Our policy towards Cuba

I’m looking to be enlightened here.

Carter goes to Cuba and states his opinion that we should relax our trade and travel restrictions. Bush is opposed to this, stating that until they free their political prisoners and become a democracy, we will not change our policy. But we don’t have the same stringent requirements for other countries, China for example.

So is that what this is about, getting votes in Florida? What am I missing? Why is there a double standard concerning Cuba and the other countries we deal with that are not democracies?

Sorry, I meant to provide a cite for the quote I used

Here it is

Just for the record, I am not on either side of this issue although I do enjoy a cuban cigar from time to time.
:cool:

China has cheap labor and lots of goods.

Cuba has… sugar.

It’s a 43 year hissyfit.

I’ve given up trying to take a position on the pros and cons of American policy towards Cuba. One looks for evidence as to the true nature of the response of the populace including the ex-patriate community.

Now that we find out from 60 Minutes that exiled Cubans are pouring valuable American dollars into the Cuban economy thereby supporting their sworn enemy, I would suggest that any trade and travel restrictions will have no effect, and only hurt individual Americans.

I think the real underlying issue for a Republican government is justice for those who had their property stolen in Cuba. An American instituted commission to adjudicate the claims of Americans with regard to Cuban confiscation backed up with tarrifs and duties imposed on bi-lateral trade could address this longstanding thorn for American governments.

After all, Canadians are aware how casually American government impose tarrifs on an FTA partner and deliver the proceeds to perceived grieved parties due to alleged subsidization by Canada of softwood lumber.

There’s no doubt that it’s a double standard with political overtones. But, it’s hard to feel good aabout either policy.

There is no right Cuba policy. Expanding trade and travel to the island would be cruel to the Cuban people, if it strengthened their tyrannical government and led to extending the dictatorship. OTOH the boycott hasn’t done any good either.

I personally favor a more open policy, but I don’t really expect it to help the Cuban people much.

IMHO today’s speech was nothing more than a blatent play for votes in South Florida. The embargo helps Castro more than it hurts him. Unilateral action never works. It just makes us look silly.

The policy towards Cuba does seem to be motivated by the ex-Cuban vote bank in Florida. The term “totalitarian” that Bush used to describe the Cuban regime with a lot of contempt could be applied to Saudi Arabia and China. The double-standard is so patent that I wonder how the US administration still thinks the majority of people can be fooled. There is no moral high ground in the world of politics, not in the US, not anywhere else in the world, and I am sure there are enough people in this country who see through the rhetoric, and just choose to ignore it.

This one is pretty clear cut. The Cuban/American lobby carries a pretty heavy wallop in a nice electoral vote state. Money+votes+long love-hate Cuba/US relationship=continued embargo. And if you try to split this into Rep. v. Dems., you’re a fool. Both sides like the money and they are both afraid to lose all of the votes. Therefore, despite Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, and in addition to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes, no one has softened the Cuban stance.

Think it’s not a pretty situation now? It will get really ugly when Castro dies and there are 40 different opinions as to the course of action.

That’s about the size of it. Jeb’s up for reelection and apparently Clan Bush considers Janet a serious threat.