Surprise Talks With Cuba

Tomorrow the US and other Western countries meet with Iran for diplomatic talks made more difficult by the disclosure of a nuclear facility in Qom. There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of the information out there about the facility, but nonetheless, it at least hasn't stopped the talks, although it's probably crippled them. On a couple other fronts, diplomatic actions are moving forward. North Korea has been offered direct bilateral talks on ending their nuclear program, as a preface to bringing them back into the six-party fold. That's further than we've gone with the DPRK in close to a decade, and perhaps could yield some substantive results. Meanwhile, a US diplomat held unscheduled talks with the Cuban government yesterday:

NEW YORK - A senior American diplomat has held unannounced, high-level talks in Havana with the Cuban government, three State Department officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday, raising hopes for a thaw in long-icy relations.

The talks were the first of their kind in years between representatives of the U.S. and Cuban governments, the bitter Cold War rivals among whom trust appears to be gradually building.

Bisa Williams, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, met with Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Dagoberto Rodriguez, visited an area affected by hurricanes in the Western province of Pinar del Rio and toured a government agricultural facility during a six-day trip to Cuba this month, the officials told AP [...]

One U.S. official described the talks as "respectful" and said they were more significant for having taken place, than for any substantive breakthroughs between the two sides, which have been at odds since shortly after former Cuban leader Fidel Castro marched into Havana on New Year's Day 1959.

"We were going over ground we haven't gone over for a long time," said the official. "Each side was taking advantage of the opportunity to size each other up."

I've said before that Cuba is the low-hanging fruit on the international diplomacy tree. The Obama Administration could pick up a quick and easy victory toward peace there if they just engaged. This unannounced set of talks is a sign that they might feel the same way.

The First 101 Days

I didn't get to write about my GRADES for the President in his first 100 days, so I moved the goalposts!

Actually, I don't want to give grades. That CNN show with the snap judgments (vote on the Senate, 5 minutes, GO!) depressed me as much as anything in American politics. Sometimes I feel like the President tries to have a serious conversation in the way that a headmaster tries to have a serious conversation with pre-schoolers. But I do want to make an early assessment of Obama's foreign policy. Interestingly, the subject came up a lot in last night's presser, more than I expected.

Most important, Obama has restored a measure of respect for the United States around the world, by rejecting the cowboy diplomacy of the past and asserting that America is part of a community of nations. He wants a fresh start, untainted by the arguments of the past. While I believe he sits in the realist school of foreign policy, he recognizes the importance of tough but fair negotiation with allies and adversaries alike. It only looks novel because it's disappeared from the scene over the last decade.

Second, while the United States best represents itself by living up to its universal values and ideas, the President said the United States must also respect the variety of cultures and perspectives that guide both American foes and friends.

"I firmly believe that if we're willing to break free from the arguments and ideologies of an earlier era and continue to act, as we have at this summit, with a sense of mutual responsibility and mutual respect and mutual interest, then each of our nations can come out of this challenging period stronger and more prosperous, and we can advance opportunity, equality, and security across the Americas," the President said.

The Obama Doctrine, it is what the world wants. And I'll note that senior adviser David Axelrod describes the President's tactics this way, "You plant, you cultivate, you harvest. Over time, the seeds that were planted here are going to be very, very valuable."

I find that remarkable for just yesterday Argentina's La Nación opined that the Summit was "the seed of a new relationship" between Latin America and the United States. After years of bitter fruit, the harvest for succeeding generations promises to be very sweet indeed.

This worldview is very refreshing. But has it been met with results? Well, we're starting to see a thaw of relations in Cuba, and low-level conversations on a more comprehensive solution. The Latin American Cold War has ended, with new initiatives like microfinance grants supplanting the neoliberal demands and hemispheric meddling. Obama has clearly cheered relations with allies in Europe, and even made strides toward agreements on arms limitation with Russia. In the Middle East, Juan Cole has a great roundup, and I will quote it at length.

Obama did an interview with al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based Arabic satellite news station, soon after he got into office. He offered a hand of friendship to Muslims, insisted that you can't stereotype 1.5 billion people with the actions of a few terrorists, and implied that al-Qaeda seemed to be running scared that it had lost George W. Bush as a recruiting tool.

Obama's public diplomacy extended to Iran, which he addressed on the occasion of the Persian New Year. He stressed the opportunity for Iran to re-enter the world community through diplomacy with the US.

Although the US press interpreted the Iranian response as a rebuff, I argued that the leadership in Tehran greeted it with caution and adopted a wait and see attitude.

The big moment for public diplomacy, however, was Obama's trip to Turkey. In 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, 56 percent of Turks had a favorable or very favorable view of the United States. By late in the Bush administration eight years later, that percentage stood at 9%. Bush was barely more popular in Turkey than was Bin Laden. But nearly 40 percent of Turks say that they have confidence in President Obama, making him the politician in Turkey with the very highest approval rating! [...]

On Iraq, Obama visited Baghdad and met with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. He outlined the specifics of the US withdrawal plan, which envisages US combat troops ceasing active patrols in Iraqi cities by August 1, 2009; a withdrawal of all combat troops by September 1, 2010, and the withdrawal of the remaining 40,000 or so logistical support and other US troops by Dec. 31, 2011. While US commander Gen. Ray Odierno clearly chafed at this timeline and wants to tweak it, even he recently said he was 10 out of 10 sure that it would be adhered to under current condition [...]

Obama has been dealt a difficult hand in the hot spots. It is highly unlikely that he can accomplish much on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, given the far rightwing racist character of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government (it would be as though Jean-Marie Le Pen had come to power in France). The Palestinians themselves have been successfully divided by Israel and the US, and by their own leaders' factiousness (Hamas in Gaza is in its own way like a Jean-Maire Le Pen scenario on the Palestinian side) [...]

Obama seems to think that Afghanistan can be resolved through sending more troops, which is highly unlikely to be the case. And despite his hard line on Pakistan, he has been unable to convince Islamabad to take the Pakistani Taliban seriously as a threat to the whole of Pakistan. (Pakistanis tend to see them as particularly strict Muslim Pushtuns, not a new phenomenon and not relevant to most Punjabis and Sindhis; and they tend to want the disputes settled through parleys instead of massive military operations.)

So, an "A" on style, which is all that could probably be accomplished in 100 days. We need to come back and judge substance a year from now. But the challenges are enormous, especially at a time when domestic economic and health concerns are the primary focus of the American public.

Even in the Af-Pak region, circumstances are changing. Pakistan appears to be taking the Taliban situation seriously of late, attacking them in Buner, and Afghan rebels have agreed to stop fighting in exchange for amnesty and a job.

I don't really agree with the Administration's policy in Afghanistan. But it's up to our progressive leaders to fight for a real exit strategy and a focus on diplomatic instead of military solutions. They also ought to remind Obama that the problem exists in Pakistan (he called the government "fragile" in his press conference yesterday), and more must be done there. I also like public efforts to highlight the situation in Darfur and the explusion of aid groups from Sudan.

My first 101 days grade of the President on foreign policy is solid, but the future is when the substance must match the style.

Actually, Americans Want To Fully End The Freeze In Relations With Cuba

So the mild steps taken by the President on Cuba were supposed to be the end of Western civilization as we know it, if you listen to talk radio, but not only are Americans, even Cuban-Americans, cool with it, but they would rather the President go even further than he's currently willing to go:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As President Barack Obama weighs the future of U.S.-Cuba relations, Americans continue to express support for closer ties. Since 1999, a majority of Americans have consistently said they favor re-establishing U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba -- including 60% in a new Gallup Poll conducted after Obama's decision last week to relax some restrictions.

While Obama's move did not go as far as re-establishing full diplomatic relations with Cuba, his decision to grant Cuban-Americans rights to travel freely to Cuba and to send remittances there, and to give U.S. telecommunications companies the right to pursue business there represent a first step. On Sunday at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Obama said that America's existing policy toward Cuba isn't working and that he would welcome reciprocal moves by Cuba to put the two nations on a path toward better relations.

Over the past decade, Gallup has found Americans remarkably steadfast in their views about U.S. relations with Cuba -- particularly in regard to the U.S. trade embargo. Since 1999, Americans have been more likely to support than oppose the U.S. government's ending its trade embargo against Cuba -- with support narrowly ranging between 48% and 51%, including 51% in the new poll.

Americans more widely support ending restrictions on travel to Cuba -- with 64% in favor.

What's notable is how remarkably stable these numbers have been for a decade. The people are far ahead of the politicians on this one, recoginizing that a fifty-year embargo has done nothing but put the Cuban people into poverty while not affecting their leaders or the changes sought in their policies.

I support the first step that Obama has done, but agree with the majority of Americans that he could do more. Let's see how the Cuban government reacts.

What Backtracking From Campaign Promises?

Though I appreciated the NYT's call for the impeachment of Jay Bybee today, their news pages have been consumed lately with trying to classify President Obama as offering little change from George Bush. Earlier in the week, Peter Baker characterized Obama's foreign policy as shifting "only a little" from George Bush's. And today, David Herszenhorn and Jackie Calmes they cite Obama's characteristic caution as evidence of him "taking softer stands."

It was inevitable that Mr. Obama’s lofty pledge to change the ways of Washington would crash into the realities of governing, including lawmakers anxious to protect their constituents and an army of special-interest lobbyists.

Mr. Obama has not conceded on any major priority. His advisers argue that the concessions to date — on budget items, for instance — are intended to help win the bigger policy fights ahead. But his early willingness to deal or fold has left pundits and prognosticators, and some loyal Democrats, wondering: where’s the fight?

I agree with Eric Boehlert that this misrepresents Obama's words on the campaign trail. With stars in their eyes, these reporters imagined Obama's soaring rhetoric to promise much more than he actually did. In both of these articles, there is little evidence to suggest that the President ever made such sweeping statements as a candidate or that he's shifted on any major issue (hence the "Mr. Obama has not conceded on any major priority"). For example, they cite Obama's reluctance to renew the assault weapons ban, when he pretty much didn't promise that during the campaign, and when he has not closed the door on the option.

With regard to foreign policy, I don't know how you can say that he hasn't followed through on his promises, even the ones I don't particularly support. He said he would withdraw from Iraq and move forces to Afghanistan. He said he would negotiate with enemies and work with allies. He said he would push for the eradication of nuclear weapons from this planet. And that's exactly what he's done. This speech would not come out of the mouth of George Bush.

There's been several remarks directed at the issue of the relationship between the United States and Cuba, so let me address this. The United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba. I know that there is a longer -- (applause) -- I know there's a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day. I've already changed a Cuba policy that I believe has failed to advance liberty or opportunity for the Cuban people. We will now allow Cuban Americans to visit the islands whenever they choose and provide resources to their families -- the same way that so many people in my country send money back to their families in your countries to pay for everyday needs.

Over the past two years, I've indicated, and I repeat today, that I'm prepared to have my administration engage with the Cuban government on a wide range of issues -- from drugs, migration, and economic issues, to human rights, free speech, and democratic reform. Now, let me be clear, I'm not interested in talking just for the sake of talking. But I do believe that we can move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new direction.

As has already been noted, and I think my presence here indicates, the United States has changed over time. (Applause.) It has not always been easy, but it has changed. And so I think it's important to remind my fellow leaders that it's not just the United States that has to change. All of us have responsibilities to look towards the future. (Applause.)

I think it's important to recognize, given historic suspicions, that the United States' policy should not be interference in other countries, but that also means that we can't blame the United States for every problem that arises in the hemisphere. That's part of the bargain. (Applause.) That's part of the change that has to take place. That's the old way, and we need a new way.

You can argue whether Obama has gone far enough, and whether his policies are best for the country. I certainly have argued on those grounds. But you just cannot say that he's backed off his major campaign promises, because it's simply not true. Why the Times keeps going to this idea is beyond me.

And by the way, apparently Obama's handshake with Hugo Chavez has caused a tizzy on the right, as if no Republican has ever shook the hand of an adversarial world leader before. This act has gotten so stale. By the way, Chavez has restored his US envoy so there are already tangible steps toward resolution as a result of basically nothing but a handshake. The dirty secret here is that the neocons NEED enemies because they can only rule by fear.

Guess What, Diplomacy Works

An astonishing statement from Cuba.

SANTO DOMINGO (AFP) — The United States welcomes as an "overture" an offer of wide-ranging talks from Cuban President Raul Castro, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday.

"We have seen Raul Castro's comments. We welcome this overture. We're taking a very serious look at it," Clinton said here at a press availability with Dominican President Leonel Fernandez.

On Thursday Castro said "we are open, whenever they want, to discussing everything: human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners, everything they want to discuss."

But, said Castro on the eve of this weekend's Summit of the Americas in Trinidad, any dialogue "must be as equals, without the slightest violation of the self-determination of the Cuban people."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said if reports on Castro "are true, it is a positive step."

Obviously, this won't get resolved overnight. But Raul Castro has as much to gain from a cooling of relations with the United States as anyone. Lucas O'Connor has a bit on that.

This new openness from the Cuban government is less surprising than it may immediately seem on its surface. While the government came to power motivated towards empowering the poor and breaking the legacy of oligarchy and neo-colonialism, the political course charted by the Castros has always been pragmatic more than ideological. For decades, the better economic and political support system for this regime came from the Soviet Union and alignment with Communist powers. Since the end of the Cold War, Cuba has been moving slowly to open itself up to free enterprise and outside investment.

These talks, and the potential steps towards openness with the United States, is a logical step along that path. Remittances (largely from the U.S.) currently represent 1.8% of Cuba's GDP and "helps the island's $58 billion economy, as the Cuban government charges fees that take about 20 percent of exchange-wired dollars."

The overall point here is that negotiation and diplomacy works. Extending a hand instead of a clenched fist can result in the opponent recognizing a new era of relations and returning the favor. Those tough guys on the right who thinks that we must only degrade and villify our foes in the world do so because they need enemies and don't want to resolve these problems - they work better as campaign bullet points. The President has taken the opposite view, and it's good to see.

The Slow Unfreeze With Cuba

I'm happy to finally see this as a start to unfreezing relations with Cuba:

The Obama administration on Monday will lift travel and gift restrictions for Cuban Americans, allowing them to travel more freely to the island and send additional financial help to family members.

The policy change is the most significant U.S. gesture to Cuba in decades and comes amid efforts in Congress to lift all travel restrictions to the island.

"This is an effort to reach out to the Cuban people in an effort to support the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their country's future," a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the White House has not yet made the official announcement, told McClatchy. "The president has said this is the most direct means to open up the kind of space that is necessary to see democratic change in Cuba."

The changes also include opening up greater communication to the island and expanding the items that can be sent to Cuba, including clothing, personal hygiene items and fishing equipment.

Realistically, lots of Americans already travel to Cuba. And only Congress can fully lift the travel ban. What's key here is the gesture, and the overture to finally have a serious conversation about US-Cuba relations in the 21st century. The Castro brothers are 82 and 77. They should no longer drive our policy with Cuba for the future. Obviously, human rights concerns on the island must be part of a comprehensive solution, but this is a very good start.

My Dream Of Seeing Hyman Roth-Era Havana Closer To Reality

There was some talk earlier in the week that Congress has the votes to lift the travel ban to Cuba for all Americans. There is compelling research that lifting the ban would generate as much as $1.6 billion dollars in economic activity, much of it in the United States, with boosts for airlines and cruise ships and travel agents. Plus it's a useless policy that hasn't worked for the 50 years of the Castro regime, and we might as well try something new like using tourists as ambassadors for the US.

Well, at least with respect to families, President Obama isn't waiting for the Congress.

President Barack Obama plans to lift a longstanding U.S. ban on family travel and remittances to Cuba, a senior administration official said Friday, in what could be an opening gesture toward more openness with the Castro regime.

The move will fulfill a campaign promise and follows more modest action in Congress this year to loosen travel rules.

The president has authority to loosen these rules on his own, and the move is likely meant as a signal of a new attitude toward both Cuba and other Latin American countries that have pressed the U.S. to alter its policy.

The Congress should still make good on lifting the ban completely. But this is an undeniably good signal, and may lead toward ending the embargo and restarting diplomatic relations with our Southern neighbor. Maybe we could actually have some leverage over their human rights record as a partner, leverage we have not had as an enemy.

If the President wants an early victory in foreign policy, he needs to look no further than Cuba

Stupid Hold Tricks

Robert Menendez has been a pretty sharp Senator, and I don't regret making calls for him in 2006. I do regret him falling back on failed tropes of the past to not only frustrate a new era of US-Cuba policy, but to inexplicably stop dedicated professionals from doing their jobs protecting the planet from pollution and climate change.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a strong supporter of the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba, is launching a full-on battle this week to remove several provisions from the 2009 government spending bill that would open a small crack in the slammed door of relations with Havana.

Menendez fired a broadside at the Obama administration yesterday for backing a provision buried in the $410 billion spending bill, which must become law by next week in order to keep the government running. The New Jersey senator, a Cuban-American, objects to language in the bill that would allow Cuban-Americans to visit relatives on the island once a year and end limits on the sale of American food and medicines in Cuba. [...]

The WaPo reports today that the senator has held up two Obama science nominees in an attempt to twist the arms of his fellow Dems.

First of all, Menendez is hopelessly behind the times. The majority of his fellow Cuban-Americans SUPPORT lifting the travel ban, because they understand that the policy of isolation has completely failed. So do wild-eyed liberals on foreign policy like Richard Lugar. But worse, Menendez is taking his temper tantrum out on two very qualified candidates who have nothing to do with this spat.

But Menendez isn't just making his case to continue with a failed policy, he's now blocking two White House nominees -- Obama's choices to be the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -- to get the senators' attention on his Cuba-related concerns.

So, to summarize, Menendez supports Obama's nominees, but won't let the Senate vote on them until after he's done complaining about a subtle change in a foreign policy that hasn't worked after more than five decades of attempts.

Markos and Kevin Drum have more. The worst part of this is that you have a liberal Democrat abusing the ridiculous Senate holds process, which encourages others to do the same:

And he's not alone. It seems that multiple anonymous senators are now holding up Holdren and Lubchenco's nominations, as Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told CQ:

"It's infuriating," said Rockefeller, who backs Holdren and Lubchenco's hiring. "They're brilliant scientists."

Science advocates said they are frustrated by the blocking of administration officials they argue are needed now more than ever. The holdup could slow timely science and environmental policy work between Congress and the administration, particularly the spending of roughly $21.5 billion dedicated to science in the economic recovery package.

Thanks a lot, Sen. Menendez. I hope it's worth it.

(Hey, maybe he and Fidel Castro can do a Bloggingheads about it...)

This Would Be A Legacy

A bill was introduced last week in Congress that would end the travel ban to Cuba and restrict the ability to reimpose the ban in the future. This type of legislation has been offered in the past but went nowhere. However, the new President has been supportive of lifting the ban (and possibly the embargo), and Cuba's new President has returned the love:

The Obama administration has taken note of remarks both by Cuban President Raul Castro and by his brother, former President Fidel Castro, expressing, in part, positive sentiments about Barack Obama and the significance of his presidency, according to a senior State Department official. Both Castros, using somewhat different language, have said they view Obama as intelligent and sincere in wanting to change U.S. foreign policy and see his presidency as historic.

The Castros' remarks have come since the U.S. election and have continued occasionally in interviews, comments to the media, and, in the case of Fidel Castro, his frequent articles in the Cuban press. "I think the statements are important. They've registered," said the State Department official.

U.S. policy toward Cuba, including the various restrictions that flow from a 47-year-old economic embargo, will be reviewed by Obama administration agencies. During the campaign, Obama said that he intended to remove restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba by Cuban-Americans and that he favored well-prepared "direct diplomacy" with the island's communist government.

Cuba is moving forward, albeit gradually, with some economic reforms, and there are signs that the Cuban people are pushing for additional political and social reform from the bottom up. There's nobody better positioned to capitalize on this than President Obama. Robert Farley notes:

Nothing says EPIC FAIL more than the 47-year policy of disengagement and embargo that the United States has pursued toward Cuba -- even strong Castro foes would be well advised to seek an alternative approach. As Doherty notes, Obama doesn't appear to be afraid of the Cuban-American vote in Florida. The community is becoming more politically diverse, and in any case is losing its demographic grip over the state's electoral votes. Cuba has real "legacy" potential for Obama; 10 presidents have failed to dislodge either Castro or his opponents in the United States.

Absolutely. And while the economic benefit during this downturn would be small, certainly there would be increased regional stability in South Florida to come with a more vibrant system of trade and rapport with Cuba. I think it would be an excellent thing to focus on diplomatically in the first term.

Too Many Hippies To Punch

What typically happens after a realigning election is that the public starts to become more comfortable with the views of the victorious party. That is also happening this year, despite the best efforts to paint this as a moment of bipartisan center-right ascendancy. And these shifts in public attitudes are occurring because people are speaking out, contra Hildebrand who want the DFHs to shut up and mind their manners. Support for gay marriage is up in the wake of public demonstrations against the passage of Prop. 8. Civil unions now have majority support, and even bigger majorities support full partnership rights to gay couples (that darn word "marriage" still offers problems to people, but that will change). 66 percent now believe gays ought to be able to serve in the military.

Similarly, some long-overdue public statements against the crushing embargo in Cuba has led to a shift in opinion even among Cuban-Americans, who now favor ending the embargo, suggesting that the right-wing political ideology of Cuban exiles is on the wane.

The poll, conducted by Florida International University's Institute for Public Opinion Research and funded by the Brookings Institution and the Cuba Study Group, indicates that 55 percent of those polled favor discontinuing the trade embargo imposed in 1962. Sixty-five percent favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba.

''The poll has an extraordinary historical importance,'' said Guarione Díaz, president of the Cuban American National Council, a nonpartisan advocacy group in Miami.

The results, particularly as they relate to the embargo, reflect ''the fact that the Cuban Americans who were born in the United States or left after 1980 do not have the same vision as those who came in the 60s,'' Díaz said.

I'd like to see some other opinion surveys on issues, be they cultural or policy-based, but I'd bet you'd see the same thing. This is a changing country with changing attitudes. The constant efforts to curry favor in official Washington by punching a hippie will be very damaging to anyone's political future.

Hey Schieffer, Incorporate Some Breaking News

Waiting on the debate, which I think has about a 50/50 chance of turning into a smear factory. But if it does, it would be nice if Bob Schieffer could work it around to one of today's top stories and see what the Maverick would have to say in his defense:

Early in 2007, just as her husband launched his presidential bid, Cindy McCain decided to resolve an old problem -- the lack of cellular telephone coverage on her remote 15-acre ranch near Sedona, nestled deep in a tree-lined canyon called Hidden Valley.

By the time Sen. John McCain's presidential bid was in full swing this summer, the ranch had wireless coverage from the two cellular companies most often used by campaign staff -- Verizon Wireless and AT&T.

Verizon delivered a portable tower know as a "cell site on wheels" -- free of charge -- to Cindy McCain's property in June in response to an online request from Cindy McCain's staff early last year. Such devices are usually reserved for restoring service when cell coverage is knocked out during emergencies, such as hurricanes.

In July, AT&T followed suit, wheeling in a portable tower for free to match Verizon's offer. "This is an unusual situation," said AT&T spokeswoman Claudia B. Jones. "You can't have a presidential nominee in an area where there is not cell coverage."

If you think this sounds perfectly reasonable, consider that Ted Stevens is facing jail time for pretty much exactly the same thing. Oh, and the McCain campaign's spin is that the Secret Service made him do it - which the Secret Service denies.

"The Washington Post story regarding Verizon providing a cell tower to the McCain Ranch is wrong," (Verizon PR guy) Thonis said. "Verizon received a request from Mrs. McCain, but declined.

"Subsequent to that, the Secret Service made a legitimate request for a temporary tower for its work and Verizon complied as is required by our contract with the agency. The Secret Service request, made on May 28, specifically said it needed the service urgently and requested that Verizon 'explore every possible means of providing an alternative cellular or data communications source in the referenced area and provide any short term implementation of any type as a solution in the interim."

But James Grimaldi, the Post reporter who broke the story, has the Secret Service saying they did not formally request the tower.

Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren told the paper: "This was something that was being addressed before we were out there."

Just the Verizon flack's protestations are revealing. They confirm that Cindy McCain asked for a cell phone tower for her personal use - and pretty much only the McCain family's use, as there are few other homes in the area. They confirm that the request was in well before McCain took the nomination.

McCain, of course, regulates these phone companies as part of his day job, and mixes with their lobbyists on his campaign staff.

Ethics lawyers said Cindy McCain's dealings with the wireless companies stand out because Sen. John McCain is a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the Federal Communications Commission and the telecommunications industry. He has been a leading advocate for industry-backed legislation, fighting regulations and taxes on telecommunications services. (he was a past chair of the Commerce Committee, too -ed.)

McCain and his campaign have close ties to Verizon and AT&T. Five campaign officials, including campaign manager Rick Davis, have worked as lobbyists for Verizon. Former McCain staffer Robert Fisher is an in-house lobbyist for Verizon and is volunteering for the campaign. Fisher, Verizon chief executive Ivan Seidenberg and company lobbyists have raised more than $1.3 million for McCain's presidential campaign and Verizon employees are among the top 20 corporate donors over McCain's political career, giving more than $155,000 to his campaigns.

McCain's Senate chief of staff Mark Buse, senior strategist Charles R. Black Jr., and several other campaign staffers have registered as AT&T lobbyists in the past. AT&T Executive Vice President Timothy McKone and AT&T lobbyists have raised more than $2.3 million for McCain. AT&T employees have donated more than $325,000 to McCain campaigns, putting the company in the No. 3 spot for career donations to McCain, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

I don't know, rather than Bill Ayers, that might be something the public would like to know, Mr. Schieffer.

Or, you could mention the international terrorists tied to John McCain, otherwise known as "anti-Castro Cubans".

CA-04: McClintock - "China's Drinking Our Milkshake!"

Since he doesn't have any ideas of his own, and he can barely locate California's 4th District on a map, Tom McClintock has decided to pick up on the "Drill Now" movement coming from the deepest bastions of economic royalist and faux populist conservatism. His first ad of the 2008 election is a radio spot which shakes his finger at Congress for ignoring all that delicious oil under everyone's house that must be delivered immediately to Exxon.

"Liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Brown want to continue supporting federal laws that prevents us from tapping America's vast oil resources. That's how we got into this mess - and why gasoline prices are now breaking our family budgets," McClintock says at the beginning of the one-minute spot.

"America has nearly a trillion barrels of recoverable oil-more than three times that of Saudi Arabia-that Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Brown won't even let us touch. In fact, more than 94 percent of our territory remains off-limits because of this foolish prohibition. If we want to change this policy, we've got to change this Congress," McClintock says.

94%! For instance, that park by your house doesn't have ONE oil derrick in it. And who knows what's under the floorboards in your den? 94%, sucka MC's!

Now, McClintock is buying in to the discredited notion that China is stealing all the oil off the Florida coast.

"Meanwhile, the vast oil fields off the coast of Florida that American law prevents Americans from developing are now being drained by the Chinese government drilling in Cuban waters," McClintock wrote in a column for the Auburn Journal, pointed out to us by the campaign of his Dem opponent Charlie Brown.

"And still Nancy Pelosi and her supporters in Congress continue to block the development of these vast American oil reserves."

Don't you idiots see it? The Chinese are stealing our purity of essence and draining our precious bodily fluids!

None of this is true, by the way. Even the Prince of Darkness Dick Cheney, who's in Southern California today in case you were wondering why you heard that death rattle this morning, had to acknowledge that the Cina-Cuba drilling myth was a lie.

But without lies, where would McClintock be? (um, running for the Board of Equalization?)

Putting The "Better" In More And Better Democrats

In 2006 we had a crop of Congressional challengers that was poised to win in tough districts and take back the House and Sente. It was a cautious list, at times a moderate list, and while there have been some excellent progressive lawmakers from that group (Steve Cohen, John Hall, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown come to mind), overall it was a list full of more Democrats instead of better ones. You never know what you're really going to get from a candidate until they're in office, but this year there are some promising signs that the class of 2008 is substantively better on several issues.

For one, there's the great news that every single Democratic Senate challenger with more than $500,000 in cash on hand has fully endorsed net neutrality. This was not necessarily a mainstream Democratic position just a few years ago, and now it's become standard. That's very positive. Furthermore, almost no telecom or cable money is going to the wide majority of these candidates, suggesting that they may not be as beholden to those interests as the current Congress. You can read the candidate statements at the link.

One of those candidates is Jeff Merkley, and he is unafraid to challenge his own Democratic leadership even while in the midst of a Senate campaign where he will probably need their help. We need less Democratic automatons and more lawmakers willing to speak their minds and even criticize their party when it betrays its own values and steps out of line.

But the majority of Merkley's interview with the Huffngton Post this past weekend was spent pinpointing areas in need of political improvement, even calling to task the Democratic-controlled Senate for not showing the requisite backbone.

"A major mistake has been not to force the Republicans to filibuster day and night on these issues," he said. "The public does not see that obstruction because they don't see on their televisions a senator on the floor of the senate going through the night reading out of a thick tomb of law, if you will, in order to block bills from being considered. We have to put that on show to the American public and show that it's unacceptable... And I am [prepared to start standing up]. FISA is a good example right there. I was proud of Senator Dodd and others for what they did. They lost the vote, but I'm proud of them." [...]

He even weighed in on one of the thornier issues facing Democrats today: what to do about Sen. Joseph Lieberman, whose surrogacy on behalf of McCain has been infuriating to many elements of the party.

"It is very disturbing," Merkley said. "I was there in 2000 as a delegate when he was our vice presidential nominee. I remember losing my voice for him and Sen. Gore and I am really disappointed in some of the stances he is taking and I understand he is addressing the Republican convention. Essentially we need him as a clear member of the team and I hope that we see it that way after the election."

He even criticized Sen. Obama for his FISA vote, as well he should. At a time when the progressive community is seeking to hold lawmakers accountable on FISA and civil liberties, it's great to have candidates with the same frame of mind.

In the House, Blue America candidate Joe Garcia is going up against an entrenched anti-Castro Cuban Republican in South Florida. He has no problem in this video calling out one of the top anti-Castro Cuban groups for stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funds. And Congress actually managed to act on this by freezing payments to these right-wing groups. And also in Florida, Alan Grayson is a man possessed.

Alan Grayson: I'm Alan Grayson, and I'm the Democratic candidate for Congress in Florida's district eight. And I'm the attorney of record in every single case now pending in Federal court involving war profiteers in Iraq. These are cases in which I represent whistleblowers. The Florida civil rights association named me Humanitarian of the Year for my work in this regard, taxpayers against fraud named me lawyer of the year, and I've been featured in Vanity Fair magazine, in media like CBS evening news, 60 minutes, and even Dailykos, imagine that.

I'm running because I'm fed up with the government mismanagement, the Bush administration's shameless pandering to war profiteers. I think they set out on a deliberate course to make this war good for the people who were their friends. And I want to try to hold them accountable when I'm in Congress. When I'm in Congress... the Bush administration's worst nightmare is going to be me with subpoena power because I know everything that they've done, and I'm going to hold them accountable for it.

Right on. Here's a guy who is no-nonsense, unabashed and a great conduit for American anger and frustration at the military contractor feeding frenzy. This ad is pretty awesome, too.



Put this guy on the Oversight Committee, give him a staff, wind him up and watch him go.

Between Merkley, Grayson, Garcia and a host of other reform-minded, tough progressive Democrats, I think we can actually vote our consciences this year, and donate to candidates who will defend our principles.

Lying With Impunity

It's amazing to me how much of conservative thought is based on outright lying. These aren't opinions that you could see both ways, just total lies.

On Fox & Friends, Mike Huckabee falsely asserted, "When Katrina, a Cat-5 hurricane, hit the Gulf Coast, not one drop of oil was spilled off of those rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico." In fact, according to a report prepared for the federal government by an international consulting firm, damages related to Hurricane Katrina resulted in 70 spills from outer continental shelf structures with a total volume of approximately 11,104 barrels of oil and petroleum products.

You could see the Katrina-caused oil spill from space. There's documentary evidence. Yet not only every conservative columnist, but the current governor of the state of Louisiana insists that no oil was spilled there.

Of a similar ilk is this myth that China is drilling off the coast of Cuba, which conservatives have been spouting for three weeks despite it being totally untrue.

This is important to understand. You have one political party whose entire worldview is shaped by lies. You have another political party that is oftentimes too timid to call the lies for what they are. And you have a media completely unwilling to play referee.

If nothing changes, you literally have a country's citizens unable to get the truth.

Party Like It's 2001

Where'd all this anti-China rhetoric on the far right come from all of a sudden? First a couple of GoOPers claim that their computers were hacked by the Chinese, and now Fourthbranch Cheney is working everyone up with claims that the Chinese are drilling oil off the Cuban coast - which is not true.

To gin up support for off-shore drilling, the Right has an ace up its rhetorical sleeve: the Chinese in Cuba. Here's Vice President Cheney.

"[O]il is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We're not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government... Even the communists have figured out that a good answer to high prices is more supply. Yet Congress has said... no to drilling off Florida.''

"Even the communists" is a nice flourish. Mix the red scare with the yellow scare and get Uncle Dick's own Orange Scare. Guaranteed to freak out Americans concerned about their energy security [...]

Problem is, that's all false. Like, completely false. China is not currently drilling off the shores of Cuba; in fact, it doesn't even have a off shore drilling contract. What is does have is a permit to drill on Cuban land. "China is not drilling in Cuba's Gulf of Mexico waters, period,'' Jorge Piñon, an energy expert at the University of Miami's Center for Hemispheric Policy, told the Miami Herald. In fact, it is not yet drilling on Cuban land, either.

Even former RNC Chair Mel Martinez shot back against this particular rumor.

Yet no one can prove that the Chinese are drilling anywhere off Cuba's shoreline. The China-Cuba connection is "akin to urban legend," said Sen. Mel Martinez, a Republican from Florida who opposes drilling off the coast of his state but who backs exploration in ANWR.

This is what's known as a "zombie lie." Now that's it's out in the ether, Republicans will assert it over and over again without proof, to both prove that more drilling and exploration is needed and to stoke xenophobic fears about the Chinese. When George Bush was coming into office the PNAC crowd began a deliberate search for a new enemy, and until 9/11 China was seen as the consensus choice.

That's what this is about. Republicans have to have a foreign enemy to channel their energies. I guess the Iranians and Al Qaeda aren't that special anymore.

Appeasers!

Israel is negotiating with Syria.

After eight years of stalemate and periodic tension, Israel and Syria announced Wednesday that they have launched “serious and continuous” indirect peace talks aimed at ending one of the region’s longest-running disputes.

In identical statements issued from Damascus and Jerusalem, the rival neighbors said that they are taking part in indirect negotiations with Turkish diplomats serving as mediators.

“The two sides stated their intention to conduct these talks in good faith and with an open mind,” according to the statement. “They decided to pursue the dialogue between them in a serious and continuous way, in order to achieve the goal of comprehensive peace.”

If successful, the talks could lead to a broader shift in regional dynamics by returning the Golan Heights to Syria, cutting off critical support for Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, and diminishing the influence of Iran in the region.

Yes, apparently talking to enemies can do all of that. Syria has always been the wild-card in the Middle East, wanting to get out from the shadow of Iran and assert themselves independently, and also rationally believing that the return of the Golan Heights is a satisfactory trade for ending the cycle of violence. Israel doesn't need additional enemies and wants to stop the flow of materials to Hezbollah. So both sides are acting in their own interests to forge a compromise.

That's called diplomacy. And it may be a foreign concept to George Bush and John McCain, but it's certainly not inside Israel, where the range of attitudes about negotiation are far broader than what you would expect if you've been fed on a steady diet of articles from Commentary and Fox News.

There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada. But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)

This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left.

And the best way to bring about the birth of a Palestinian state is to reverse — not merely halt, but reverse — the West Bank settlement project. The dismantling of settlements is the one step that would buttress the dwindling band of Palestinian moderates in their struggle against the fundamentalists of Hamas.

The myopia in the neoconservative community when it comes to Israel is so destructive to that nation's survival. A binational Arab-Israeli state is untenable. A moderate Palestinian state in the West Bank is the only viable solution. And ending the settlement project is the only path to peace, along with a negotiated settlement on a two-state solution.

This type of negotiation is treachery in the neocon circles. But the track record for their worldview is grim.

The United States really only has two experiences with a sustained effort at the Bush/McCain approach to diplomacy. One would be our effort to deny recognition to Communist China during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. This, it's generally acknowledged, was a strategic fiasco that denied us the opportunity to gain leverage vis-à-vis the Soviet Union [...] The other is our fifty year effort to starve the people of Cuba into rebelling against Fidel Castro. McCain actually defends continuing this policy, but everyone with a functioning brain understands that it's been a ludicrous failure. So that's the path Bush has been taking with Syria and Iran and used to take with North Korea. McCain wants to keep on taking it, put North Korea back under the interdict, and perhaps add Russia to the disfavored list. Like McCain's apparent belief that it would be better if we'd spent another decade or two fighting in Vietnam, it really calls into question whether he has any understanding of what he's talking about.

Of course, it's easier to shout words divorced from their meaning like "appeasement!" and run against Democrats by saying they will ruin society and give in to terrorists. That used to be a decent political strategy, but as a fundamental policy doctrine it's disastrous and the consequences are grave.

P.S. Lebanon's government has made some sort of deal with Hezbollah. More appeasers.

Bush's Terrorist Has a Coming-Out Party

Luis Posada Carriles, an admitted terrorist wanted for crimes in Latin America, had a nice dinner the other night.

...the man being honored by 500 fellow Cuban Americans at a sold-out gala was Luis Posada Carriles, the former CIA operative wanted in Venezuela on terrorism charges and under a deportation order for illegally entering the United States three years ago [...]

Venezuela's ambassador in Washington, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, condemned the celebration of Posada as a mockery of justice and evidence of a Bush administration double standard in fighting terrorism.

"This is outrageous, particularly because he kept talking about violence," Alvarez said of Posada. "He said that the whole thing now is 'to sharpen our machetes' " for a confrontation with leftist regimes in Latin America.

The U.S. government has never given Venezuela a formal answer to its 3-year-old request for extradition of Posada, despite a treaty providing for such cooperation that has been in effect since 1922, the ambassador said.

Posada, a naturalized Venezuelan citizen, is alleged to have masterminded the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 on which all 73 on board were killed, including a youth fencing team returning from a tournament in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas. He is also suspected of plotting a series of hotel bombings in Havana in the late 1990s, one of which killed an Italian tourist.

He has boasted of his many attempts to kill Castro and has allegedly been involved in, according to court documents, "some of the most infamous events of 20th century Central American politics." [...]

Analysts speculate that the U.S. government has dodged calls for prosecution of Posada for fear he would disclose details of CIA involvement in coups, assassination plots and scandals, including the Iran-Contra Affair.

Peter Kornbluh, head of the Cuba Documentation Project at George Washington University's National Security Archive, has compiled declassified CIA and FBI documents on Posada that show he remained in close touch with Washington handlers throughout his covert service.

"The spectacle of a wanted international terrorist being publicly feted as a hero in Miami makes a mockery of the Bush administration's commitment to wage a war on terrorism," he said of Posada's coming-out party.

I seem to remember a speech wherein the President averred that "we will make no distinction between terrorists and the states who harbor them."

Hm.

Let the bombing of Miami commence!

More on Posada Carriles from the archives. He was a CIA operative, by the way, involved in all of these plots to overthrow governments and assassinate sovereign leaders, when a guy by the name of George Bush was CIA Director. In fact, the Cuban airliner bombing was carried out with full knowledge of the CIA, while it was under the auspices of Mr. Bush.

FL-25: Proving His Thesis

So Joe Garcia, a House candidate in South Florida who I really like, produced his first ad of the year hitting Mario Diaz-Balart for focusing solely on anti-Castro rhetoric and Cuba policy at the expense of everything else.



In response, Diaz-Balart... accuses Garcia of taking money from Castro.

And this is where it gets ridiculous: Mario Diaz-Balart's campaign has coupled this release with a whisper campaign that says we're taking donations from the Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro regimes. In the past few days, our campaign has received numerous calls about this.

They're claiming it's coming in the form of contributions lower than $200, which no campaign is required to report the provenance or identity of.

Still, it's pretty amusing that Diaz-Balart's response proves Garcia's point, no?

This is going to be a race to watch.

Strains of Peace

This hope thing may be catching. Kofi Annan managed to broker a deal in Kenya between the two political factions after a disputed election erupted into violence. The two sides agreed to share power in a unity government. Let this put to rest the familiar bleating on the right about the fecklessness of the UN or its surrogates like Annan. Conflict resolution is, in fact, a positive development.

In a development that is perhaps MORE positive, 24 Senators on the Finance Committee have written to the Secretary of State, asking for a reassessment of US-Cuba policy.

Our current policy of isolation and estrangement has failed.  Cuba's political system is stable after five decades of American efforts to force change on the island.  New laws that tightened sanctions in 1992 and 1996 have had no effect. The administration's 2004 sanctions and its comprehensive plan to bring about transition in Cuba have failed in their objective.  The absence of Fidel Castro for 20 months has not led to a change in the system.

Instead, our current policy deprives the United States of influence in Cuba, including the opportunity to promote principles that advance democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.  By restricting the ability of Americans to travel freely to Cuba, we limit contact and communication on the part of families, civil society, and government.  Likewise, by restricting the ability of our farmers, ranchers, and businesses to trade with Cuba, the United States has made itself irrelevant in Cuba's growing economy, allowing Cuba to build economic partnerships elsewhere.

There is no magic U.S. policy that will transform Cuba.  But with Cuba facing a period of change, we have a new opportunity to seize.  Our policy based on sanctions, passivity, and waiting should end.  We need a new approach that defends human rights, is confident about the value of American engagement with Cubans, builds new economic bridges between America and Cuba, and seeks every possible avenue of increasing American influence.

We urge you to take a fresh look at our policy toward Cuba.  We should seize upon Castro's long-awaited and welcome departure to chart a new course that favors hope and engagement over isolation and estrangement.

I think that when you see a political campaign run the way that Barack Obama has run it, and how successful it has become, and how it's built such a movement for change, politicians, which generally follow the herd, TAKE NOTICE. Strong advocacy against the current Cuba policy makes perfect sense. We are not fighting the Cold War anymore, and constructive engagement has continually led to democratization. I'm not saying that the answer to all of our worries in the world is to send in the New York Philharmonic, but clearly isolating and alienating an island 90 miles from Florida for the last 50 years has done nothing. It's good to see a bipartisan commitment to fixing this error.

The Value Of Leadership

Turning to a positive portrait of the candidates after that bit of negativity, it struck me that a couple of the newer themes that both candidates used on Thursday night at the debate have the potential to move the national conversation on those matters.

Hillary Clinton talked very strongly about eliminating the pre-existing condition requirement from the health insurance industry, in a new way. She said, "how is it unconstitutional for us to discriminate against Americans on the basis of race, sex or gender, but it's OK to discriminate against the sick?" I had never heard it put in those terms before, but it's surely a lot more powerful than the wonky term "guaranteed issue." Sure enough, Rep. Steve Kagen, (D-WI), himself a doctor, is sponsoring a bill called the "No Discrimination in Health Insurance Act."

This essential legislation will guarantee access to affordable care for every citizen in America by bringing an end to discriminatory practices employed by insurance companies who deny life-saving coverage to millions of Americans solely because of their pre-existing medical conditions.

The grim reality is our Constitution does protect you against discrimination, until you become ill. Well, my legislation puts discrimination where it belongs -- in the past.

Ending all forms of discrimination is essential, but it's also time we pull back the veil of secrecy and inject transparency into our health care marketplace. Shouldn't health insurance companies be made to openly disclose all their prices, so everyone sees the lowest price for insurance policies? Like prices for gas at the corner service station or food prices in your closest grocery store, every citizen should have the equal opportunity to pay the same price for the same product. It's called competition -- a uniquely American concept.

Go to your favorite restaurant and you'll find a simple solution for solving our health care crisis. They'll hand you a menu with a list of prices before you order.

This is just common sense, and when framed this way it's very hard to refute other than falling back on some kind of "socialized medicine" nonsense. Recission, the practice of retroactively cancelling policyholders, is not something that has a constituency. The $9 million dollar award to a female cancer patient who suffered from recission may put an end to the policy all by itself. But framing this as a rights and discrimination issue is absolutely the way to go. And Clinton's leadership in putting that perspective on display at the highest level makes it easier for people like Kagen to put forward this bill. For his part, a central part of Obama's health care plan, allowing children up to the age of 25 to be covered on their parent's plan, is being picked up by a number of different states.

In addition, Obama showed some leadership in boldly stating what we all know about Cuba policy.

And it's absolutely true that I think our policy has been a failure. I mean, the fact is, is that during my entire lifetime, and Senator Clinton's entire lifetime, you essentially have seen a Cuba that has been isolated, but has not made progress when it comes to the issues of political rights and personal freedoms that are so important to the people of Cuba.

Donna Edwards was on Hardball this week and basically said the same thing.

If there's anything to be gained by this slightly extended primary season, it's that liberal and progressive ideas will be pushed more and more into the mainstream as the media focuses on Sens. Clinton and Obama. I'm worried that will come to an end in a series of divisive attacks at the debate on Tuesday. But so far, the net effect has been positive. And considering that negative attacks have become progressively less effective throughout this campaign season, I think that dynamic will remain.