« Great Column in NY Sun | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Why Rudy was never going to get the GOP Nomination »

So, Joe Garcia is nothing more than a filthy dialoguero, as we've been saying all along. Glad to see he's finally admitted it.

I think the fumes from his perm are affecting his brain cells. Just because he has sold out his cuban soul to his democratic masters doesn't mean the rest of us have. Also ditto on what George said, he is nothing more than a filthy dialoguero. ,,,And Joe for your info, I have yet to talk to another Cuban who is planning to vote for Obama "Hussein", even the ones from the younger, first generation Americans of Cuban Parents. Stop smelling the fumes from the perm!

Joe's constant reference to the younger generation of Cubans is deliberately misleading. he's not refering to the children of exiles old enough to vote, he's refering to recently arrived exiles who dont have the full grasp or understanding of the Democratic party's penchant for screwing the Cuban-American community.

I don't know if you guys read the article, but nowhere does Joe Garcia say he would enter a dialogue with any of the Castro brothers. It's intellectually dishonest - and you're going to have a very hard time doing it - to try to paint a guy that was personally recruited by Jorge Mas Canosa as being soft on Castro.

Either way, I think it's naive to somehow think that we will be punishing Raul by not speaking to him after his brother dies. It's a pretty absurd thought. Clearly, any kinds of negotiations must have a stated objective and they shouldn't be a tea-sipping session or a visit to a museum.

It's pretty clear that to negotiate with Fidel Castro is a waste of time. He's an ideologue maniac and we would never get anywhere. But it may be possible that his little brother, though he's cut from the same cloth, may be more viable because it would be an entirely different situation. Raul's going to be between a rock and a hard place. On one corner he will have Chavez breathing down his neck, urging him to turn Cuba into a Venezuelan state in return for more subsidies. On the other hand, through aggressive and principled diplomacy, the United States has far greater leverage (mbargo, Guantanamo) and can pressure Raul into making certain concessions.

Obviously, this is all hypothetical. Who knows what might happen at the moment of Fidel's death. But I think it's pretty clear that if we continue the current policy, of not talking to people we don't like, what the outcome will be.

Jorge Mas Canosa, E.P.D., may not have known the depth of Joe Garcia's dissimulation. Nobody goes from a conservative to a liberal unless (1) they've received a pre-frontal lobotomy, or (2) they were lying. In Joe's case I'll be nice and pick number 2.

Cuban Missile,

Joe Garcia is openly campaigning for Barrack Obama. Barrack Obama has stated he will dialogue with the castro regime. Two plus two equals four.

You also fail to understand that fidel and raul are interchangeable. part and parcel. why should dealing with raul, arguably just as bad if not worse than his sibling, be any different?

By the same token, when you state something like:

But I think it's pretty clear that if we continue the current policy, of not talking to people we don't like, what the outcome will be.

i can state:

"But I think it's pretty clear that if we try to dialogue with the castro regime, history has proven what the outcome will be."

George,

Jorge Mas Canosa personally recruited Joe when he was a college student (theoretically, what should be the height of someone's "leftyness"). In fact, Jorge was actually somewhat of a father figure to Joe. Look, whether you guys like him personally or not (I agree, some people see him as a tough pill to swallow sometimes), Joe's record on Cuba is impeccable and should be respected. He may have a tactical difference with some of you on the issue of family restrictions, but that doesn't make the guy soft on Castro by any stretch of the imagination. I think that it's that sort of "you're either with me or against me" mentality that boxes us in and is counterproductive. Policy disagreements are healthy and in order for any civilized society to progress, it must debate and recalibrate itself continuously.

This is not a monolithic exile community and it shouldn't be treated as such.

--------

Val,

Joe is the Chairman of the Democratic Party of Miami Dade and meets with all the major candidates. He is a neutral player here. While I've certainly seen people change their positions in order to accomodate their voting preference, I don't know many people that are intellectually honest that agree 100% with the policy of any candidate they support.

For example, I am an Obama supporter, but I have strong disagreements with him on certain issues. I really liked Ronald Reagan and I thought he left the country better than how he found it, but I disagree with many of his policies.

----

Por cierto, CANF has published a blog with official statements from all the major candidates on Cuba. This isn't a "plug-in" advertisement, it's just relevant to this discussion.
www.CubaLibreBlog.com

I always find it kind of funny when those who defend pro-dialogueros state that we're not a monolithic community as part of their defense.

Yes, absolutely! We know. Stop mentioning it! It sounds like more of a defensive reaction rather than an intellectual argument. BTW, not being a monolithic community means you're going to still hear from us rabid right-wingers.

As far as Joe Garcia being a "neutral player", I don't know what game you're referring to, but if its politics, then he's far from being neutral. We're not neutral here, but at least we admit it.

Missile,

Joe Garcia is a neutral player? Do you realize just how incredibly STUPID that statement is?

Let me ask you, why exactly are you an Obama supporter? What is it about him that makes you think he would be a good president?

Val,

Obviously he's not impartial with respect to R's vs D's. He's neutral in the Democratic field. He hasn't endorsed any Democratic candidate. He meets with all of them as the nature of his job.

Ultimately, this comes down to actions over words. By that standard, Joe Garcia's record on Cuba is impeccable. While you guys blast Jeff Flake online, he debates him in person. Val, I don't know your age, but when Joe was a college student, he was running the Cuban Exodus Relief Fund. I am not minimizing what you or anyone else here does. I think we should attack Castro on all fronts, especially online . I'm just pointing out that his record on Cuba stands up to anyone elses in this community and that should be respected.

Policy debates on the issues is perfectly acceptable. But misleading innuendos and attacks are out of line.

----

Robert,

If you read my previous statement you will see a more well thought-out argument.

----

I don't think the Cuban issue should be about right vs. left. Clearly there is right and wrong here. But that doesn't come in the form of policy, it's in principles. Some people are intrinsically, and based on principles, on the right side of this issue but they still translate into bad policy.

The important thing is to have spirited debates on those policy differences while recognizing that although Joe Garcia may disagree with you on the issue of family restrictions, he's on the right side of this argument by the very nature of his principles and history of actions.

Missle,

No one (at least not me) is accusing Joe Garcia of being pro-castro. Anyone that does simply doesn't know what he/she is talking about. That's not the issue here.

As you mentioned, there are differences in policy that ought to be debated. Again, no reasonable person on either side is arguing against that. What I believe rubs us the wrong way about Joe Garcia is the way in which he attempts to discredit or trivialize the values of the "historic" exiles. He does it in a subtle way, but it's noticeable.

That's what irks me the most. We can have a respectful debate on both sides with reasonable people without name-calling and/or disrespect.

By the ways, I must point out again that nowhere in that article does it say that Joe Garcia believes in dialogue with either of the Castro brothers.

Barack Obama's position there isn't clear either. In a debate he was given 6 names, one of them was Castro, and asked if he would meet with those people. He said that he believes that effective foreign policy includes speaking to people you don't like. We know that in presidential debates you're given 30-60 seconds for your responses and you can't cross every t and dot every i.

His article in the Herald, and his speech, in August clarified that he would be willing to speak to a post-Fidel government to send a message that if they take irreversible steps toward democracy, the United States would be willing to take steps toward normalizing relations.

Robert,

I definitely understand your concern.

I don't believe that there is a historic exile and a new exile. I believe that we are ONE exile community. Do we have policy differences? Yes. But I think we're all on the right side of the issue and people like Joe Garcia should be given the benefit of the doubt, especially considering his impeccable record on Cuba.

I'm sure that Joe is not against what's called the "historic exile community", for he would the be against many of his closest friends, family and Jorge Mas Canosa. I think that what irks him is the "you're either with us 100% or you're against us" mentality, which many in the "historic exile" adopt (and some newer generations do as well)

I don't believe Joe Garcia is naive, ignorant of history or out of touch with reality. If he were, that would be sad and unfortunate, like being mentally retarded, but that's not what his problem is. And that's a big part of the reason for MY problem with him.

Missle,

Seems to me both Obama's position on Cuba and Joe Garcias are perfectly clear. To say "Obama signalled a willingness to speak to meet with castro" is purely rhetorical hijinks. Orwellian Newspeak. That way Joe, etal, can affirm to this side that Obama hasnt technically "said" he'd meet with castro - exactly what youre saying right now - and conversely aver to the other side to fret not, Obama's on his way to Havana with a box of Velvet Cremes. Preparen los cortaditos!

To me the message is perfectly clear: Obama will meet with castro, despite everything history has taught us and despite the inhumanity of the men in question and everything else these encompass. And Joe, despite all the good work he's done for the cause, and despite his jumping over to the dark side, as the particular Cuban he is, should be incredibly bothered by such a thing.

I wont dignify your "innuendo" and "attacks" comment with a response.

And another thing. It is Joe that has been clearly and ubiquituously promulgating the "community divided" thing for his own means to an end. His own particular agenda. Read every single post in this blog and youll find no mentiuon of a "historic" exile community as opposed to a "new" one while, just Googling Joe Garcia will bring all manner of mention of the same.

Val,

We're playing a game of semantics here. Let's just stick to the facts. What Obama said and means is that he is willing to have direct bilateral talks with a post-Fidel government. Period. Anything else that you or I add to that is editorializing his comments. .

Senator Obama clearly recognizes that meeting with Fidel Castro is a waste of time because you're dealing with a homicidal ego-maniac. That doesn't mean that bilateral talks with someone you don't like is a bad idea, just not him. Raul Castro, might be as much of an hijo de puta as his brother, but he isn't a stringent ideologue. For example, after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Bush administration made an offer to Fidel and Raul, via the Spanish government, that they leave the island, never go back and relocate to Spain in return for a pledge from the American government that they would not be prosecuted for war crimes. Fidel blew the spaniards off, Raul said yes.

In a post-Fidel government, Cuba is in a terrible predicament. Raul is going to have Chavez pulling him in one direction and the United States in another. It's going to take aggressive American foreign policy to get him to take irreversible steps toward democracy.

Joe Garcia's position on this issue has been very clear. He has spent a lifetime working on behalf of freedom for the Cuban people and still does. You guys are putting words into his mouth that he has never pronounced and that, my friends, is intellectually dishonest. Nowhere in that article is Joe Garcia quoted as saying that he agrees with Obama on the bilateral talks issue. This "guilty by association" theory is a replica of what Castro and his thugs do in Cuba to those that are friends and family of dissidents.

Missle,

No, WE arent playing a game of semantics. YOU are playing a game of semantics. Obama's statement is perfectly clear "he will meet with Raul Castro." whether raul is anything personally like fidel castro is not at issue here. he is, for all intents and purposes, THE CASTRO REGIME. Period. You can blow as much verbal smoke as you want, but the truth will STILL BE THE TRUTH.

Enough with the Newspeak, which you are obviously weel versed in, but which to me, falls upon deaf ears.

And Joe isnt guilty by association. when Obama is the democratic contender, Joe will campaign for him.(if he's not openly campaigning solely for him already) period. thats not association, thats COMPLICITY.

Jesus Christ man, you sound like a vote for Joe political ad.

and please. SPARE US THE HISTORY LESSONS on how DIFFERENT raul is. HE'S BEEN IN POWER HOW LONG NOW AND WHAT THE FUCK HAS CHANGED IN CUBA? NOT A GOD DAMNED THING AND, IF ANYTHING, THE REPRESSION HAS GOTTEN WORSE.

man, I hate to raise my voice but FUCK, dude, the fucking reality is staring you in the face.

Val,

It's only fair that I disclose that I've known Joe for many years and I know how he thinks on the issues.

This guilty by association/complicity stunt is reminiscent of the "gusano" actos de repudio that guarapo and his thugs would pull. It's naive to think that just because you support a candidate you agree 100% with his policies. Like I said, I am a big Obama supporter, but I don't agree with him 100% of the time. That's healthy and it's part of democracy.

Based on principles, Obama is on the right side of the issue. Are there tactical differences between him and you? Sure! But, ultimately, he is on the right side.

With regard to Raul Castro, you don't have to convince me that Raul is a bad guy. I understand that and agree with you. The question is how do we deal with him in the most effective manner.

Again, this guy has shown in the past that he can be dealt with easier than his brother. Just look at the post-Soviet collapse example I gave you. I believe - and this is only my personal unscientific opinion - that most Cuban-Americans would be content with him not being prosecuted for war crimes in exchange for him leaving the island and Cuba taking irreversible steps toward democracy.

It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too late for any deal with Raul. The castroites had too many chances already. They should face harsh consequences for all the pain and suffering they have inflicted to the Cuban people. Ask the Jews if they would have done a similar deal with Hitler.

What is a Missle [sic]? Does this person have a G.E.D.? Sure doesn't sound like it from what they write.

CubanMissile (with its correct spelling) was taken

Missle,

I find your statement on raul incredibly naive. raul castro is not going to relinquish power and exile himself so he's not prosecuted for war crimes. You can bring up his minor actions in the past till your blue in the face while I counter with the reality of present day, sans fidel Cuba. You need look no further than this blog or Uncommon Sense to find proof via the continued and increasing respression of dissidents.

I dont doubt you and I want the same thing for Cuba, but to think that raul is some softer version of fidel defies all logic and reality. the man was Stasi/KGB trained, has a history of violence and has always been known as the scarier of the two brothers.

if youre waiting for raul to pack up and go, dont hold your breath.

What is the source for this story about the Castro brothers being offered immunity if they left Cuba and Raul supposedly accepting? Why have I never heard a word about that before, when surely it would have been an extremely hot topic, especially among Cuban-Americans, particularly in South Florida? Unless there are very solid, reputable and official sources for said story, it sounds very fishy to me.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: