The McPot Calls the Kettle Black

Miami Florida - Univision Debate. Senator John McCain has a chuckle at the boos Representative Ron Paul receives over this question.

MODERATOR: It's the presidential forum, the Republican one.
We're going to talk about something else. Now we're going to talk
about Latin America. A week ago, exactly a week ago, Venezuela
rejected changes to the constitution, but the president, Hugo
Chavez...
(APPLAUSE)
President Hugo Chavez has insisted that he's going to propose
them again. Many consider him a threat to democracy in the region.
If you were elected president, how would you deal with Chavez? Let's
start with Congressman John Paul -- Ron Paul, sorry.
PAUL: Well, he's not the easiest person to deal with, but we
should deal with everybody around the world the same way: with
friendship and opportunity to talk and try to trade with people.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
PAUL: We talked to -- we talked to Stalin, we talked to
Khrushchev, we've talked to Mao, and we've talked to the world, and we
get along with people.
PAUL: Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to
talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
(APPLAUSE)
But let me -- let me tell you -- let me tell you why -- let me
tell you why we have a problem in South America and Central America:
because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We
have been meddling in their business.
(APPLAUSE)
We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the
world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries, and they
respond by throwing out their leader.
(AUDIENCE BOOING)
(APPLAUSE)
MODERATOR: Thank you, Congressman.

here is the unedited transaction in spanish.

There are two distinct points of interest in this brief excerpt. First, as Rolling Stone has pointed out , Ron Paul has a lot of heart. This question could easily be seen as a softball for the Republican nominees as it's an opportunity to flex ones political wills at the ubiquitous boogy men of the hispanic community(Hugo Chavez and The Castro brothers). This is specifically true in the heavy concentration of first and second generation Cuban expats of Miami Florida.

Predictably the other candidates responses ranged from Giuliani's "I actually agree with the way King Juan Carlos spoke
to Chavez("Por que no te callas?" "Why don't you shut up?") to Thompson's overture to assassination, when asked
"When talking about Cuba, Cuban dictatorship has survived nine U.S. presidents. What would you do differently, that has not been
done so far, to bring democracy to Cuba?", he responded, "I'm going to make sure that he didn't survive 10 U.S.
presidents."

Senator McCain began with a bit of name dropping, "I'm pleased to have the support of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Mario and
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, who advise me and know these issues, and Mel Martinez, every day. My friends, tonight our thoughts and prayers go
out to Dr. Bucet (ph), who fights for freedom, who is now in prison, because Dr. Bucet (ph) resisted and fought against a state-controlled
and state-mandated abortion.", after doing due diligence of dropping every hispanic name in his mental rolodex Senator McCain got to the meat of his answer.

"Of course we need to keep our embargo up. Of course we cannot
allow economic aid to flow to Cuba. And if I were president of the
United States, I would order an investigation of the shoot-down of
those brave Cubans who were killed under the orders of Raul and Fidel
Castro, and, if necessary, indict them."

Each candidate is certainly entitled to their own opinions on this or any issue, but Senator McCain in a previous debate chastised Representative Paul on a seemingly similar issue. Said McCain,

"I just want to also say that Congressman Paul, I've heard him now in many debates talk about bringing our troops home, and about the war in Iraq and how it's failed. And I want to tell you that that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed...We allowed ... We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement."

Now any frequent user of the internet could at this point invoke Godwin's Law and immediately declare Senator McCain the debate loser, but what is most interesting is the apparent disconnect in applying one's philosophy to these similar issues.

If "that that kind of isolationism... allowed Hitler to come to power..." is McCain's "kind of isolationism" the answer for Castro? Perhaps the distinction is one of government, and beyond the comprehension of the layman. Let us examine our relationship with another communist regime, although this one a bit more than 90 miles from our borders. Let's look at China.

China, unlike Cuba, has received Most favored nation trade status, however, given Senator McCain's principled disdain of trading with communal governments we can be assured that he fought this status tooth and nail. However, the briefest of research tells a different tale.

Senator McCain's record shows that he has always voted in favor of most favored nation trade status with China, and Vietnam. Heres the McCain of October bashing the McCain of December:

"I'm a student of history. Every time the United States has become protectionist and listened to the siren song that you're hearing partially on this stage tonight, we've paid a very heavy price. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Acts in the 1930s were direct contributors to World War II. It sounds like a lot of fun to bash China and others, but free trade has been the engine of our economy. Free trade should be the continuing principle that guides this nation's economy.
Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007"

More McCain chasting himself:

I don’t believe in walls. I believe in freedom. If I were President, I would negotiate a free trade agreement with almost any country willing to negotiate fairly with us. Only risks to the security of our vital interests or egregious offenses to our most cherished political values should disqualify a nation from entering into a free trade agreement with us.
Source: Speech to National Press Club, 5/20/99 May 20, 1999

So which is it Senator McCain? Appeasement or engagement? If tarriffs and trade embargo's propelled Hitler into power and "helped cause World War II" then why is it so important that we "keep the trade embargo up" this time? One begins to wonder if the Senator bothers to examine his own positions for consistency.

If you believe in the principle of free trade, and also believe that engaging other nations in trade has a reformative effect, how could you possibly support a trade embargo with a country 90 miles from our coast? If you support freely trading with a country that is the only communist superpower, has forced abortions, and a rampart slavery trade, yet this somehow doesn't qualify as a "egregious offense to our most cherished political values". How then to square an embargo of an island slightly smaller than Pennsylvania?

The reality is there is no answer forthcoming. Senator McCain's position is one of expedience, with no philosophical fortitude. Free marketeers understand that competition breeds not only innovation but reform. So we must respect Senator McCain's right to both make a parody of his own political position, and chuckle in the face of a more consistent philosophy being delivered to a hostile crowd. One must respect his right but not his lack of reason.