Change MIA in Obama’s Cuba policy
Thanks for visiting this blog for the first time. Check out the home page for the most recent posts, or the archives if you're looking for something in particular. Here are some of our favorite posts, which you might enjoy:
- The Moleskine GTD tabs hack
- No choice but to get things done (on retro computing)
- How to subscribe to toilet paper
If you like what you see, we hope you'll consider subscribing to the RSS feed.
Obama criticized John McCain for supporting the status quo Cuba policy:
Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba. That’s what John McCain did the other day. He joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade.
Unfortunately, Obama took the easy road as well. “There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans,” he said. “That’s why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island.” This is helpful, but it only gets us back to what was policy before 2004. If Obama believes that Americans are the best ambassadors for freedom, then why not lift the travel ban on all American citizens?
Obama also said he would keep in place the 50-year-old embargo that is the centerpiece of the U.S.’s failed Cuba policy. The fact that it has been around for so long without any appreciable result shows that it does not work. A truly courageous move for change would have been to call for its repeal. Obama is a really inspiring guy, but on specifics he’s beginning to show he’s just more of the same.
UPDATE: A commenter points me to Obama’s previous stance on the embargo. See for yourself. All I can hope is that he will do the right thing in office.
NYT: The strongly anti-Iraq-War Ron Paul told CNN just last week that it would “really confuse” his supporters if he endorsed Mr. McCain. In fact, Mr. Paul said, he liked Mr. Obama’s foreign policy more. (Mr. Paul has also been quoted saying he believes Mr. Obama will be the next President — not exactly helpful for his fellow Republican. Mr. Paul’s vote of confidence may not be that much of a boon to Mr. Obama either.)
Via the WSJ, a quote from an NYT article titled “A Candidate, His Minister and the Search for Faith,” published a year ago yesterday: Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job. “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
Friggin brilliant. Obama Organizing Fellows.
WaPo: “Some on the right agree that Obama does not entirely fit the liberal mold. Stuart Butler, at the Heritage Foundation, said Obama reminds him of the inner-city advocates Butler worked with in the 1980s on issues such as housing vouchers, who worried more about whether solutions were effective than what their ideological roots were.”
Newsweek: “To help bridge the physical distance between father and daughters, Michelle recently bought two MacBook laptops, one for Barack and one for the kids, so they could have video chats over the Internet.”
Clinton as executive
According to The Politico, just-filed financial reports show that “Hillary Rodham Clinton ended January with $7.6 million in debt—not including the $5 million personal loan she gave to her campaign in the run-up to the critical Super Tuesday elections.” Meanwhile, Barack Obama managed to raise $37 million in January and spend only $31 million. The New York Times characterizes Clinton’s spending as profligate:Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.
Also, the Clinton campaign recently had a top management shake-up. Campaign Manager Patti Solis-Doyle was fired, some say, because she kept from Clinton the true state of the campaign’s finances after the loss in Iowa. And we’ve seen how Bill Clinton has mucked things up as well. The Obama campaign staff, by contrast, has been disciplined and focused.
So, with all that in mind, I’d just like to point out that the only executive experience either of these two candidates has ever had has been running their campaigns. I think this says more about Clinton than Obama, but quite revealing nonetheless.
Obama for Head of State
Today I took an online political quiz that asked me a series of question about my views on current issues and then ranked the presidential candidates in order of compatibility with my views. Not surprisingly, Ron Paul came up first. Quite surprisingly, Mike Gravel came in second. But most surprisingly to me, however, is that Barack Obama came in last—even after Hillary Clinton.
After a moment’s thought, this isn’t that surprising. So why are many folks of my bent falling for this guy? It’s obviously because of his personality and because of what he represents, which is what he’s running on. But I can’t buy into all that fluff, can I? I think I can, and here’s why.
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers made the President both the head of government and the head of state. In many other countries the head of state is a monarch or an elected president, while the head of government being the prime minister or some other functionary. The head of state has little power and is the living embodiment of the nation. The King of Spain or the President of Germany, for example.
This is salutary separation of roles that I wish we had. In England, for example, the Queen is owed respect, while the prime minister is just a public servant who is always accountable to the people. This is why they have their delicious Question Time and why British reporters don’t cow before the prime minister. In this country, however, it is difficult to be critical of the President as head of government without at the same time maligning the President as head of state. It’s also common for the President’s conduct as head of government to malign the role of President as head of state.
For almost 16 years the head of state in this country has been an embarrassment, and there hasn’t been a decent one in at least 20. I think one reason why some of us who are ideologically opposed to Barak Obama are nevertheless drawn to him is because we’d like to see him in the role of head of state. To the extent that we are a nation, Obama would be a wonderful living symbol of it. Not only as it is, but of its aspirations as well. Whatever your beliefs, you must admit he’s an inspiring and uplifting force.
So, given the alternatives, I don’t see why it would be so bad to have a President who is good at at least half his job.
-
Welcome.
This is the personal site of Jerry Brito, a lawyer and writer in Washington, D.C. He’s an academic researcher and the creator of Unclutterer and several other blogs. More »
Categories
Search
Presently Reading
