Castro: Bush and Gore the two most 'boring and insipid' candidates possible.

August 6, 2000 3:46 AM

Castro: Bush and Gore the two most 'boring and insipid' candidates possible. Finally, a political commentator who doesn't mince words.
posted by chaz (9 comments total)

Well, he's right. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Castro, but he's right.

Of course, someone - Bush? - will pick up on this and totally blast Fidel, and maybe even bring Elian into it (remember him?). That's politics.
posted by hijinx at 5:57 AM on August 6, 2000

I think as a nation we should all vote for Fidel Castro for president. That'd immediately give him a stroke. Shut his ass up real good.

He's right though. Both Gore and Bush are “boring and insipid,” “lacking in historical weight,” are without "solid principles," and neither candidate has an interest in backing off on our restrictions to Cuba trade relations. So naturally Fidel's gonna hit them politically with everything he's got.

What I find disturbing is that in the above linked article, Fidel Castro sounds a lot like Michael Moore, doesn't he?
posted by ZachsMind at 8:00 AM on August 6, 2000

Castro says both are “lacking in historical weight” and “solid principles.” I believe in his country (Cuba), any candidates with these qualities are currently in Jail.

posted by Almac at 9:43 AM on August 6, 2000

Almac said: I believe in his country (Cuba), any candidates with these qualities are currently in Jail.

Well actually, Castro's definition of those qualities is limited to his Cuban ethnocentricism. Please allow me to translate:
* "lacking in historical weight" means "no Cuban blood"
* "solid principles" means "disagrees with me."
* "boring and insipid" means "I'd rather watch reruns of The A-Team."
posted by ZachsMind at 11:02 AM on August 6, 2000

Well, as someone with political experience that stretches back to the Eisenhower presidency, you have to give him his due. (The new incumbent of the White House will be the tenth since the Revolution...)
posted by holgate at 4:57 PM on August 6, 2000

Okay, okay, so he's a dictator, (as if his predecessors weren't?) but how come Cuba gets the sanctions while the US has and continues to happily deal with the bloodiest regimes in Latin America? This at the same time as acting to undermine and depose democratically elected ones? Here is a list of interventions the US has made into the countries of Latin America over the last century and a half, its not exactly a short list nor one to be proud of.
posted by lagado at 5:18 PM on August 6, 2000

The gov't hates Castro precisely because they haven't been able to undermine and depose him, as much as they've tried. Someone only becomes Public Enemy No. 1 when even underhanded schemes fail to work.
posted by chaz at 6:12 PM on August 6, 2000

The US government has a long history of intervening (particularly in SE Asia, Africa, and Latin America) in favor of right-wing dictatorships/military rule and against left-wing democracies and socialists. The only major exception I can think of is the whole "most favored nation" thing with China, which leads me to believe that Castro bothers US leaders to no end because he's only 90 miles away, has been in power longer than any other living person, and has basically come out ahead in any sort of skirmish/ political battle there has ever been between the US and Cuba (Bay of Pigs and Elian come to mind immediately, and you can draw your own conclusions about JFK ;-).
posted by kidsplateusa at 10:24 PM on August 6, 2000

The US didn't recognize the government of China for 23 years but of course that didn't fuss the Chinese all that much. This is China we are talking about.
posted by lagado at 11:40 PM on August 6, 2000