¡Juventud Rebelde elogia el pluripartidismo!

Cubanet

Por Miriam Celaya 

LA HABANA, Cuba, junio, www.cubanet.org -El pasado domingo, 16 de junio, el diario Juventud Rebelde publicó en su página 7 una nota titulada “Datos biográficos del Excmo. Sr. Manuel Pinto da Costa, Presidente de la República Democrática de Sao Tomé y Príncipe”, a propósito de la visita oficial que realizaba por esos días el referido mandatario africano.

Un cintillo como este no atrae la atención de los lectores cubanos, ajenos como somos a esa remota nación y a su historia,  por lo que el número de personas que se leyó dicha nota debe haber sido verdaderamente ínfimo. Sin embargo, aquellos que se decidieron a leerlo pudieron encontrar un contenido realmente inusitado, resumido en el séptimo párrafo de la nota, que refiriéndose al Sr. Pinto da Costa rezaba  así: “Jugó un papel fundamental en el proceso de transición del régimen monopartidista hacia el pluripartidismo, fundamentalmente a través de la Conferencia Nacional de 1989, hecho que marcó de forma inequívoca la transformación política del país, convirtiéndose en ejemplo para todos los países de África”. (Subrayados míos).

¿Se trata de un error del redactor, no detectado por los correctores ni por el responsable de la plana? ¿Acaso un desliz al copiar datos tomados de otra fuente? No parece posible.

En todo caso, no se trata de un simple cambio de palabra o de un gazapo ortográfico, sino de todo un mensaje argumental que contradice de un plumazo el rígido principio de unipartidismo como súmmun de equidad y justicia social que ha sostenido el gobierno totalitario en Cuba a lo largo de medio siglo. De tomar al pie de la letra la prensa oficial, podría decirse que estaríamos ante el reconocimiento de que el pluripartidismo se corresponde con una forma superior (democrática) del orden político, o –visto desde otro ángulo– la declaración velada de la imposibilidad de sostener el unipartidismo en medio de un mundo cada vez más plural y diverso.

Es absolutamente incongruente la referencia al multipartidismo como un logro, incluso como resultado de una transición que constituye un “ejemplo para todos los países de África”, en un país donde solo es legal un partido (dizque comunista) y en el cual se persigue y hostiga toda oposición política; donde el otrora jefe de Estado –cuyo nombre me niego a evocar– declaró abiertamente que el pluripartidismo era una “pluriporquería” y la Conferencia Nacional del PCC celebrada en 2011 ratificó el unipartidismo como fundamento de “nuestra democracia” (“modelo”, según el general-presidente).

No sería este el primer caso en que el gobierno contradice su propio discurso en la prensa sin que medie justificación o explicación alguna. Solo que en este ejemplo particular se trata de un elemento raigal del sistema, lo que inevitablemente lleva a otras consideraciones no reveladas por la prensa. Puede que no se trate solo de otro caso de exceso de cinismo, un mal chiste o una burla del responsable de esta plana del periódico. No sería creíble que entre las “reformas raulistas” se incluyera el pluripartidismo, salvo que los conspiradores verde olivo estén considerando oportuno fundar como parodia de “alternativa al PCC” un “Partido Socialista Unificado” al estilo chavezolano, un “Partido Revolucionario Martiano del siglo XXI” u otro engendro similar controlable desde la cúpula, con el objetivo de mostrar un rostro más “democrático” y así alcanzar la gracia de aceptación de la Unión Europea y el cese de la Posición Común, haciendo, de paso, un guiño a la Casa Blanca. No sería tan descabellado entonces el supuesto error periodístico.

Porque, aunque dicho así parezca irrelevante, no hay que olvidar el complejo escenario en que se está sosteniendo actualmente la autocracia en la búsqueda de su propia supervivencia. Por ejemplo, las transformaciones que se están produciendo a nivel microeconómico (cuentapropismo) son muy publicitadas en los medios, mientras que las obras del puerto de Mariel, encaminadas a una profunda renovación al nivel macroeconómico, avanzan sin mucha divulgación, lo que indica que tienen gran relevancia para el gobierno. Son precisamente estas últimas las que imprimirían una creciente urgencia del régimen a impulsar negociaciones con el gobierno de Estados Unidos, máximo receptor del movimiento comercial en este hemisferio y al que hasta hoy no pueden arribar los buques que hagan escala en un puerto cubano. ¿Acaso alguien se puede creer que los inversores brasileños empeñarían tanto capital solo para comerciar con el ALBA?

Hasta el momento, dado el habitual estilo críptico de la prensa oficial, todo queda en el incierto terreno de las especulaciones, pero por las dudas habrá que estar prevenidos contra las sorpresas. Pluripartidismo de maquillaje bien pudiera ser uno de los próximos ases ocultos bajo la manga ex guerrillera. Ya sabemos que en Cuba todo lo absurdo acaba siendo posible, pero absolutamente nada es fruto de la casualidad.

Eliécer Avila quiere fundar un [su] partido político

martinoticias/

El ingeniero informático Eliécer Ávila dijo en declaraciones exclusivas a Martí Noticias que está decidido a fundar un partido político cuando regrese a Cuba.

Ávila, residente  en Puerto Padre, Las Tunas, se convirtió en el primer disidente que sale de Cuba luego que el gobierno de la isla aprobara la reforma migratoria. El joven se encuentra realizando un extensa gira por los países europeos.

Desde Estocolmo, ciudad que visita en estos momentos destacó a Martí Noticias que regresará Cuba próximamente y que “como mismo el sueño de Yoani es hacer un periódico, el de él es “constituir una fuerza política”.

“Estoy estudiando muchísimo, estoy aprendiendo, estoy chocando,  estoy cometiendo errores, pero voy a sacar de todo esto un ser humano y un ciudadano mejor preparado para eso que será constituir una fuerza política... un partido", aclara el joven activista.

"Lo que siempre tengo en mi cabeza es un parlamento democrático", confiesa Eliecer. .

 Las declaraciones de Avila surgen luego que la bloguera y periodista cubana Yoani Sánchez dijera en una conferencia de prensa el pasado 10 de marzo en Puebla México, que planea fundar un medio de prensa en Cuba, aunque no sea permitido en la isla, porque “el muro se tira empujándolo de cara al mundo”.

Sánchez y Avila coincidieron en Praga, capital de la República Checa durante una gira que realizaban por diversos países de Europa y realizaron numerosas intervenciones en programas de radio, televisión  así como encuentros con universitarios donde tuvieron la oportunidad de analizar diversos tópicos de la realidad cubana.

Ávila se ha destacado en Cuba en los últimos tiempos por su labor en  proyectos independientes como Estado de SATS o el programa Un cubano +, en Youtube  que realiza con la colaboración de amigos residentes en la capital del país  debido a la dificultad que tiene para conectarse a Internet desde la localidad tunera.

Audio >>

KRAUTHAMMER: How to Save the Republican Party

FoxNews.com/ By Charles Krauthammer

davidbrin.com

WASHINGTON –  It has become conventional wisdom that Republicans are suffering an internal split that President Obama is successfully exploiting to neuter the Republican House. It is not true, however, that the Republican split is philosophical and fundamental. And that a hopelessly divided GOP is therefore headed for decline, perhaps irrelevance.
In fact, the split is tactical, not philosophical; short-term, not fundamental. And therefore quite solvable.

How do we know? Simple thought experiment: Imagine that we had a Republican president. Would the party be deeply divided over policy, at war with itself in Congress? Not at all. It would be rallying around something like the Paul Ryan budget that twice passed the House with near 100 percent GOP unanimity.

In reality, Republicans have a broad consensus on program and policy. But they don't have the power. What divides Republicans today is a straightforward tactical question: Can you govern from one house of Congress? Should you even try?

Can you shrink government, restrain spending, bring a modicum of fiscal sanity to the country when the president and a blocking Senate have no intention of doing so?

One faction feels committed to try. It wishes to carry out its small-government electoral promises and will cast no vote inconsistent with that philosophy. These are the House Republicans who voted no on the "fiscal cliff" deal because it raised taxes without touching spending. Indeed, it increased spending with its crazy-quilt crony-capitalist tax "credits" -- for wind power and other indulgences.

They were willing to risk the fiscal cliff. Today they are willing to risk a breach of the debt ceiling and even a government shutdown rather than collaborate with Obama's tax-and-spend second-term agenda.

The other view is that you cannot govern from the House. The reason Ryan and John Boehner finally voted yes on the lousy fiscal-cliff deal is that by then there was nowhere else to go. Republicans could not afford to bear the blame (however unfair) for a $4.5 trillion across-the-board tax hike and a Pentagon hollowed out by sequester.

The party establishment is coming around to the view that if you try to govern from one house -- e.g., force spending cuts with cliffhanging brinkmanship -- you lose. You not only don't get the cuts. You get the blame for rattled markets and economic uncertainty. You get humiliated by having to cave in the end. And you get opinion polls ranking you below head lice and colonoscopies in popularity.

There is history here. The Gingrich Revolution ran aground when it tried to govern from Congress, losing badly to President Clinton over government shutdowns. Nor did the modern insurgents do any better in the 2011 debt-ceiling and 2012 fiscal-cliff showdowns with Obama.

Obama's post-election arrogance and intransigence can put you in a fighting mood. I sympathize. But I'm tending toward the realist view: Don't force the issue when you don't have the power.

The debt-ceiling deadline is coming up. You can demand commensurate spending cuts, the usual, reasonable Republican offer. But you won't get them. Obama will hold out. And, at the eleventh hour, you will have to give in as you get universally blamed for market gyrations and threatened credit downgrades.

The more prudent course would be to find some offer that cannot be refused, a short-term trade-off utterly unassailable and straightforward. For example, offer to extend the debt ceiling through, say, May 1, in exchange for the Senate delivering a budget by that date -- after four years of lawlessly refusing to produce one.

Not much. But it would (a) highlight the Democrats' fiscal recklessness, (b) force Senate Democrats to make public their fiscal choices and (c) keep the debt ceiling alive as an ongoing pressure point for future incremental demands.

Go small and simple. Forget about forcing tax reform or entitlement cuts or anything major. If Obama wants to recklessly expand government, well, as he says, he won the election.
Republicans should simply block what they can. Further tax hikes, for example. The general rule is: From a single house of Congress you can resist but you cannot impose.
Aren't you failing the country, say the insurgents? Answer: The country chose Obama. He gets four years.

Want to save the Republic? Win the next election. Don't immolate yourself trying to save liberalism from itself. If your conservative philosophy is indeed right, winning will come. As Margaret Thatcher said serenely of the Labor Party socialists she later overthrew: "They always run out of other people's money."

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/republican-party/2013/01/18/krauthammer-how-save-republican-party?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation#ixzz2IMBThD6l

The Difference between Embracing Bipartisanship and Eschewing Obsessive Partisanship

atimeforchoosing

by whitneyz

The recently passed fiscal cliff deal was heralded by the media as a "bipartisan compromise".  Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein emphasized that the deal needed a "bipartisan basis". Republican Senator John Boozman called the bill a "bipartisan solution" that would "tackle the financial troubles are country is facing". The bill ultimately received a total of 125 Republicans and 219 Democrats between both the House and Senate. The bill indeed was bipartisan, but what was the price of bipartisanship? Eighty percent of the revenue from the bill will go to President Obama's cronies through incentives and subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office ultimately determined that the touted "balanced approach" really meant that there would be 10 dollars in tax increases for every dollar in spending cuts leading to an additional $4 trillion in deficits.Additionally, the payroll tax holiday expired as part of the deal. It is indeed arguable that the tax holiday shouldn't have existed in the first place, as the holiday could contribute to the insolvency of Social Security. However, allowing that tax holiday to expire while claiming that the deal didn't "raise" taxes is a disingenuous claim by politicians pretending to champions for the middle class while 77% of Americans see less money in their paycheck. In order to face the political reality of a looming, media declared fiscal cliff that would have meant deep across the board spending cuts and tax increases, Congress ignored the fiscal reality of our present and future to spend more... but bipartisanship!

The media has touted the bipartisanship of both President Obama and Governor Chris Christie in recent months as well. President Obama has chosen to appoint former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. Hagel supported Obama 2008 candidacy and has taken some stances on Iran and Israel that have made many leery of him as a Defense Secretary. Following the devastation of Hurricane Sandy, Governor Christie embraced and praised President Obama's response while more recently trashing Republicans for ultimately waiting a few days to pass a clean bill for Hurricane Sandy aid, rather than the pork laden bill that Christie preferred. Both of these politicians "sacrificed" in their bipartisanship--Obama his partisan stance for his policy stance and political friendship and Christie his party's purported conservative platform for his political advantage.

Abandoning a party platform (i.e. principle) for the sake of party happens often in politics. It's called obsessive partisanship. Congressman Paul Ryan joined in the aforementioned "bipartisanship" when he voted for the fiscal cliff deal, noting that he "had the guts to vote for it" and that allowing this plan to pass meant that "now we can finally debate spending". However, when Congressman Ryan had the opportunity to "debate spending" when President Bush was in office, he didn't. As I have written before:

He is an intelligent Congressman who has shown leadership in the House on the budget and making strong stances against Obamacare, particularly the IPAB---the unelected board of bureaucrats tasked with managing how Medicare pays. Ryan has served as a Congressman in Washington DC since 1999 and worked for House members for several years during the early and mid 1990s as well. However, despite his strong stance against the Obama administration's profligate spending, he also supported the TARP bailout during the Bush administration and the auto bailout set in motion during the Bush administration.

Paul Ryan is just one example. Individuals on both sides of the aisle are guilty of obsessive partisanship. When President Bush raised the debt ceiling, then Senator Obama called it "a failure of leadership", only to raise the debt ceiling himself in his first term. He is poised to raise it yet again. This is obsessive partisanship. It's one thing for a liberal or a conservative to vote or govern according to his or her principles. It is another thing to abandon one's alleged principles for the sake of party or political expediency.

Thankfully, there are some individuals who have eschewed obsessive partisanship for the sake of maintaining their principles. Sarah Palin is a prime example:

She had garnered a reputation for bucking her own party-- calling out the Alaska GOP chair for doing party business on state time, taking on and defeating an incumbent governor in her own party, cleaning up the ethical mess caused by that incumbent she defeated, and even suing a GOP presidential administration to enable energy development in Alaska.

There are other examples as well. Just this week former Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate, Adam Andrezjewski filed a lawsuit against Republican comptroller Judy Baar Topinka to make the state of Illinois checkbook publicly available. Topinka had earlier denied Andrezjewski's organization's (For the Good of Illinois) FOIA request. He is suing a member of his own party for the sake of making a state in fiscal shambles more transparent. Making state spending publicly available was embraced by Governor Palin as well and is an example of obsessive partisanship eschewed. When Governor Palin launched that effort in Alaska in 2008, it was praised by both Grover Norquist and Democrat Ralph Nader. She willing exposed the spending she signed into law at the risk of political criticism.

This why pro market, pro transparency populism needs to be embraced. Americans have become jaded to politics where their kids' futures are put in jeopardy because politicians in Washington want to play kick the can for the sake of their own political expediency. Politicians too often point the finger of blame and broken promises only to find that when they point fingers they have three pointing back at them. Is a pro market, pro transparency approach to governance idealistic? Perhaps. Do we deserve it? With our propensity to vote the same folks into office election after election, maybe we don't, but America's future does deserve it. We can't continue to sacrifice our fiscal reality for the sake of our bipartisan, but obsessively partisan political reality.

New Documents Show Obama's Extreme Leftist Roots

The Blaze/ Billy Hallowell

President Barack Obama has been challenged before about his alleged ties to the “New Party,” a far-left political group that once served as a third party option in the American political schema. Last month, The Blaze highlighted some images that seemed to corroborate the president’s alleged past ties to groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and, alas, the New Party, despite his campaign’s 2008 denial that he was a member of the movement.

As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.

It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:

Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Here’s a screen shot showcasing the “Fight the Smears” denial:

Minutes from a January 11, 1996 meeting, Kurtz claims, prove Obama’s affiliation with the group. The New Party‘s Chicago Chapter had apparently recorded the president’s extensive involvement, including a purported request that he be endorsed by the movement.

“Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions,” the minutes read. “He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.”

This seems consistent with the above image, which shows that Obama was, indeed, endorsed by the New Party. And, according to Kurtz, a 1997 roster from the group’s Chicago chapter also shows him to be a member. The commentator continues, highlighting Obama’s other purported ties to the group:

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.

Read more about Obama’s alleged connections to the New Party here.

#Conspiracy on House Floor : Why Did A Congressman Wear A Hoodie?

Dem. Rep. Causes Chaos on House Floor After Giving Speech in a Hoodie

Read >>

Canada - What did Jack Layton mean?

"But instead of taking a solid gain for working families, Layton concentrated on developing the NDP around his own personality. The result? Rather than functional, technocratic socialism, today we have Raffi socialism".   More >>

Will Canada Legalize Marijuana?

Canada: Bob Rae is Back

NDP premier he threw Ontario into the worst recession since the Dirty Thirties. Now he's plotting to take over the Liberal Party. If he gets the chance he'll do for Canada what he did for Ontario. Don't let him do it again.

Saudi authorites detain founders of new party

CAIRO (AP) — Authorities in Saudi Arabia have detained founding members of a new political party and told them they must withdraw demands for political reform as a condition for their release, the party said Friday.
The detainees refused to sign the pledge, said the Umma Islamic Party, which was formed earlier this month by 10 university professors, political activists and business people,

Full story

Saudi authorites detain founders of new party

US: Debating the Two-Party System

Arianna Huffington: Earlier this week, I spent two hours arguing with a very witty libertarian and an avuncular Israeli Rush Limbaugh fan about whether the two-party system is ruining America. No, it wasn't just another typical night around my dinner table. It was part of a debate sponsored by Intelligence Squared -- an evening that made me very nostalgic for my Cambridge Union days. I joined David Brooks in arguing for the proposition. Arguing against were Zev Chafets and the consistently hilarious P.J. O'Rourke. I summed up my position by comparing the two-party system to a stale marriage: Democrats and Republicans need something to spice it up. They need to go on Craigslist and find a third party. (And if that third party isn't wearing a shirt, they really should do a background check, because he might turn out to be a member of Congress).
 
Full story

Arianna Huffington: Debating the Two-Party System

Chavez mas alla de los partidos politicos

Aprovechando la coyuntura de una magra manifestacion de estudiantes y  de todos los que fueron compulsados a participiar, Chavez no solo amenazo con tomar acciones contra la cadena de television Glovision, sino lo que resulta aun mas peligroso, llamo a los "estudiantes" presentes a que lo acompanen en n en la conformación de un Polo Patriótico que “vaya más allá del PSUV”, del “PCV y otros partidos aliados”. Aseguró que “no podemos caer en los esquemas del viejo partidismo”.

En otras palabras, integrara en una sola organizacion politica disenada a su medida, a todas las fuerzas politicas que aun lo apoya, lo que reforzara su monopolio sobre la sociedad venezolana.

Chávez: Habrá que tomar acción contra su canal de televisión