Cuba

Gerald Ford Presidency And Reputation Saved By Losing Election In 1976 To Jimmy Carter!

Just as we are commemorating the 90th birthday of former President Jimmy Carter, we have news from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and the National Archives, that Ford’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was plotting to have the US mount a full scale invasion of Fidel Castro’s Cuba, due to that nation’s military intervention in Angola, which infuriated Kissinger.

Appparently, the plan was to wait for the Presidential Election Of 1976 to be resolved, with the belief that Ford would defeat the former Georgia Governor, but that did not happen!

Carter’s victory led to a decision not to intervene in Cuba, and Henry Kissinger was retired as Secretary of State when Gerald Ford left the Presidency on January 20, 1977.

This was a lucky development for Ford, who apparently was preparing to support Kissinger’s invasion idea.

While some would have applauded the overthrow of Fidel Castro, the idea that this nation, unprovoked directly by Cuba, would have used military action, show recklessness, as there was no certainty how the Soviet Union of Leonid Brezhnev would have reacted, is startling. The Soviet Union in 1976 was a lot stronger militarily than it was in 1962!

We could have had another Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought us closer to World War III, again in 1976 or 1977!

Ford’s judgment was wrong on this, and the fact that Jimmy Carter, has saved Gerald Ford’s historical reputation by his defeat of Ford, is an amazing story!

Gerald Ford’s reputation in his brief Presidency has risen lately, but the revelation of this plot against Cuba, unprovoked, MIGHT bring down his reputation long term, which is regrettable.

But, literally, Jimmy Carter saved Gerald Ford from a massive mistake, by defeating him!

The Political Ticket For President With Julian Castro As Vice Presidential Running Mate In 2016!

San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, in his third term as Mayor of the seventh largest city, made quite an impression at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when he gave a speech that reminded many of Barack Obama’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

An attractive, charismatic politician of Mexican American heritage, with his identical twin Joaquin Castro a member of the House of Representatives, the San Antonio Mayor gained an image as someone to watch, and he will be only 42 in 2016.

With the Hispanic-Latino population and vote multiplying, and with Texas seen as a battleground in the future, and even possibly in 2016, Julian Castro is the ideal Vice Presidential running mate, whether for Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Martin O’Malley, Elizabeth Warren, Mark Warner, or really ANY other Democratic Presidential nominee!

Castro has run the seventh largest city with distinction, and now is being nominated to be Barack Obama’s Housing and Urban Development Secretary, moving him to Washington and the center of national politics.

Castro is articulate, knowledgeable, and puts Texas and Georgia and North Carolina into play for 2016, along with improving the odds of Virginia and Florida remaining Democratic.

His youth (42) at the time of the election is an excellent balance for Hillary (69) or Joe (74), as it offers the experience and seasoning of either Hillary or Joe, while adding the largest Southern state to the game of Democratic party advancement. His urban experiences also are a major plus.

Castro’s only negatives are his last name, which Republicans will probably utilize to leave the impression that he is related to Cuban leaders Fidel and Raul Castro. Also, the anti immigrant policy of right wingers will use the fact that Castro is Mexican American as a racist attack on all Hispanics and Latinos, which will be to their detriment, as immigration will become an issue that will harm the Republican Party, as rightfully it should!

Overall, a great move to have Castro head the HUD Department and be available as the BEST running mate for Vice President for ANY Democratic Presidential nominee, insuring a massive win for the Democrats for the White House in 2016!

The Sad Reality About Ukraine: History Against Military Intervention!

The right wing is already busy at work attacking President Obama, regarding the decision of Russian leader Vladamir Putin to intervene militarily in Ukraine, putting Russian forces in Crimea, the portion of Ukraine with a majority of Russians, and the center of the Black Sea seaport crucial to the Russian navy, and an important “warm water” port for Russia during the long winters in that nation.

All of us can condemn and deplore this event, and be sad about it to the extreme. But it is not at all surprising in reality, as to expect that Russia would allow an anti Russian government, at least in that part of Ukraine, is living in a dream world!

Major nations who have the power and numbers, historically, do NOT allow their neighbors to be unfriendly or rivals of their nation. Every nation pursues a policy in foreign affairs based on its national interest, and what is possible.

This has been part of the reality of America, as well as the old Soviet Union, China, and any other nation, when they have power and influence, and bemoaned when they do not!

The United States has been fortunate enough to have “weak” direct neighbors in Canada and Mexico, and we have been willing to intervene in Mexico when we have not appreciated their governments or policies, as in the 1840s and in the 1910s.

Yes, we have had Mexico as a “problem” at times since, with undocumented immigrants and drug dealings, but at least we have had a friendly government in Mexico, willing to work with us, and on the same page generally on most issues.

The closest we have had to a national security matter is, of course, Cuba, and we went to the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and while the Castro brothers still control that island, even today, they are no direct menace to us, and if they were seen as such, we could still use our power to intervene.

So, looking at that reality, that nations with power will use it for their benefit, to have an non-antagonistic direct neighbor on their border, and with economic advantages also a consideration, along with defense and naval matters, there is, sadly, little we can do about Ukraine, except hope for a minimal involvement in that nation by the Russians, but the thought of a military or nuclear response is totally insane, and could not be utilized!

Keep in mind that President Dwight D. Eisenhower could do nothing about Soviet involvement in its neighbors, Poland, East Germany, and Hungary, and neither could Lyndon B. Johnson do anything about Soviet involvement in Czechoslovakia!

The Barack Obama–Raul Castro Handshake: Much Ado Over Nothing!

While at the Nelson Mandela commemoration in South Africa, Barack Obama had an opportunity to meet dozens of world leaders, some of them from democracies, and some from dictatorships.

Unfortunately, dictatorships are much more common historically and in contemporary times, than are democracies.

Richard Nixon went to China and met Mao Tse Tung.

Dwight D. Eisenhower met Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at Camp David, and John F. Kennedy met Khrushchev in Vienna.

Ronald Reagan met Afghan freedom fighters, who later became involved in promoting terrorism, including September 11.

John McCain met Moammar Gaddafi of Libya, and shook his hand.

Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein of Iraq as a emissary from Ronald Reagan.

Also, many Presidents have bowed to royal leaders, including George W. Bush with the King of Saudi Arabia, and many Presidents with the Emperor of Japan and the Queen of England.

Never was such a big deal made of these handshakes or discussions, and even summits, until suddenly, Barack Obama became President!

When he met Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, it was the worst crime of the century to the right wing whackos!

Now, Obama shook the hand of Raul Castro, who has made it clear that he is leaving power in 2018, when he will be 87, and his brother Fidel Castro, will be 92, if either is still alive.

There will be a successor government in Cuba within a few years, and there is always the chance that Cuba could undergo change and reform, and in fact, already has developed capitalism and private property, as China, for instance, has done.

Has our government, under Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, refused to deal with “evil” governments? NO in the modern era, and we are talking with Iran and North Korea at times, so why not Cuba?

After 55 years, has the embargo on Cuba changed anything in that island nation? NO, as it unites the government with its population, who are the true victims of the American blockade!

Do we blockade trade and contact with other nations of much greater importance? The answer is NO, but apparently, we must cater to three million Cuban Americans, and their leadership in the Republican Party, when it benefits no one, and is a failed policy!

It is time for rapprochement with Cuba, so that we can have an effect on its future. This is the time to start such development of relations, and forget the lobbying of right wing groups and Marco Rubio, who have no interest in planning for the future without a Castro in power!

60th Anniversary Of Castro Revolution In Cuba: What Is The Future?

60 years ago on this day, Fidel Castro led a failed attempt to seize an army barracks, which is marked as the beginning of his revolutionary uprising against Fulgencio Batista, leading after five and a half years of struggle to his seizure of power in Havana on January 1, 1959.

Fidel Castro gave up power due to medical problems in 2006, after 47 plus years of leadership, but his brother Raul succeeded him, and the Castro dynasty is still in power in Cuba after 54 and a half years, and Fidel Castro will be 87 years of age nest month, and is reported in good health.

Fidel Castro, as evil a man as he is, will go down as the most significant Latin American government leader of the past century of history, with only Juan Peron of Argentina a weak second behind him.

The effect of Cuba on the international scene has been massive, considering the fact that Cuba never made a dent in world affairs before Castro, and we nearly had nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union 51 years ago, a year and a half after a failed American attempt to use Cuban exiles to overthrow him in the Bay of Pigs fiasco!

And our domestic politics has been profoundly affected by the loyalty of the few million Cuban Americans to the Republican Party, making them a distinct Hispanic group in their political behavior, particularly in Florida!

We have also seen three Cuban US Senators–Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted Cruz of Texas–who have a great impact in the US Senate, as well as a few in the House of Representatives. Menendez is the lone Cuban Democrat who has made it to a prominent position, Chairman of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The question is what will happen when Fidel and Raul Castro leave the scene, at least officially in 2018, according to the plans of Raul Castro to retire. How will Cuba evolve, and how will the United States react to change in Cuba? Will democracy develop in Cuba or come about by a new revolution, or will the Castro influence and Communism persist in Cuba?

This island, just 90 miles from the Florida Keys, will become the center of world politics again very soon, and what happens there will affect America domestically and in foreign affairs for the long term future, just as it has for the past six decades!

The Castro brothers have managed to survive in power through the terms of 11 Presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Barack Obama! It is an amazing story just by that reality!

Celebrities And International Affairs: Ignore Them!

In the last few days, we have seen a number of “celebrities” become engaged in international affairs actions and commentaries, an embarrassment to themselves and America.

These include:

National Basketball Hall of Fame player Dennis Rodman
Actor Sean Penn
Director Oliver Stone
New York Congressman Jose Serrano

It is inadvisable for public celebrities in sports and the entertainment industry to speak up in support of anti American foreign dictators, as the first three have done, with Rodman trying to play the role of a “diplomat” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a man who has been developing nuclear weapons and threatening his neighbors; and Sean Penn and Oliver Stone publicly mourning the death of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, a person they call a “good friend”, despite his collaboration with Moammar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other enemies of the United States.

It is also reckless and loony that Congressman Jose Serrano should act as if Chavez was good for his people, and to ignore Chavez’ s rants and raves against both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Of course, nothing can or should be done about these utterances and statements, as we all have freedom of speech, but any decent American should repudiate these people and their irresponsible and toxic behavior!

Florida Senator Marco Rubio: His Record Not A Positive One For The Presidency In 2016!

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is very charismatic, handsome, youthful, and charming, and Time Magazine called him “The Republican Savior”.

Then he gave the response to the State of the Union Address, and showed total hypocrisy when he stated that government gets in the way, and cannot solve people’s problems or help them in a major way.

But then, he also said in the same speech that he would never have finished his own education without the federal government loans program, and that his mother depended on Medicare for her health care, although now the federal government should be cutting both programs and others as well.

In so doing, being contradictory, Marco Rubio messed up his chance to be impressive, just as Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana and the same age as Rubio, did when he responded to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

And when one examines the Rubio record, he discovers the following facts:

Rubio has had huge personal debt problems and was implicated in a political credit card scandal.

Rubio has lied and exaggerated about his family history, including the idea that his grandfather escaped Fidel Castro and Cuba, when he actually migrated in 1957, when Fulgencio Basista was still in power.

Rubio backed Florida Governor Rick Scott in his scheme to limit the hours and participation of voters in the Sunshine State.

Rubio voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

Rubio has been involved in support of groups that are vehemently anti gay rights and marriage.

Rubio supported a bill to allow employers to deny birth control insurance coverage to employees.

Rubio has called for Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel to withdraw, denying President Obama the right to select his own cabinet officers, as long as there is no corruption involved.

Rubio has denied science, questioning climate change and evolution

Rubio signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge.

And the list of faults and shortcomings goes on beyond this short list above, and disqualifies Marco Rubio as a serious Presidential nominee in 2016.

And yet, when compared to Jindal, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, and many others, Rubio probably has a better chance to be the GOP nominee in 2016, and lose to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or whoever else the Democrats nominate!

America’s Underappreciated Presidents—James K. Polk, Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush

With Presidents Day celebrated on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on which Presidents are underappreciated for their contributions in the White House.

Five Presidents, four of them having only one term, and three of them soundly defeated for reelection, are often overlooked in an unfair manner.

These five underappreciated Presidents are as follows, chronologically:

James K. Polk (1845-1849), Democrat—-who did not wish a second term in office, died only three months after his term of office, but accomplished more than any President, regarding expansion of the nation, as he negotiated the gaining of the Pacific Northwest with Great Britain, and went to war with Mexico to gain the Southwestern United States. Because of Polk, highly controversial due to his manipulation of conditions setting up war with Mexico, and often criticized as an “imperialist”, we gained more land than any other President, including Thomas Jefferson with his Louisiana Purchase.

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), Democrat—-the only two term non consecutive terms President, although winning the popular vote three consecutive times, Cleveland accomplished the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, promoted civil service reform, and became regarded as a man of strong principles, including refusing to take over Hawaii, after a treaty was negotiated by the previous President, Benjamin Harrison. A rare President on the concept of opposing the addition of territory to the United States, he refused to go to war with Spain over the issue of Cuba in his second term, and opposed the Spanish American War and the Filipino Insurrection intervention under William McKinley, standing out as a leading anti imperialist.

William Howard Taft (1909-1913), Republican—-was unfortunate in coming in between two very charismatic Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom would end up ranked in the top ten of all Presidents, in most polls of experts on the Presidency. Taft also was the worst defeated President running for reelection, competing against both TR and Wilson, and ended up third, rather than second in defeat, and winning only 23 percent of the vote, two states, and eight electoral votes. But he deserved better, and did have the distinction of becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1920s, where he was much happier. But Taft actually signed a highly successful regulation of the railroads, the Mann Elkins Act of 1910; won lawsuits causing the breakup of the monopolies of Standard Oil, United States Steel, and International Harvester; and supported two constitutional amendments, the 16th (Federal Income Tax) Amendment, and the 17th (Direct Election of United States Senators) Amendment.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Democrat—served one divisive term, defeated for reelection by Ronald Reagan, due to the Iran Hostage Crisis, high inflation and unemployment, and the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, and faced primary challenges from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown. But he accomplished the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt; the Panama Canal Treaty; the promotion of the principle of human rights in foreign policy; the advancement of the environment, making him the third best President on that issue; and creation of three cabinet agencies–Health and Human Services, Education, and Energy. And his post Presidency, now the longest in American history, has been a model for Bill Clinton’s post Presidency, and Carter continues to promote human rights and economic and social reform nationally and world wide, and is often considered the best former President of the United States in American history.

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993), Republican—the second worst defeated President in American history, despite having led the coalition which forced Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, lessening a threat to the Middle East oil supply and the government of Saudi Arabia, in the Persian Gulf War of 1991; being the President under whom the Cold War came to an end in a stable manner in 1991; managing the unification of Germany between 1989 and 1990 in a skillful manner; and promoting the passage of civil rights law for the disabled population of America, a major reform in American history. Bush was always considered a master in the field of foreign policy, and for years after, had an impact on policy making through his significant staff members, who continued to have an impact.

All five Presidents deserve a better coverage and appreciation, despite the fact that each could be roundly criticized for events that would cause them to be overlooked as outstanding Presidents. Presidents Day is an appropriate time to do so!

The Coming Battle For The Hispanic Republican Leadership: Marco Rubio Of Florida Vs. Ted Cruz Of Texas

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is gaining the spotlight next Tuesday evening, when he is commissioned by Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver the Republican Party response to the State of the Union Address of President Barack Obama.

Rubio is young, good looking, charming, charismatic, and represents the Sunshine State, which sometime late in this decade will surpass New York in population and become the third largest state. In addition, it is a “swing state”, arguably the most important if the Republicans are ever to recover from their last two defeats for President, and losing the popular vote in five of the past six elections. And Rubio is clearly planning to run for President. So his response to the State of the Union Address will be crucial to his campaign to build up his image.

But as he becomes seen as the “savior” of the Republican Party, as Time Magazine terms it, he will have another Hispanic Senator, like Rubio a Cuban American, as a rival, who comes from a state much larger in population and in land area, and that is newly minted Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, second in land area to Alaska and second in population to California, and four and a half times the land area of Florida.

Cruz, just 17 months older than Rubio, clearly has his own Presidential plans in the future, and he is much more willing to be openly aggressive in his rhetoric and behavior than Rubio, who tends to be more gentlemanly by nature. Cruz is like a bull in a China shop, and does not care what anyone thinks, because he is an open Tea Party activist, while Rubio is only loosely connected to that right wing movement.

Rubio is diplomatic compared to Cruz, who is less than tactful in just a short time in the Senate, going on the offensive, not being a quiet freshman in the Senate. Cruz was born in Canada, but claims he can run for President, an issue which would have to be investigated further for its validity, particularly when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but has had his native citizenship questioned because his father was Kenyan. Cruz is an “in your face” type, and his arrogance is likely to cause him to have fewer friends in the Senate than Rubio.

So Cruz cannot help but wish that Rubio “falls on his face”, as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did in delivering the response to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

The irony though is that both Rubio and Cruz represent only three percent of Hispanics, and their conservative ideology is highly unlikely to draw Mexican American support (almost two thirds of all Hispanics in America) or Puerto Rican support ( the second highest percentage among Hispanics with a little over 9 percent), something that they seem not to understand.

So it really does not matter what happens with Rubio and Cruz and their Presidential ambitions, as it is clear that the vast majority of Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic over the long haul. A sign of this is that even the Cuban American population, traditionally Republican because of Fidel Castro, is starting to move in the direction of the Democratic Party, at least among the younger generation which has no memory or experience in fleeing Communist Cuba under Castro control for the past 54 plus years!

The Republican “Youth Brigade”: Unqualified For The Presidency!

The Republican Party, which has usually gone to its “veterans” to find its Presidential nominee (George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney)—the only recent exception being George W. Bush (a clear cut mistake)— is now putting forward its “youth brigade” of four political leaders born in the early 1970s, meaning they would all be between 45 and 47 when running for President in 2016.

This “youth brigade” may be appealing in appearance, and in the ability to speak well, but none of them have the vision nor the understanding of where America is moving in the second decade of the 21st century!

The four in order of birth are:

Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Ryan had his exposure as the Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, and came up wanting in many respects, plus his destructive plan to destroy Medicare and Medicaid.

Ted Cruz has only been in the Senate for little more than a month, and already, heads are shaking and eyes rolling at his total inability to impress anyone that he has any understanding of what is happening in America.

Marco Rubio, himself the grandson of an “undocumented” immigrant, who was allowed to stay because he was Cuban, the only Hispanic group given special treatment by the US government in the 1960s and beyond, has shown that he is not aware of science, has a closed mind on many social matters involving women, is unwilling to challenge the far right of his party in any serious way, and is gaining a growing ego about his abilities, based on the attention he is receiving, including Time Magazine having a cover this week, calling him the savior of the GOP, this right before he gives the response to the State of the Union Address of Barack Obama next Tuesday evening. The burden on him to be impressive next week is now extremely heavy.

And Bobby Jindal had the chance to prove his ability, when he responded to the Obama State of the Union Address four years ago, and came across as a total failure and embarrassment.. And his lack of compassion about the poor, the sick, and the disadvantaged in his state, one of the most backward of all of the 50 states, does him no favor. Additionally, he has said the Republican Party has to stop being the “stupid” party, and then goes ahead and does “stupid ” things in his state, that make him look less than intelligent and able to handle the Presidency, and understand the life of real people, other than the wealthy!

Three of these four members of the “Youth Brigade” are “minorities”—Cruz and Rubio, both Cuban Americans, and Jindal being the son of parents from India. But to say that their ethnicity “qualifies” them to be President is preposterous—as Cuban Americans represent about THREE percent of Hispanics and Latinos, and Cubans have a heritage of totally different views and voting patterns than others who are from Latin America; and even Asian Americans, whether from India or other parts of South Asia, or those from East Asia and the Far East, also voted an even higher percentage for the Democrats than Hispanics and Latinos—73 percent, compared to 71 percent!

If the “Youth Brigade” is thought to be the hope of the GOP to turn things around for the party, the leadership will learn over the next four years that they are sadly, and tragically, misguided!