Posted on 11/11/2004 8:46:15 PM PST by FairOpinion
One prominent activist turned against the Republicans altogether when the Bush administration's Cuba policy failed to evolve beyond anti-Castro posturing. Joe Garcia, former executive director of the Cuban-American National Foundation (CANF) and once outspoken critic of the Clinton administration's handling of the Elian Gonzalez saga, now became the voice of the New Democrat Network's effort to court Cuban voters in Florida. In television ads aired in the state, Garcia decried what he called the demagoguery of Republican policy and pleaded for voters to “act responsibly."
But it doesn't take becoming a Democrat to begin rethinking the Cuba strategy. Prominent Cuban-American leaders like to point out that Mel Martinez, who will become the first Cuban-American senator in U.S. history, privately disagrees with some of the restrictions.
Martinez claimed the Senate seat for Republicans by defeating Democrat Betty Castor, but perhaps more significantly he soundly defeated a more hard-line anti-Castro Republican candidate during the primaries. Jorge Mas Santos, the current chairman of the CANF, seemed exhilarated by the arrival of a more moderate Cuban voice to the U.S. Congress. Martinez “agrees with helping Cubans keep the family ties and, at the same time, isolate Castro," he said, indicating that Martinez would help modify the restrictions that are adversely affecting those family ties.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
What ever happened to our borders and our soverignty???
I don't see how any Cuban who lived under Castro can support the Democrats, who are basically communists. Anyone who lived under communism knows that.
Did Castro's agents infiltrate the CANF?
what hard line?
Yeah, Janet Reno was right to send that little brown kid back to Castro. Right?
Thats very possible. That is something the left does very well.
If these Cubans are so "moderate," then I suggest they go back to their communist utopia.
Maybe the guy got some DNC walking around money. Kind of like one of those inner city gospel preachers, who finally sees the light.
Bush is not catering to Castro, as Clinton did.
It upsets the communists.
"Three months into office he nominated Otto Reich, a Cuban-American and prominent anti-Castro figure, as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs. Reich could not win confirmation, yet Bush continued to name others with similar credentials to posts throughout his administration. The popular perception both here and in Latin America was that U.S. policy toward the region would take a very definite anti-Castro bent.
After 9/11, Bush officials such as John R. Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, began calling Castro an imminent terrorist threat. Although the label failed to stick, it did create the illusion that the Bush administration was going to do something drastic about Castro.
As the 2004 election approached, Bush again heated up the rhetoric against Castro. He formed a presidential commission chaired by Secretary of State Colin Powell that produced a 500-page report with recommendations to accelerate the transition toward a free Cuba. "
Well we have a bunch of democrats in this country and many of them I do not consider true Americans... bunch of whack job communist whose base is seeing the light of what is and is not for the first time.
Don't tell, don't ask... they are Communists. After Arafat the terrorist, we need Castro to die.
Anytime you lose a "moderate" you have not lost anything.
On or Off Cuba Ping.
I think, yeah, by Cuban moderates, they mean Cubans that lean left. I don't think there are too many in the US, but I know at least one of them.
Castro shows his corruption
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1278056/posts
Ok, so lemme get this straight. Before the election Bush was losing the Cuban vote. . except during the election he didn't at all. Undeterred by these facts and unrepentent by their latest repudiation, the MSM has to try and re-write history.
Ok, so lemme get this straight. More blacks and hispanics voted for Bush and Republican this time than in any previous election and the MSM has to report that Bush's record on race relations is questionable.
Ok, so lemme get this straight. Bush won the popular vote by 51-48 and did something Bill Clinton failed to do, secure a majority. The MSM expresses amazement since the voters were really with John Kerry on the issues. Hence, the mysterious "values" factor appears in exit polling data. The same exit polls that showed Kerry winning by a landslide before a single vote was cast. OK, assuming "values" was the deciding factor, what does that mean? According to the MSM it means that Bush won by relying on gay bashing Jesus freaks. Couldn't mean that at least Bush stands for something and doesn't flip-flop coulc it, naaaah. The Republicans are right wing extremists, just look at that exit polling data. At any rate, I don't buy the mantra, that the voters were with John Kerry on the issues. . .John Kerry wasn't even with John Kerry on the issues.
In sum, the MSM is doing everything they can to re-define yet another Republican victory. Lets not get complacent and accept even the slightest premise that comes from them as being legitimate. The voters were with Bush on the issues, but are concerned. . .who in their right minds would not be concerned at a time of war.
It is hard to conceive what 'moderate' viewpoint would tolerate a communist dictator.
There is no moderation between good and evil.
Both Fidel AND Raul.
I dunno, Jeb Bush and Jorge Mas Canosa of CANF used to take turns sitting in each other's laps, and God help anybody who came between them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.