Granma North (New York Times) continues its crusade to bolster Castro regime

super_castro_bros_tshirt-rf9e3da4734d9433695b4b006765c8334_8nhma_324

Here they go again, those Castro-loving wisenheimers at Granma North.

Not satisfied with everything they’ve done up to now on behalf of the Castro regime, the New York Times is once again publishing opinion pieces in support of the regime’s agenda.

Of course, what they are trying to do now is to sway votes in the legislative branch of the federal government, the last remaining obstacle to a full lifting of the so-called embargo.

This time around they found a Cuban exile who has undergone an Obamanoid/Castronoid conversion experience and changed his thinking from the  “hard-line” troglodyte pro-sanctions position to a new “enlightened” and “pragmatic” anti-sanctions position.

The NYT regularly searches for individuals of this sort in the Cuban exile community.  Once they spot someone with name recognition who might possibly back their pro-Castro agenda, they contact that person and  suggest the topic for an op-ed essay.

If the well-known exile agrees to write what the NYT wants written, the op-ed gets published.  If the exile contacted expresses a desire to voice the opposing view, or simply to speak his/her own mind freely, the NYT slams the door shut to any such uppity noble savage.

I know this because it happened to me.

Here’s a snippet of today’s revolting sellout piece, which proposes that “real” Republicans should forget about justice,  human rights, and national security and back the new Cuba policy of the current occupant of the White House.

The NYT very carefully identifies the author as “a former chief executive of Kellogg and secretary of commerce”  who is now “co-chairman of the Albright Stonebridge Group“.

The author himself makes sure to mention that he worked for the George W. Bush administration.

Carlos M. Gutierrez

A Republican Case for Obama’s Cuba Policy
By Carlos M. Gutierrez,  JUNE 23, 2015

Like many fellow Republicans and Cuban-Americans, I was critical when President Obama announced in December 2014 that his administration would begin to normalize ties between the United States and Cuba. After years of hostility and failed attempts at détente, I wondered: Did the Cuban government really want better ties with America, or was this simply another chess move in a tired game? After all, Mr. Obama is not the first president to try to change the relationship with Cuba — Mr. Castro’s revolution has outlived 10 American administrations.

Today, I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in 56 years. I see a glimmer of hope that, with Cuba allowing even a small amount of entrepreneurship and many American companies excited about entering a new market, we can actually help the Cuban people.

My 30-year career at the Kellogg Company taught me that, at its best, business can have a transformational and uplifting impact on communities and whole societies. It is because of that belief that I have always been proud to call myself a Republican.

As secretary of commerce in the administration of George W. Bush, I was a voice for American business abroad and saw firsthand that our private sector could be the best ambassador for American values, such as the power of free enterprise to raise living standards and the importance of being free to work where one chooses.

I believe that it is now time for Republicans and the wider American business community to stop fixating on the past and embrace a new approach to Cuba.

If your head has not exploded yet,  you can read the whole essay HERE.

RAUL CASTRO SINGAOOOO

8 thoughts on “Granma North (New York Times) continues its crusade to bolster Castro regime”

  1. But of course. Such a type can always be found, especially by the NYT. His effete face reminds me of Carlos Prío, “el presidente cordial,” whose weakness and obtuseness were a disaster for Cuba (he put up no resistance to Batista’s coup and later materially helped Fidel with what was then serious money). Well, this is the sort of politician that helped sink Cuba in the first place, so there’s no lack of precedent–and what’s one more disgrace, when there have been SO many?

  2. What is truly alarming is the number of Cuban-American VIPs that have stood behind Obama’s complete capitulation to the dictatorship. Important people like the Fanjuls, the Argentine born Cuban Jorge E. Perez who is one of the richest men in Argentina, and sundry other Miami millionaires whose names now escape me. To this add Gutierrez. I can’t help but think that it all of these very influential and important Cuban Americans had put up a strong front to Obama, it would at the very least been a lot more difficult for the POTUS to so savagely betray Cuba. We are our own worst enemies as Carlos M. Gutierrez has so disappointingly proved. We have to stop blaming others. This nightmare should never have lasted 56 years. But when you have such an effectual foe, its not so hard to win battle after battle which is what castro has done with us.

  3. Alas, Ray, this is an old story with Cubans, who all too often “quieren estar con los de arriba” or “quieren estar en onda.” In other words, the disgustingly familiar fashion victimhood and/or opportunism. Remember, although José Martí was a paragon of “decoro” or dignity, he was also the least typical of Cubans (not to say frankly abnormal, strictly speaking).

  4. There’s a double-whammy of indignity in this case. It’s bad enough that this guy is backing Obama’s dreadful Cuba policy–but then again, so is the pope. However, on top of that, he’s playing into the hands of the execrable New York Times and, in effect, supporting its very old, well-known and highly perverse Cuba agenda. To any decent Cuban, even the appearance of collusion with the NYT should be abhorrent, an absolute no-go zone, something unequivocally and very seriously disreputable. On anything Cuba-related, one does NOT play footsie with the outfit responsible for Herbert Matthews–ever. You’ve heard of anti-matter? For a Cuban, collaborating with the NYT this way is anti-honor, and such a person should be seen and treated accordingly. Yes, Gutiérrez is ultimately small potatoes, and the NYT would hardly deign to notice him if it couldn’t use him, but he’s making himself useful, regardless of his intentions, and that’s detestable.

  5. Asombra, you are absolutely right. The NYT’s should be anathema to Cubans. As Reinaldo Arenas said, never has a country produced as many scoundrels as Cuba.

  6. And Carlos, the NYT miscalculated in your case, but it approached you cautiously enough, meaning it knew you might well not deliver the goods it wanted. More often than not, and probably in the great majority of cases, when the NYT comes calling, people play ball. You happen to be an outlier, something I’m tolerably familiar with myself, so of course your op-ed piece was not used, because you would not let yourself be used.

    I’m reminded of the playwright, poet and novelist Virgilio Piñera, a major Cuban literary figure, who was never overtly anti-Castro and, despite being rather obviously homosexual, fared well enough under the distinctly homophobic “revolution” during its first decade. However, he was also never overtly pro-Castro, and since he wouldn’t put out, so to speak, the regime lost its patience and “tolerance,” making the last years of his life (he died in 1979) very miserable indeed. Periodically, regime agents would “visit” him at home and essentially terrorize the by-then broken man, who’d wind up in tears and promise to “do better.” Thing is, he never did–he never prostituted his work to become a Castro propagandist. But again, he was an outlier. There were plenty of others who played ball, and then some.

  7. Our Carlos’ publishers must have been AGHAST!…”Whaddaya mean flipping off the New York Times, Carlos! NOBODY DOES THAT!!!…Think of the book promotion you blew!!!”

  8. Yes, Humberto. The NYT knew Carlos was iffy, but he was a Yale professor who’d written a prize-winning book and was likely to keep writing, so it figured he could well “compromise” out of self-interest (and it clearly signaled the slant it wanted in the op-ed piece to make sure he “got the picture”). The idea, of course, is to get the most respectable and convincing Cuban possible to do your dirty work for you, which is why it went for Gutiérrez as opposed to, say, Saladrigas–the latter would have certainly obliged, but he wasn’t the head of a big-name corporation like Kellogg and he wasn’t Secretary of Commerce under Bush. The Miami Herald, of course, has been pulling this shit for years, only with nickel-and-dime players, but the principle is the same.

Comments are closed.