Tag Archives: JFK

Anti-Cuba lobby still flexes its muscle

26editorial-cuban-american-videoSixteenByNine1050

The anti-Castro/Cuba lobby in the United States has been outsized for as long as I can remember.

Perhaps we are witnessing this week the latest manifestation of that muscle-flexing as President Obama tours the tiny island nation and gets skewered by those on the right for doing what many others of us think is the right thing.

Which is to normalize relations  with the communist regime.

It’s a curious thing to watch the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the leader of a dirt-poor Third World state. Then to have that tinhorn lecture the leader of the Free World about whether the United States should keep possession of its naval base at Guantanamo Bay gives the Cubans a dubious and overstated standing — and then to have critics pounce on Obama for taking it!

To what do we owe this strange juxtaposition?

I believe it’s the power of that Cuban-American community that resides mostly in Florida.

The community had its birth in the late 1950s when Cubans fled their nation that had been taken over by Fidel Castro and his gang of communists. They took up residence in Florida and began immediately pressuring the U.S. government to do more to destroy Castro.

President Eisenhower heard them. He formulated plans to invade Cuba and then handed the keys to the Oval Office over to President Kennedy in January 1961, who then launched the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It didn’t turn out well for our side. The Cubans squashed the small force, took prisoners and then crowed about how the big, bad U.S. government was intent on destroying them.

Then we had that missile crisis in 1962. JFK took care of it by blockading the island, forcing the Soviet Union to “blink” and remove the offensive missiles.

By 1991, the Evil Empire had vaporized. Cuba was left without its major benefactor.

Still, five decades after the revolution, Cuba has remained a communist dictatorship. Fidel Castro handed the power over to his brother, Raul, who welcomed President Barack Obama to his nation.

Is Cuba a nation to be feared? Do we tremble at the thought of normalizing relations with this tiny nation? No. Why should we? We’re the big kids on the block. Heck, we’re the biggest kids on the planet!

Our politicians, though, have been told to fear Cubans by that overblown Cuban-American community.

So here we are. The president of the United States is making history simply by visiting an island nation that sits within spittin’ distance of our southeastern-most state.

Sure, the Cubans must do more to improve human rights on their island. The president should tell them so.

I don’t know why we should sweat so much over whether Raul Castro listens to us. He and that backwater government he runs can’t do us any harm.

My own sense is that normalization of relations with Cuba by itself is going to do more to bring reform to a nation that needs it in the worst way. Soon enough, the Cubans will see what the rest of the world really looks like.

They also are likely to see how their giant neighbor just over the horizon relishes the fruits of liberty.

Then they might start demanding it from their leaders.

 

Trump needs to start acting like a ‘unifier’

A supporter of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump scuffles with a protestor during a rally in Richmond, Va., Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015.  (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Donald J. Trump today postponed a campaign rally because of the threat of violence.

Hmm. Where do I begin?

The Republican presidential campaign frontrunner has been the focus of some unseemly and potentially dangerous confrontations of late. Protestors have shown up at his campaign events; they’ve been shouted down by Trumpsters seeking to silence the anti-Trump voices; fights have broken out; one man has been arrested for assault after he sucker-punched a protestor being escorted out of a rally location in North Carolina.

Trump’s reaction to all of this? Well, it’s been — shall we say — a bit muted. Except, of course, when he’s exhorted his supporters to punch protestors in the face or exhibit some other form of forceful retaliation.

I listened to some commentary this evening after the postponement of a Trump rally in Chicago. An interesting thought came from David Gergen, a CNN political analyst and a former official in several presidential administrations: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

Gergen’s advice to Trump: If you’re going to proclaim yourself to be a unifier, then you need to do a lot more to tamp down the anger upon which you’ve built your (so far) successful campaign for president.

Gergen said tonight previous campaigns have drawn hu-u-u-u-u-ge crowds.

He mentioned Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign.

None of them fostered the violence we’ve seen at these Trump rallies, Gergen noted. Why? “They were positive,” he said. All three men promoted positive agendas for change and they all sought to appeal to the voters’ better angels.

Gergen noted he disliked including Trump with Reagan because, he said, “It does a disservice to President Reagan.” Indeed, it does. Trump, though, needs to heed the words of this bipartisan wise man.

The violence has to stop. One individual has it within his power to restore order, civility and decorum to the important task of delivering a campaign message.

That would be the candidate who is seeking the votes of Americans across the land.

Tone down the angry talk, Donald Trump.

Oh, for the old days of presidential debates

Nixon-Kennedy-debate_1960

CNN broadcast a special the other night on the landmark debate series between two men vying for the presidency of the United States of America.

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Kennedy faced Republican Vice President Richard Nixon.

The special talked at length about the men’s preparation for the encounters and the consequences that they delivered to the U.S. electoral system.

If only we could return to those days when the most trivial thing we talked about was whether one candidate looked more robust than the other one.

These days, we’re talking about a lot of things that have pulled these joint appearances into the gutter.

The leading Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, is fond of tossing insults out at his opponents. Lately, some of those foes have responded. One of them, young Marco Rubio, has introduced — in a round-about way — the subject of Trump’s sexual endowments.

We’ve heard comments about perspiration, watched Trump make fun of Rubio’s physical appearance, listened at Trump has called Ted Cruz a lying son-of-a-gun.

And then — from the peanut gallery — former GOP nominee Mitt Romney has weighed in with comments and questions about why Trump doesn’t release his tax returns; he’s also called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.” Trump’s response? Romney is a loser, a has-been.

We are witnessing an absurd demonstration of petulance on a level many of us have never before witnessed at this level of what is supposed to pass for political discourse.

Fifty-six years ago, two men faced off in a series of three joint appearances. We were enthralled then just at the notion of watching them on live television. Those grainy black-and-white pictures now seem quaint.

The high-minded debate they engaged in, though, now looks statesmanlike, dignified, the kind of encounter one should expect to see between two individuals seeking to become the next head of state of the world’s greatest nation.

These days? It’s a clown show.

 

Still prefer a debate without crowd noise

GOP debate

The GOP Five are still debating on that Houston stage as I write this.

I am taking a moment to lament the circus atmosphere that these joint appearances have taken on.

Hillary and Bernie play for the same applause lines as Democrats.

Tonight, the Republican presidential candidates are engaging in a multi-pronged insult exchange aimed at bringing out the loudest cheers, hoots, shouts possible.

I wish we could return to the way it was done when these televised presidential debates first came into being.

In 1960, two men — U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon — talked to each other about the issues of the day. A moderator sat in front of them. There was no crowd noise.

The upshot of it? We remember the substance of the debates those two men had. We also remember some of the “optics,” such as at the first debate when Sen. Kennedy appeared robust and Vice President Nixon appeared to have pulled himself out of a sick bed.

The crowd noise is a distraction and it provokes the kinds of exchanges we’re hearing tonight.

 

Join the club of former shoo-ins, ‘Jeb!’

Dewey beats Truman

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush is feeling hurt at this moment, more than likely.

The former Florida governor was thought to be a shoo-in for the Republican presidential nomination. Then he ran into some fierce — or ferocious — opposition.

On Saturday night, Jeb suspended his campaign.

He was flush was cash. He had collected more than $100 million for his campaign war chest. He spent a lot of it on TV ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and then South Carolina. He got next to nothing for his investment.

He’s not the first formerly prohibitive favorite to fall on his face, as political science professor John Zeitz notes in a Politico essay.

It’s one of the “epic fails” of presidential campaigning.

The most recent example of such a “fail” is the 1980 campaign of GOP candidate John Connally, the former conservative Democrat who sought the Republican nomination, only to fail to win a single delegate.

Big John also was well-funded. He had a huge name familiarity as a former Texas governor, former Navy secretary and a victim of collateral damage on Nov. 22, 1963, when he took one of the bullets intended for President Kennedy on that horrifying day in Dallas.

We have heard much during this campaign about how “big money” corrupts the electoral process. The infamous Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision of 2010 has become a favorite target of Democrats running for the presidency seeking to roll back the effect of the court ruling that gives corporations virtually unlimited spending authority in these campaigns.

Jeb Bush was well-heeled, all right. It didn’t do him much good.

Rest assured that Bush won’t collect much solace in realizing that other big-name, sure-fire “winners” fell by the wayside.

All he needed, it now appears, was a message.

 

Religion collides with politics

B-5

Didn’t someone once suggest that you shouldn’t ever discuss religion and politics?

Here we are, then. Talking about both things in the same sentence.

Pope Francis I decided to weigh in with remarks about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump’s proposal to build a wall across our southern border to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

Anyone who’d propose such a thing, the pontiff, said isn’t a Christian.

Trump fired back. Trump called the pope’s view “disgraceful” and said, by golly, he’s a devout Christian.

Others on the right are criticizing the pope for engaging in this political discussion in the first place. Who is this guy? they wonder. What qualifies him to comment on the American political system?

Let’s take a breath.

Maybe the pope made his statement in Spanish, or Italian, or Latin and it got mistranslated.

Surely, too, he isn’t the first public figure — American or otherwise — to drag religion into a campaign for a secular political office. U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy faced intense suspicion over his Catholic faith in the 1960 campaign and he ended up dispelling much of it with a speech in Houston in which he said he’d follow the Constitution and would not — contrary to allegations — be a puppet for the Vatican.

And there have been others as well.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the pope — a renowned international public figure — to weigh in on a U.S. public policy discussion. He’s entitled to his view.

It’s that it has ignited a firestorm that makes me uncomfortable when I hear politicians feeling forced to defend their religious beliefs while seeking an office to which they will take an oath to protect and defend a wholly secular document.

That would be the Constitution of the United States.

 

Making deals = surrender? Hardly

History_Speeches_1123_Lemay_Kennedy_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_still_624x352

Fox News sent this tweet into the Twitterverse just a little while ago: “I don’t think the conservatives in SC want to nominate another dealmaker . . .  someone who’s going to surrender . . . our principles.”

It came about from remarks that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz made on the network regarding the upcoming South Carolina Republican presidential primary.

I think I’ll try to deconstruct that view.

Cruz, one of the leading candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, seemed to suggest that cutting deals means — necessarily — that one surrenders principles.

I’ll take issue with that premise.

Let’s harken back to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, about eight years before the young Texas Republican was born. Some of us remember that event.

The Soviet Union began installing strategic missiles in Cuba. Our spy planes discovered them from high above the communist nation. President Kennedy received word of the missiles. He then met with his national security team and — after hearing options that ranged from doing nothing to invading Cuba — settled on a course of action: He ordered a maritime blockade of the island nation; no ships were allowed to dock in Cuba.

Finally, the Soviets “blinked,” according to the parlance of the time. They agreed to remove the missiles. JFK had warned them in a broadcast to the nation that any launch of those missiles from Cuba against any nation in this hemisphere would be seen as an attack on the United States and would result in a “full retaliatory strike” against the Soviet Union.

What did the United States give up in return? We agreed to take down some missiles of our own based in Turkey.

Did the president make a deal? Yes. Did he “surrender” his principles or those of the nation he governed? Not even close.

The tough talk coming from Cruz and others on the right and far right ignore the reality of dealing in a rough-and-tumble world.

There are times when deals provide the only way out of tense confrontations.

And, yes, they can be finalized without compromising one’s principles.

 

Sanders’ ‘revolution’ might be overstated

revolution

Sen. Bernie Sanders is now using the word “revolution” to describe the nature of his bid to become president of the United States.

He’s leading Hillary Clinton in every poll there is in New Hampshire, which I think is filling the Vermont senator’s head with visions of overinflated grandeur.

It’s not that his Democratic support is fake. It’s real. But let’s cool the “revolution” talk for a bit.

Three presidential campaigns of the late 20th century also were labeled “revolutions” in some quarters. How did they do?

1964: Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona took the Republican Party presidential nomination by storm, defeating “establishment” candidates, such as New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in a wild primary fight. He went on to lose the general election that year to President Lyndon Baines Johnson in a historic landslide. LBJ, of course, traded a good bit on the legacy of his slain predecessor, John Kennedy, and vowed to continue pursuing JFK’s unfinished agenda.

1968: Just four years later, the Vietnam War caused another revolution. LBJ’s popularity had gone south. Democrats looked for an alternative. They turned to one in Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, who stunned LBJ with a stronger-than-expected showing in the New Hampshire primary. In came another anti-war candidate, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy of New York, brother of the murdered president and a political hero to many Americans — including yours truly. Vice President Hubert Humphrey, another “establishment” candidate, won the nomination, but then lost to Republican Richard Nixon by a narrow margin that fall.

1972: Let’s call this one the Anti-Vietnam War Revolution 2.0. The flag bearer this time would be U.S. Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota, who beat the party “establishment” led by Sen. Ed Muskie of Maine to win the nomination. McGovern drew big crowds to rallies, too, just like Sanders. Did they equate to votes that November? Ummm, no. President Nixon won 49 out of 50 states and buried McGovern’s “revolution” under the landslide.

Yes, some “revolutions” succeed. Ronald Reagan’s landslide victory in 1980 is one. Barack Obama’s election in 2008 could be considered another one. But they required extraordinary circumstances. The Iranian hostage crisis hurt President Carter grievously in voters’ minds in ’80 and the economic free-fall of 2008 helped lift Sen. Obama into the White House eight years ago.

Sanders might think he’s carrying the torch for another revolution. Then again, Republicans such as Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and perhaps even Marco Rubio might want to say the same thing . . . for entirely different reasons.

I just want to remind the revolutionaries out there that the political establishment doesn’t get to be so entrenched and powerful by being made up of pushovers or patsies.

 

 

‘Moonshot’ cancer initiative must go beyond Obama years

Vice President Joe Biden points at President Barack Obama during the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 12, 2016. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)

Why do I get this nagging knot in my gut that President Obama’s so-called “moonshot” effort to find a cure for cancer isn’t getting enough attention on an important aspect of it?

It will have to continue long past the day that Barack Obama leaves the White House for the final time as president.

He turned to Vice President Biden during his State of the Union speech and made Biden the leader of the effort to find a cure for cancer. The president now wants to commit $1 billion toward that goal.

But the 44th president has less than a year to go. There won’t be a cure found before he leaves office. Who’s going to keep fighting that fight? Who’s going to lead the effort?

Would it be Biden, who leaves office the same day as Barack Obama? It ought to be.

We all know someone who’s been affected by this killer. Many of us have endured treatment and therapy ourselves.

There’s certain to be opposition to the president’s call for such a major expenditure. My hope is that we can muster the kind of national will that we managed to find for the actual moonshot initiative launched by President Kennedy in 1961.

According to The Hill: “In any type of major ambitious efforts, unless you set your sights high, you’re almost guaranteed to not get to the type of success that we all want,” an administration official said. “There’s a reason the vice president is aspiring big, it’s the only way we’re going to push the envelope and make this kind of progress.”

True enough. This project, though, is going to require a lot of attention that must persist long after the current administration leaves office.

Whoever succeeds Barack Obama has to commit with the same fervor to the fight to cure cancer.

One demonstration of that commitment would be to keep Joe Biden on the job.

 

Happy 92nd birthday, Alan Shepard Jr.

alan shepard

OK, so he’s no longer alive to celebrate it but I couldn’t let pass an item that I stumbled upon this morning.

The late Alan Shepard Jr. was born 92 years ago today.

Shepard enlivened a nation, invigorated our national psyche and gave us a sense of mission at a time when we needed it.

He did it simply by riding atop a rocket for a 15-minute ride into outer space. He splashed down a few hundred miles off the Florida coast into the Atlantic Ocean.

I was a youngster at the time. On May 5, 1961, when Shepard took off aboard that Redstone rocket, I was just 12. But I was fascinated, along with the rest of the country, by the notion of human beings flying into space.

The Soviet Union — which would be known later as the Evil Empire — had beaten us into space. Yuri Gagarin had orbited Earth a month before Shepard took off. The Soviets were beating us at our own game! President Kennedy would have none of it.

Shepard’s flight didn’t measure up to Gagarin’s orbit in the strictest sense, but it didn’t matter to a nation itching to get into the space race. Shepard’s successful flight put us in the thick of the fight.

He got another shot at space travel. A decade later Shepard commanded Apollo 14’s mission to the moon and hit that famous golf shot from the moon’s surface that flew for “miles and miles.”

I miss those days. I wish we could find it within our national spirit to insist on manned space flight. We’re now sending our astronauts into space aboard ships launched by our former arch-enemy; it’s called “Russia” these days, now that the Soviet Union has disintegrated.

Our space agency is developing a deep-space vehicle that eventually will take future pioneers to places like Mars and perhaps to the asteroid belt.

Is there national excitement as we await that day? Uhh, no.

We’re left to remember when gutsy test pilots such as Alan Shepard squeezed into tiny space capsules and flew aboard those relatively itty-bitty rockets. He gave us a national thrill that we haven’t duplicated in quite some time.

I hope I’m alive to see the first flight to Mars.

Meanwhile, happy birthday to a man former President Bill Clinton once described as “one of the great heroes of modern America.”