Month: February 2008

The reactions to the resignation of infirm, 81-year-old Cuban President Fidel Castro have been, for the most part, predictable: whether pragmatically political or purely — and personally — partisan.

The former was in evidence in a bipartisan congressional letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that called for a “complete review” of U.S.-Cuba policy. The missive, with its 104 signatories, referenced America’s failed, Cold War-era policy with Cuba, including the 46-year-old, economic embargo.

“Allies and adversaries alike have rejected our approach,” said the letter, “and instead engage the Cuban government directly on diplomatic issues and make billions in dollars in economic investments on the island, making it even less likely that our sanctions will ever achieve their stated purpose.

“Our policy leaves us without influence at this critical moment, and this serves neither the U.S. national interest nor average Cubans, the intended beneficiaries of our policy.”

Of course, none of those signatories were from Florida, where no one, including Tampa’s own rookie Rep. Kathy Castor, wants to touch the third rail of status quo Cuban politics. “No guts, no glory” obviously doesn’t apply here. More like, “No guts, no sweat – and no needless re-election issue.”

But no reaction was as intriguing as that of high-profile Tampa attorney Ralph Fernandez, the long-time, anti-Castro activist.

Havana native Fernandez, 56, who has represented former Cuban political prisoners, has often railed against any form of rapprochement with the Castro government. He has been highly critical, for example, of Cuban trips undertaken by former Mayor Dick Greco and former Congressman Sam Gibbons. He took up legal recourse for Brothers to the Rescue. He’s been a rhetorically provocative, partisan’s partisan.

These days, however, he has leavened his dogmatic credo with pragmatism.

“We need to call a time out,” says Fernandez, who stresses that an America stretched beyond its geo-political, military and intelligence capacities needs to consider Cuba in a more realistic context.

“The sign of an intelligent person is to change with changing times,” he notes. “We need to revisit everything. Put it all on the table. The embargo. Helms-Burton (Act). Asylum claims. ‘Wet foot-dry foot’ affects our moral position. We want to build fences and kick out people. Then we have people (Cubans) coming over without any connections to political persecution. It makes us look awful to Mexicans.”

And hypocritically ironic. Fernandez cites Saudi Arabia.

“What do we have in common (other than the obvious) with our ally, the Saudis?” he asks rhetorically. “In Cuba, even if they say so, they don’t hate us. They follow the Yankees. They pray to the same God. They drink like us. Their women are opinionated. We have a lot in common. Change is good.”

He sees the change in Miami. He points to the aging exile generation and assimilation. The “road of less resistance” now beckons, he says.

As for Castro, Fernandez remains perversely smitten – and unforgiving.

“Castro is a unique package,” avers Fernandez. “A brilliant orator. A voracious reader. He’s knowledgeable about everything, although not as knowledgeable as he thinks. He’s intellectually superior to most people. And he’s 100 per cent evil. But charismatically evil. No one could ever duplicate his feat of negative accomplishment.”

Fernandez thinks it’s only fitting that Castro, for all the summary executions, legions of political prisoners, confiscations, expropriations and monumental economic failures, leaves the world’s stage looking like a forlorn failure. “The world will remember him as a weak, pajama-clad soul who outlived himself,” he states.

But Castro shouldn’t be allowed to simply fade from the scene, says Fernandez, who still seeks retribution.

“This president has pandered to the (exile) Cubans more than anyone, and he has an obligation,” declares Fernandez. “We should indict him (for the Brothers to the Rescue shoot-down). Take it as far as possible. He no longer has head-of-state exemption. The government should prosecute the case.

“We can’t forgive him for the thousands he executed,” underscores Fernandez. “It sends the wrong message to the enemies of America if we forgive that. We go across the world to kill for far less. This would make some progress to closure, part of the healing process. Sure, it may be a Pyrrhic victory. But it’s important that he goes down as a criminal.”

As for the new, post-Fidel regime, Fernandez is “cautiously optimistic.”

Change, he projects, will be “gradual.” Should Raul Castro, 76, who’s hinted at reform, formally succeed — as expected — his brother as President of Cuba’s Council of State, it will belie what’s going on internally. Fernandez perceives orchestration and likens it, ironically, to “an old Soviet power play.”

While the cast of characters will feature Raul Castro, as well as Finance Minister Carlos Lage, 56, and Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, 42, Fernandez is wary of “younger talent coming in” from the powerful network of intelligence operatives. He says he’s heard “rumblings” — but no names.

Of this, however, he’s certain: Raul is not the right man for the job.

“He has no longevity,” says Fernandez. “He can’t hold it together. He has known dependencies (alcohol). He’s not sharp enough to run Cuba. Plus, to run Cuba, you need to be charismatic.”

And a final Fernandez take on the Castro resignation: “It was a really good day.”

For those still concerned that the Democratic primary could still be decided by super-delegates, here’s a suggestion. Do a Florida and Michigan re-vote — not a caucus — in the spring. And fund it from the obscene coffers of the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

Florida, for one, can’t afford it, and they can. But this democracy can’t afford the perception, let alone the reality, that regular voters matter less than political elites.

So what’s with the flap over John Mellencamp denying John McCain use of his songs at campaign events? So the balladeer of middle class sufferance looks askance at the McCain candidacy? So McCain is precluded from using “Our Country” and “Pink Houses”?

McCain had a winner on his last Tampa visit. No, not the Four Tops number that preceded his Tampa Convention Center speech, the one that most folks still think is “Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch.” But it’s actually “I Can’t Help Myself.” That would, of course, be fodder for the Democrats as well as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart.

But what’s wrong with “Johnny B. Goode,” which followed his Tampa presentation – along with a volley from confetti guns? Johnny might not be good enough for evangelicals, but Chuck Berry over John Mellencamp is a winner.

Last fall Hillary Clinton changed her position on torture. She said, “As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period.” That’s straightforward and consistent with American ideals, even in a perilous world.

The previous year she had said, “In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable.” She called it a “very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances.”

She was slammed by Barack Obama for having taken that initial position.

Two points.

First, what’s wrong with changing your mind, especially after getting military input? As if there were no precedent for presidential candidates changing, indeed, routinely overhauling, multiple positions to accommodate the politics of the moment.

Second, maybe she, ironically, shouldn’t have changed at all.

Maybe just fine-tuned a more appropriate response. To wit:

“If I, as president, were ever confronted with a situation where we have a detainee – and not some low-level dragnetee – who we know – not just suspect – has knowledge of an imminent – not indeterminable — threat to millions of Americans, then you can rest assured that I would do what most Americans would want their president to do: err on the side of millions of American lives. And then be prepared to take whatever heat is generated.”

Candor has to count for something.

It’s a political aphorism that Pennsylvania looks a lot like Alabama between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who’s backing Hillary Clinton, underscored that labeling recently.

“You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,” Rendell told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette .

Hey Ed, even though Hillary, the faux feminist and risk-aversion candidate, is your choice, why not remind Keystoned Dems that this isn’t Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or some other race-baiting, professional black opportunist running against her. This is a legitimate candidate – albeit one who is vulnerable to being hammered on specifics and experience. Call him a Template Candidate with soaring rhetoric. But don’t let this racial atavism fester under your watch – even if it helps your candidate.

And, lest we forget, the Pennsylvania primary, which is April 22, could be, alas, decisive this year.