

What's going to happen is two-fold:

• Since Cuban citizens cannot own private businesses of any significance, the Cuban government will continue its current practice of negotiating with foreign firms looking to establish businesses in Cuba for Cuban labor. Here's how that plays out: Hilton wants to build a hotel in Varadero Beach, so they have to negotiate with the Cuban government for labor. The Cuban government charges Hilton (just using some numbers here) $15/hour for brick masons, paid directly to the Cuban government. The government then turns around and pays those masons $2/hr. Same with every single person employed by any foreign firm in Cuba
• The South Florida economy will tank and shrivel. Just as Miami Beach was dying in pre-Castro Cuba, tourism will move South to the cheaper whores and beaches of Cuba

Nothing Obama does is good.

[mystery-ak]

I've been waiting to hear your opinion on this Luis...

Sorry you are leaving us..

[Scottftlc]

I think what I did there was associate Paul's libertarian ideology with the right...which is oddly how it sits in my mind even though it contains a good measure of left wing flavoring.  It is not true conservative (such as Cruz) but for I see it as a form of ideological purity and for some reason in my head I stick it out on the right (as if there are two differnt forms of conservatism) and not as something else altogether that mingles various ideas from all over the spectrum.

[DCPatriot]

I really don't want to post here any longer, but I have to address this issue.

Luis, my friend.  I know you're dealing with personal issues much more important than a political forum.  And I pray that your burden is temporary and your mind finds relief from all that it entails.

You're a tremendous asset to the vitality of the forum.  And you will be missed by many of us.

....which I could say is a little selfish on your part.   


But I won't. 

[alicewonders]

I really don't want to post here any longer, but I have to address this issue.

Liberals have so successful at defining the purpose of the embargo, that they have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

The embargo has been highly successful. It has ruined Cuba's economy to the degree that they've needed to be maintained afloat by the USSR, China, Venezuela and now Russia. The Castro brothers rose to power by blaming US Imperialism and American companies doing business for all that was (allegedly) wrong with Cuba, at a time when Cuba's economy was second only to the US in this hemisphere, and as compared to other nations in the world. Then as the Cuban economy failed, he blamed that on the US "embargo".

In other words... what Castro was saving Cuba from back in 1959 was the evil influence of American businesses, then when Cuba's economy tanked under his policies, that was because the US refused to do business with Cuba.

If the US has wanted to effect "regime change" as the left would have us believe, they would have simply found a way to invade the island and dispose of the Castro brothers. Instead, they used the same policy of containment that was used against the USSR, so te purpose of the "embargo" was to prevent the spread of Castrocommunism throughout our hemisphere by destroying Cuba's economy. Communism has spread in our hemisphere, but it wasn't Castro exporting it.

Another way that the alleged (more on that in a minute) embargo was indirectly successful, was the constant drain on the Soviet economy created by the need to subsidize Cuba's failing economy.  Cuba is one of the world's worst credit risks, owing billions to its enablers.

More on that fictional embargo.

There is no "embargo" per se.

The US is one of Cuba's top five trading partners. We have been for over a decade. What Cuba lacks (and wants) is access to credit lines. Right now Cuba has to pay cash for all goods purchased from the US. If Obama does what he says he's going to do, and lifts the "embargo", Cuba will buy on credit with all receivable guaranteed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States, A.K.A. the US taxpayer.

What's going to happen is two-fold:

• Since Cuban citizens cannot own private businesses of any significance, the Cuban government will continue its current practice of negotiating with foreign firms looking to establish businesses in Cuba for Cuban labor. Here's how that plays out: Hilton wants to build a hotel in Varadero Beach, so they have to negotiate with the Cuban government for labor. The Cuban government charges Hilton (just using some numbers here) $15/hour for brick masons, paid directly to the Cuban government. The government then turns around and pays those masons $2/hr. Same with every single person employed by any foreign firm in Cuba
• The South Florida economy will tank and shrivel. Just as Miami Beach was dying in pre-Castro Cuba, tourism will move South to the cheaper whores and beaches of Cuba

Nothing Obama does is good.

Thanks Luis.  I was curious as to your take on it.  I tend to agree with you.  The Castros will benefit - but not the people they oppress.  They should have been taken out a long time ago.

Why are you leaving?  I hope it's not because of us Tea Party people.  Sure we have opinions at opposite polar ends - but disagreement is healthy if done with respect.  I don't always agree with you - but I highly respect your opinion.  I would hate to see you leave, and I hope you and others will reconsider and stay and - all of us - try to find common ground....

....and never lose sight of who the real enemy is!

 

[Scottftlc]

Liberals have so successful at defining the purpose of the embargo, that they have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

The embargo has been highly successful. It has ruined Cuba's economy to the degree that they've needed to be maintained afloat by the USSR, China, Venezuela and now Russia.

Luis, your bonafides on this subject far, far exceed mine...but I have to disagree here.  We were destroying Cuba's economy to what end?  Certainly not for the simple sake of doing so.  So it drained greater or lesser strategic opponents over the years...more than 50 of them by now, and still Cuba sits there...certainly not doing much now to Russia or China...or even Venezuela, that is itself a basket case. 

But even given that as the reason, the financial "embargo" is unsuccessful because certainly it would be better to draw Cuba into a different orbit and away from our strategic opponents by opening to them and provide them with a different system and structure to operate in.  They are certainly not the only country in the world we would do business with that abuses their own population as cheap, kept labor.  Perhaps, as happened in Eastern Europe in the 80's or 90's, the proximity and access to a different system would cause that labor to raise up against those abusing it.  Under any measure you can use, the "embargo" is not accomplishing a real value and it can be argued that it is preventing the kind of opening that we've seen in other parts of the world.  After more than 50 years we would have to see more than stasis in Cuba to judge this policy as a success...when the real reason it existed in the first place - their alliance with the USSR - doesn't even exist any longer.  South Florida will not wither away - they may need to become more competitive (the Marriot on South Beach might want to reconsider that $65 per night charge just to park your car there) - but there are plenty of tourists to go around...and it will require many other changes for Cuba to be a true competitor for the American tourist.  We might like to see those changes as well.  Cuba trying to compete with the Bahamas is certainly better than Cuba trying to help Venezuela foment revolution in Central America.

[alicewonders]

I think that the way Obama has done this is not good for us nor the Cuban people.  He has negotiated with a brutal dictator that continues to oppress the people.  Surely there was a way to open up the economy for the Cuban people - while ridding them of the boot that has been on their neck for so long. 

For Obama to once again, go it alone - with no input from Congress or from prominent Cubans here - can only be bad news!  The US gained nothing, the people will not benefit from this - only the cronies and dick-taters. 

I agree with the idea of opening up Cuba, but it's not going to happen under the Castros.

 

[Bigun]

I really don't want to post here any longer, but I have to address this issue.

Liberals have so successful at defining the purpose of the embargo, that they have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

The embargo has been highly successful. It has ruined Cuba's economy to the degree that they've needed to be maintained afloat by the USSR, China, Venezuela and now Russia. The Castro brothers rose to power by blaming US Imperialism and American companies doing business for all that was (allegedly) wrong with Cuba, at a time when Cuba's economy was second only to the US in this hemisphere, and as compared to other nations in the world. Then as the Cuban economy failed, he blamed that on the US "embargo".

In other words... what Castro was saving Cuba from back in 1959 was the evil influence of American businesses, then when Cuba's economy tanked under his policies, that was because the US refused to do business with Cuba.

If the US has wanted to effect "regime change" as the left would have us believe, they would have simply found a way to invade the island and dispose of the Castro brothers. Instead, they used the same policy of containment that was used against the USSR, so te purpose of the "embargo" was to prevent the spread of Castrocommunism throughout our hemisphere by destroying Cuba's economy. Communism has spread in our hemisphere, but it wasn't Castro exporting it.

Another way that the alleged (more on that in a minute) embargo was indirectly successful, was the constant drain on the Soviet economy created by the need to subsidize Cuba's failing economy.  Cuba is one of the world's worst credit risks, owing billions to its enablers.

More on that fictional embargo.

There is no "embargo" per se.

The US is one of Cuba's top five trading partners. We have been for over a decade. What Cuba lacks (and wants) is access to credit lines. Right now Cuba has to pay cash for all goods purchased from the US. If Obama does what he says he's going to do, and lifts the "embargo", Cuba will buy on credit with all receivable guaranteed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States, A.K.A. the US taxpayer.

What's going to happen is two-fold:

• Since Cuban citizens cannot own private businesses of any significance, the Cuban government will continue its current practice of negotiating with foreign firms looking to establish businesses in Cuba for Cuban labor. Here's how that plays out: Hilton wants to build a hotel in Varadero Beach, so they have to negotiate with the Cuban government for labor. The Cuban government charges Hilton (just using some numbers here) $15/hour for brick masons, paid directly to the Cuban government. The government then turns around and pays those masons $2/hr. Same with every single person employed by any foreign firm in Cuba
• The South Florida economy will tank and shrivel. Just as Miami Beach was dying in pre-Castro Cuba, tourism will move South to the cheaper whores and beaches of Cuba

Nothing Obama does is good.

One of those rare occasions when I find myself in agreement with you Luis! 

Don't leave on my account.

[katzenjammer]

Yes, count me among the many that was waiting to read Luis' take on this; I appreciate him posting it here.

I would also suggest that others seeing this as some kind of grand opportunity read the very thoughtful and sobering article posted here at BR by our friend Fishrrman earlier today: Shaking Hands with the Devil, from Ninety Miles Away

[massadvj]

I think what I did there was associate Paul's libertarian ideology with the right...which is oddly how it sits in my mind even though it contains a good measure of left wing flavoring.  It is not true conservative (such as Cruz) but for I see it as a form of ideological purity and for some reason in my head I stick it out on the right (as if there are two differnt forms of conservatism) and not as something else altogether that mingles various ideas from all over the spectrum.

That's what I figured...

[Fishrrman]

Scott wrote above:
[[ But that's not to say that I think it will happen, it is more likely that we must hope someone like a Jeb Bush can rise to the occasion in the campaign and become better than we think he is.. ]]

Dream on, my friend.

Jeb Bush:
Will it be "third time's the charm",
or
Three strikes and yer out!

By the way, anyone who thinks Paul is "right" on Cuba should take a few minutes to read John DiLeo's essay, which I posted here this morning:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,157032.msg631589.html#msg631589

[libertybele]

I agree with Paul.  Free and open trade has always been the best possible posture for the USA.  We trade with Venezuela and China.  Both of those countries are as repressive as Cuba.  It's time to close the book on this little residual political problem from the cold war.

FREE and open trade?  I definitely disagree wholeheartedly.  FAIR trade, but NOT FREE trade; that is what has cost us jobs and corporations moving abroad.

That was one thing that Ron Paul emphasized time and time again, FAIR trade in lieu of FREE trade.  Interestingly, if you listen to one of Obama's first campaign speeches he also emphasized FAIR trade ... of course it's turning out that this is yet another issue that he has defaulted on.