Maybe the Miami Herald doesn’t want to help itself. I mean if you can’t flaunt leftist preferences during the age of Obama, then when can you?

Back in February, we took a look at how Frances Robles seemed unwilling or unable to label people on the left of the political spectrum involving Cuba. Today in another article about Cuba, the Herald’s Lesley Clark exhibits the same ideological slant. An excerpt:

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leading pro-embargo lobbyist, noted that both Clinton, who signed the accord, and later Bush, scrapped the talks, expressing frustration with the Cuban government. At one point in 2000, there were no talks for more than a year, with Cuba canceling indefinitely — and without explanation — one meeting.

“President Clinton and President Bush gave it a shot, let’s just hope [the administration] understands the reason they’ve been suspended and holds the Cuban government to their end of the agreement,” Claver-Carone said.

Freddy Balsera, a Miami political consultant and Obama campaign donor, said talks advance U.S. interests.

“These kind of conversations don’t put into question existing policies, but allow us to interact with a country that’s just 90 miles away,” he said.

Aside from the selection of the story itself, this is how most bias is injected. Freddy Balsera is a Democratic political consultant. He was identified as such in a National Journal article and worked on the Obama campaign [not just a donor]. None of this is either hard to determine or an earth shattering revelation. But I think that it is very revealing that Herald writers seemed determined to lend a hand to their causes in such obvious ways.

The point is that whenever a person or organization is quoted without being labeled, it lends a certain credence to their position. Simple fairness would dictate that a newspaper do its labeling in a consistent manner. So sayeth this right-wing, Cuban-American, would vote Libertarian if I had any guts blogger.

By the way, in googling Ms Clark [unisex writer names are a hassle to mention, you gotta look up their stuff to make sure you don’t appear to be trying to insult them], I came across an article she wrote about being on Facebook. A good read from one of the Herald’s two [at least] writers who really don’t like the embargo.

Article referenced is copied in full at end of post.

—————————————————————————-
Obama aims to renew migration talks with Cuba – BY LESLEY CLARK – lclark@MiamiHerald.com

Posted on Fri, May. 22, 2009

Further signaling its interest in engaging Cuba, the Obama administration is asking the Castro government to resume migration talks that President George W. Bush suspended in 2004.

The move comes a month after President Barack Obama lifted travel and gift restrictions for those with relatives on the island and eased restrictions on U.S. telecommunications firms to do business in Cuba. And it comes as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Honduras for a gathering of the Organization of American States, where the reintegration of Cuba into the hemispheric body promises to be a hot topic.

The State Department on Friday afternoon delivered a diplomatic note to the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., asking to resume the biannual migration talks, which were alternately held in the United States and Cuba.

‘We intend to use the renewal of talks to reaffirm both sides’ commitment to safe, legal and orderly migration,” said Sara Mangiaracina, a state department spokeswoman, who added that the meetings would be used to “review recent trends in illegal Cuban migrations to the U.S. and to improve operational relations with Cuba on migration issues.”

. A spokesman at the interests section, Alberto González, said Cuba “is always in the best position to sit at the table and talk about any kind of topic with the U.S., including immigration. . . . It’s important for us, it’s important for the United States.”

PUBLIC REACTION

Cuba watchers who favor increased relations with Cuba hailed the decision as a step toward thawing U.S.-Cuba relations. Several groups had urged Obama last month to resume the migration talks, saying they demonstrate that Washington is interested in a new relationship with the island nation.

”It is consistent with the President’s values, and a signal not just to Cuba but also to the region that we’re abandoning our policy of isolation and moving in the direction of honest talk and mutually beneficial cooperation,” said Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, which advocates for more normalized relations with Cuba.

But the overture was met with swift opposition from Florida’s Cuban-American Republican members of Congress who say Havana should first show that it’s willing to make a move. They note that the United States suspended talks five years ago because the Castro government refused to comply with a U.S.-Cuba migration accord.

The talks were begun after a migration accord was signed by the two nations in September 1994 in an effort to prevent mass migrations to Florida, like the balsero crisis earlier that year that resulted in tens of thousands leaving the island. Under the agreement, U.S. officials agreed to grant legal entry to at least 20,000 Cubans a year. But the Republicans argued that the Castro government violates the accords by refusing visits to repatriated Cubans and denying exit permits to Cubans with U.S. visas.

”The administration should insist on the regime’s full compliance with the migration accords before reopening formal talks,” Sen. Mel Martinez said. ‘Otherwise, this will be little more than a concession to the regime and a departure from the president’s commitment to make freedom the `lodestone’ of our policy toward Cuba.”

And in a joint statement, Reps. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart called the move a ”unilateral concession” to the Cuban government.

TALKS SUSPENDED

The United States and Cuba were meeting regularly until December 2003, when Washington canceled a scheduled meeting because it said Cuba was unwilling to cooperate.

”The Cuban regime continues to violate the accord by denying hundreds of exit permits annually to Cuban nationals who have received visas to enter the United States,” the three members of Congress said. ‘The Obama Administration should first insist that the Castro dictatorship complies with the accord before renewing `talks.’ Regrettably, this constitutes another unilateral concession by the Obama Administration to the dictatorship.”

Mauricio Claver-Carone, a leading pro-embargo lobbyist, noted that both Clinton, who signed the accord, and later Bush, scrapped the talks, expressing frustration with the Cuban government. At one point in 2000, there were no talks for more than a year, with Cuba canceling indefinitely — and without explanation — one meeting.

”President Clinton and President Bush gave it a shot, let’s just hope [the administration] understands the reason they’ve been suspended and holds the Cuban government to their end of the agreement,” Claver-Carone said.

Freddy Balsera, a Miami political consultant and Obama campaign donor, said talks advance U.S. interests.

”These kind of conversations don’t put into question existing policies, but allow us to interact with a country that’s just 90 miles away,” he said.
———————————————————————