It has been a headline everywhere and cannot be underestimated, the daughter of the dictator of Cuba said in San Francisco, California, at the heart of the American gay community: Cuba is betting on Obama. Mariela Castro had said it, a phrase that hasn’t been made lightly, to the occasion. Castro’s agents are programmed, they have their chip very well synchronized to say what they have to say ... and when they have to say it.
What does it mean? Is the Cuban regime truly betting on Obama?
Carlos Alberto Montaner in a recent interview has said very sharply, and I quote:
"I don’t know if Mariela Castro realizes that that statement benefits Romney instead to Obama."
Of course Mariela knows it. This is neither a coincidence nor a phrase sparkling from her brain. It could make the pretty and expected effect among the gay community in California that is mostly Democrat, but in Florida has a reverse effect, and Florida is the key state that any candidate should win to be the next President of US, as many analysts had said. So, what's behind all this?
You don’t need to go too far to realize that praising Obama you are driving Romney directly to win Florida. Those statements made in California would not help at all to Obama because, after all, California is a traditionally Democratic state. But Florida is something else, and that’s the key issue.
It is well known that traditionally the Cuban regime has always given to the Democratic administrations missteps, which commonly they have traditionally being the ones who have reached Castro out ... or sort of.
Do you remember Jimmy Carter?
Jimmy Carter opened the US Interests Section in Havana, lifted some of key issues in the American embargo in his presidential term and relaxed the conflict between both sides of the Florida Straits. What was Cuba’s government reaction?
Simple. They created the MIG-23’s crisis and then it Castro provoked Mariel boatlifts crisis, the mass exodus of Cubans to Florida, emptying Castro’s prisons of delinquents.
And the result? Carter lost the election to Reagan. I'm not saying that was the most important reason though, but there is no doubt that must have influenced.
How odd combination of names: Mariel and Mariela. What unhappy coincidences keep certain names!
You cannot be too paranoid to suspect that behind all this there is more than a mere coincidence. The words thrown into the California’s audience would immediately get trapped by the media, and the media would send everywhere and hence it gets immediately the Romney’s effect: to ask and command to retract the support of Mariela Castro. He has not done it yet.
And that is Castro’s gambit in this politic chessboard. Tacit support for Romney, a setback for Obama and the perfect gambit to keep a hostile policy against Cuba: that is the way Castro wants to maintain the status quo ... to continue hanging from power.
It's that simple, isn’t?