You are on page 1of 3

Embargo is essential to Cuban democracy prefer our data theirs is

generic to the globe our evidence is in the context of the Cuban


government
Fitzgerald 13 (Democracy Advocates Urge Obama to Keep Cuban Trade Ban Friday, 05 Jul 2013 10:23 AM By Sandy Fitzgerald
http://www.newsmax.com/us/cuba-embargo-democracy-farinas/2013/07/05/id/513503#ixzz2Z9O8XIvH nkj)

The trade embargo on Cuba must stay to starve Havana's communist government of
cash, pro-democracy activists have told the State Department. A steady flow of cash
into Castro's government could help it crush the island's pro-democracy efforts,
warned Cuban hunger striker Guillermo Farinas who met behind closed doors with Obama administration
officials in Washington. The Obama administration has yet to comment about the meetings, which included one with Farinas at Foggy Bottom in late June,
reports the Washington Times. The meetings were described as "extraordinary and very helpful by
Mauricio Claver Carone, executive director of the U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC in Washington. "[U.S. policymakers] now get to actually
see it and feel it firsthand from the protagonists themselves, he said. U.S. and Cuban officials in June held a
landmark meeting to discuss re-establishing direct mail between the countries, and plan a July 17 meeting to talk about migration regulations. Castro, 82, who replaced
his older brother, Fidel, has allowed some reforms since he took over in 2008, including easing travel bans. He plans to step down in 2018, when his second five-year
term in office ends. The United States has been in a stalemate with Cuba since 1961, when the elder Castro agreed to allow the former Soviet Union to house ballistic
weapons in Cuba. Even though Fidel Castro has not been in office for several years, Cuba is still on Washington's terrorism sponsors list. In addition, Cuba is still
detaining American Alan Gross, who was arrested in 2009 while in Cuba working for an International Development-funded program. Cuban authorities sentenced
Gross to 15 years in prison for illegally delivering satellite phones to Jewish Cubans. The Washington meetings suggest a thaw in the two countries' relationships, a
change that some U.S. lawmakers particularly Cuban-American Republicans criticize. Florida GOP Rep. Ileana Ros-Lethinen said Thursday that she and other
Cuban-American lawmakers met with the democracy advocates, and she remains skeptical about changes and believes the embargo needs to
continue until "Cuba becomes a free and democratic society."

Err on the side of caution the probability of conflict has risen
Kearn 1/19/14 (David, Assistant Prof at St. John's University, The Folly of New Iran Sanctions,
The Huffington Post)
The timing of the legislation is curious because of the delicate nature of the negotiations and
the ongoing diplomacy between the United States and its partners and Iran. Hardliners on all
sides are skeptical of any deals, but unlike past negotiations, the stakes this time seem much
higher. Well-meaning intentions aside, any legislation that precipitates an Iranian walkout and
a collapse of the negotiations will likely be viewed by friends and adversaries alike as a major
failure by the United States. However, unlike past instances, the probability of war has
significantly increased.
PC key to switching votes Kuttner looks at broad data in the context of Obama
Kuttner 11 (Robert, Senior Fellow Demos and Co-editor American Prospect, Barack
Obama's Theory of Power, The American Prospect, 5-16,
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power)
As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his classic work, Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President
John F. Kennedy, the essence of a president's power is "the power to persuade." Because our divided constitutional
system does not allow the president to lead by commanding, presidents amass power by making strategic choices about
when to use the latent authority of the presidency to move public and elite opinion and then
use that added prestige as clout to move Congress. In one of Neustadt's classic case studies, Harry Truman, a president widely
considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad public and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns
both observed, though an American chief executive is weak by constitutional design, a president
possesses several points of leverage. He can play an effective outside game, motivating and
shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values and those of his
opposition, and using popular support to box in his opponents and move them in his direction.
He can complement the outside bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative
party, bestowing or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take
awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest groups to
pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of choices. Done well, all of this
signals leadership that often moves the public agenda.
Presidents perceive their capital as finite our theory is true in practice
Marshall & Prins, Poli Sci Profs, 11 (September 2011, Bryan W. Marshall --- associate professor of political science at
Miami University, Brandon C. Prins --- associate professor of political science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Presidential Studies Quarterly,
Power or Posturing? Policy Availability and Congressional Influence on U.S. Presidential Decisions to Use Force)

We argue that the more important effect of Congress occurs because presidents anticipate how the use of force may
affect the larger congressional environment in which they inevitably have to operate (Brul, Marshall, and Prins 2010). It may
be true that presidents consider the chances that Congress will react to a specific use of force with countervailing tools, but even more importantly
they anticipate the likelihood that a foreign conflict may damage (or advantage) their political fortunes elsewherein essence, the presidential calculus
to use force factors in how such actions might shape their ability to achieve legislative priorities. To be clear, presidents can and do
choose to use force and press for legislative initiatives in Congress. Taking unilateral actions in foreign policy
does not preclude the president from working the legislative process on Capitol Hill. However, political capital is finite so
spending resources in one area lessens what the president can bring to bear in other areas.
That is, presidents consider the congressional environment in their decision to use force
because their success at promoting policy change in either foreign or domestic affairs is largely
determined by their relationship with Congress. Presidents do not make such decisions devoid of calculations regarding
congressional preferences and behavior or how such decisions may influence their ability to achieve legislative objectives. This is true in large part
because presidential behavior is motivated by multiple goals that are intimately tied to Congress. Presidents place a premium on
passing legislative initiatives. The passage of policy is integral to their goals of reelection and enhancing their place in history (Canes-
Wrone 2001; Moe 1985). Therefore, presidents seek to build and protect their relationship with Congress.
PC theory true for Obama- empirics
Color Lines, 10-14-2011
http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/10/is_president_obamas_jobs_drumbeat_working.ht
ml

But what Obamas new insistence on a jobs agenda proves is this: the presidency is, in fact, a
powerful bully pulpit. No, he cant just wave a magic wand and pass bills . No one credible
has ever argued that. What he can do is use the substantial power of his office to bully Congress
into action, or at least into focusing on the right problem. The first step in doing so is, as the
president has said, taking the discussion to the voters. Every time a president speaks, its news. So he controls the
news cycle every day, if he so chooses, and if he talks about jobs every day, thats what well all
be talking about. The second step is negotiating from the place of strength that this rhetorical
bullying creates. And we will all desperately need that strength when the deficit-reduction process reaches its grim
climax this winter. So lets hope Marshall is onto something when he says we might be at a turning point in Washington.

Also- studies prove the theory of political capital
Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). Policy Priorities and Presidential Success in Congress.
Conference Papers -- American Political Science Association, 1-26. Retrieved from Political
Science Complete database.

Presidential-congressional relations are a central topic in the scientific study of politics. The literature is clear that a handful
of variables strongly influence the likelihood of presidential success on legislation. Of these variables, party
control of Congress is most important (Bond and Fleisher 1990), in that conditions of unified
government increase, while conditions of divided government decrease presidential
success, all else equal. The presidents approval ratings (Edwards 1989) and a favorable honeymoon (Dominguez
2005) period may also increase presidential success on legislation. In addition, presidential speeches that reference policies
or roll-call votes tend to increase the presidents legislative success rate (Barrett 2004; Canes-Wrone 2001; Eshbaugh-Soha
2006). In their landmark examination of presidential success in Congress, Bond and Fleisher
(1990, 230) identify yet another condition that may facilitate presidential success on
legislation when they write that the presidents greatest influence over policy comes from
the agenda he pursues and the way it is packaged. Moreover, the policies that the
president prioritizes have a major impact on the presidents relationship with Congress.
Taken together, these assertions strongly suggest that the policy content of the presidents
legislative agendawhat policies the president prioritizes before Congressshould be a
primary determinant of presidential success in Congress.
Empirics prove its not just question of capital - forcing votes on highly
a controversial item means they won't be willing to on others - accesses
structural factors and anticipated voter reaction warrants
Katherine Ling and Katie Howell, E&E reporters, 11-2-2010 Katherine Ling and Katie
Howell, E&E reporters

After Obama was inaugurated as president in 2009, House Democrats unleashed a formidable
agenda consisting of a two-month blitz to pass a $787 billion stimulus bill, which passed in February 2009; four months of
pushing the cap-and-trade climate bill, which passed in June 2009; and, finally, an eight-month slog to pass a financial
regulation reform bill in December 2009 and a health care reform bill in February 2010. But only the stimulus,
health care reform and financial regulation bills made it through the "wet cement" that
is the Senate, as Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has described it. After months of talks, Senate
negotiations on climate came to a standstill this summer as partisan bickering kept the
upper chamber from passing even the smallest of energy bills. Many lawmakers have
criticized House leadership for forcing them to take a hard vote on a cap-and-trade
bill without knowing whether Senate Democrats would also be able to take up and pass the bill. "I frankly don't think the
House gave it that much thought. I think they acted on what they thought was an important initiative at a time when the
perception was that the new president and the Democrats in Congress had a lot of momentum," said Leon Billings, a retired
lobbyist and former Democratic Senate staffer who helped write the Clean Air Act in 1970. "It was only later that the
leadership in the House began to realize ... that the Senate was going to become a cemetery rather than a maternity ward,"
Billings added. "It took awhile, way too long, for the Democrats in the House, Senate and White House to realize the magnitude
of the assault that was going to be launched by the radical right and even longer to realize that it was going to take a real toll
on the country." Frost also blasted Democrats' costly political oversight, saying the cap-and-trade vote was
"much harder" than health care.

You might also like