She literally called for an end to the embargo. It's ridiculous to portray a statement expressly opposed to our policy towards Cuba as supportive of our policy towards Cuba.
Textually, the argument that she's making is a left wing one, but by making 'concessions' to state department talking points, she's muddying left wing arguments and strengthening right wing ones, and doing more harm than good.
Saying the embargo should end is great, but when you just finished giving statements that are going to get americans bloodthirsty for regime change, pulling a 180 like that isn't going to work. It either leads people to think we need to do regime change through other methods, or like I said, makes people think that leftists actually want regime change, but don't have the stomach for it.
I partly agree with you. The thing I don't exactly agree is, she didn't have to use regime change arguments. She could have stated how the people are suffering and how lifting the sanctions could ease the suffering. She does that thing where she explains herself before even being under attack
I can imagine a better statement, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who has to operate in an environment where she's the only sitting congressperson (and probably the only congressperson in decades) to call for the end to the embargo. A politician who openly said the consensus opinion of this place would never get any measure of political power. Do we want to have any power, or do we want to be on the sidelines patting each other on the back about how perfect our takes are?
The bottom line is she suggested something that's far to the left of any national politician on this issue, and that's the #1 thing the U.S. could do to end its imperialism towards Cuba. This place is slipping into dead-end ultraleft territory if our collective response is that this makes her worse in our eyes, not better.
She literally called for an end to the embargo. It's ridiculous to portray a statement expressly opposed to our policy towards Cuba as supportive of our policy towards Cuba.
Textually, the argument that she's making is a left wing one, but by making 'concessions' to state department talking points, she's muddying left wing arguments and strengthening right wing ones, and doing more harm than good.
Saying the embargo should end is great, but when you just finished giving statements that are going to get americans bloodthirsty for regime change, pulling a 180 like that isn't going to work. It either leads people to think we need to do regime change through other methods, or like I said, makes people think that leftists actually want regime change, but don't have the stomach for it.
I partly agree with you. The thing I don't exactly agree is, she didn't have to use regime change arguments. She could have stated how the people are suffering and how lifting the sanctions could ease the suffering. She does that thing where she explains herself before even being under attack
I can imagine a better statement, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the person who has to operate in an environment where she's the only sitting congressperson (and probably the only congressperson in decades) to call for the end to the embargo. A politician who openly said the consensus opinion of this place would never get any measure of political power. Do we want to have any power, or do we want to be on the sidelines patting each other on the back about how perfect our takes are?
The bottom line is she suggested something that's far to the left of any national politician on this issue, and that's the #1 thing the U.S. could do to end its imperialism towards Cuba. This place is slipping into dead-end ultraleft territory if our collective response is that this makes her worse in our eyes, not better.