The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on December 20, 2014, 12:01:43 pm
-
Kos: ‘Only Crusty, Bitter, Old…Cuban-Americans Still Support’ U.S. Embargo
By Tom Johnson | December 18, 2014 | 9:51 PM EST
Apropos of President Obama’s announcement of big changes in U.S. policy towards Cuba, Daily Kos founder and publisher Markos Moulitsas suggested in a Wednesday post that just three groups still favor the embargo: elderly Cuban-Americans “who can't get past having lost the war half a century ago”; Republican politicians “beholden to the crusty bitter old bleep in South Florida, or those with national aspirations”; and “neocons, because life isn't worth living for that crowd without a perceived Hitler to rail against.”
But, Kos exulted, “the country is finally moving on, despite the wailing and teeth gnashing of the [Marco] Rubios and [Bob] Menendezes of the world, and the new generation of Cuban Americans is leading the way.”
From Kos’s post (emphasis added):
With news that the president has brokered detente with Cuba…Marco Rubio has predictably lost his [head], but Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez's hissy fit [Wednesday] morning has proven that idiocy can certainly be a bipartisan affair.
…The only people left supporting [the embargo] are the crusty old bleep who can't get past having lost the war half a century ago.
Every year, Florida International Univerisity [sic] polls the Cuban-American community in South Florida. And the results are quite clear:
A slight majority of the Cuban-American community in Miami-Dade County opposes continuing the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Countywide, 52% of the respondents oppose continuing the embargo. This percentage rises among Cuban Americans ages 18-29, 62% of whom oppose continuing the embargo…
…Support for re-establishing diplomatic ties [with Cuba] maintains a solid majority among all age groups up to age 70, after which it drops to a third of the population supporting the policy.
Like I said, crusty old bleep…
…[Y]ou know who else will be happy? Republicans who have pushed for greater trade when serving as governors, like North Dakota's John Hoeven, Nebraska's Dave Heineman, Georgia's Sonny Perdue, Arkansas' Mike Huckabee (who later flipped when running for president), and Virginia's Bob McDonnell. How about Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, at hand to welcome released aid worker Alan Gross when he arrived back home?
In fact, as the Rubio and Huckabee examples show, the only Republicans still vested in the failed embargo are those who either serve in Florida and are beholden to the crusty bitter old bleep in South Florida, or those with national aspirations. Oh, and the neocons, because life isn't worth living for that crowd without a perceived Hitler to rail against.
But like every other one of the GOP's demographic woes, fact is, support for the embargo is (literally) dying off as I type this. The country is finally moving on, despite the wailing and teeth gnashing of the Rubios and Menendezes of the world, and the new generation of Cuban Americans is leading the way.
Source URL: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-johnson/2014/12/18/kos-only-crusty-bitter-old%E2%80%A6cuban-americans-still-support-us-embargo
-
Why did New Busters post this without refuting it?
-
Like this slouch
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) came out swinging after the White House revealed its intent to ease US-Cuba relations Wednesday morning. "President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government," Menendez said in a statement. Menendez, a Cuban-American and a hardliner on US-Cuba relations, was reacting to the Castro government's release of American aid worker Alan
-
Are East Germans and the whole world better off, for the Wall coming down?
President George H. W. Bush didn't say "Halt," don't go further with tearing down the wall, until all the details are neatly worked out.
President Reagan said "tear down this wall" and when the people did just that, great risk was undertaken that day. People might have been mowed down by machine guns, for example. They took the risk.
Classical Liberalism, the source of modern conservatism at least in part, believes first and foremost in maximizing personal freedoms.
Looking forward, not backwards, this measure has more upside than downside.
-
Are East Germans and the whole world better off, for the Wall coming down?
President George H. W. Bush didn't say "Halt," don't go further with tearing down the wall, until all the details are neatly worked out.
President Reagan said "tear down this wall" and when the people did just that, great risk was undertaken that day. People might have been mowed down by machine guns, for example. They took the risk.
Classical Liberalism, the source of modern conservatism at least in part, believes first and foremost in maximizing personal freedoms.
Looking forward, not backwards, this measure has more upside than downside.
History is not a romance novel.
Reagan broke the USSR financially by engaging in an arms build up they KNEW they could not afford, so they began retreating the Red Army out of Eastern European countries under Soviet control.
The wall came down AFTER the USSR had abandoned East Germany because they were broke.
Obama just went into Cuba BEFORE the Cuban dictatorship capitulated and provided them with the operating funds they needed to continue their hold on the island.
-
History is not a romance novel.
Reagan broke the USSR financially by engaging in an arms build up they KNEW they could not afford, so they began retreating the Red Army out of Eastern European countries under Soviet control.
The wall came down AFTER the USSR had abandoned East Germany because they were broke.
Obama just went into Cuba BEFORE the Cuban dictatorship capitulated and provided them with the operating funds they needed to continue their hold on the island.
I would argue that poor Cuba, needs nobody to crush it further financially, and that it is hardly a military threat to the US. There: broke, no threat
The change in policy is forward looking. It holds the greater hope for Cuban peoples' lives, than the old policies. The Cold War is over. Let it be over for the Cuban people, too. Both Castrsos will die soon.
-
I would argue that poor Cuba, needs nobody to crush it further financially, and that it is hardly a military threat to the US. There: broke, no threat
The change in policy is forward looking. It holds the greater hope for Cuban peoples' lives, than the old policies. The Cold War is over. Let it be over for the Cuban people, too. Both Castrsos will die soon.
... and now we're giving them all the money they'll need to be a threat again.
You DO remember WHY we imposed economic sanctions being lifted, don't you?
The Castro brothers tried to put ballistic missiles aimed at the US just 90 miles off the coast.
BTW, at the same time that Obama relaxed our stance on Cuba, he imposed greater sanctions on Venezuela.
Cuba will now finance Venezuela with our money
-
truth wrote above:
[[ The change in policy is forward looking. It holds the greater hope for Cuban peoples' lives, than the old policies. The Cold War is over. Let it be over for the Cuban people, too. Both Castrsos will die soon. ]]
The problem is that any kind of normalization with Cuba -now- only rewards the Castros and their cronies.
Nothing should change until after both of them are dead.
Next thing you know, Obama will be inviting that rornery dictator from North Korea to the White House...
-
I would argue that poor Cuba, needs nobody to crush it further financially, and that it is hardly a military threat to the US. There: broke, no threat
The change in policy is forward looking. It holds the greater hope for Cuban peoples' lives, than the old policies. The Cold War is over. Let it be over for the Cuban people, too. Both Castrsos will die soon.
Poor Cuba? It's poor, because of communism. If both Castro's will die soon, then why change the policy right now? Why not wait until they die, and then work with them?