The embargo never worked -- but it's worth understanding that the roots of that embargo come not just from some generalized distaste for Fidel Castro or communism, nor from the number of political prisoners in Cuba's jails, but also from Cuba's historical connection with and proximity to America.

Cuba was ceded to the United States in 1898 along with Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Phillipines. Although granted independence shortly thereafter, in many ways Cuba remained very connected to the U.S. right up to the revolution. American businesses had significant interests in Cuba, the U.S. influenced the country's politics, the American military retained a presence on the island, etc. Cuba was a frequent vacation destination for Americans (in part for its gambling industry, shut down by the revolution), and many Americans lived there.

When the revolution occurred, American businesses lost their property, Americans were exiled from the island, the U.S. lost political control, and suddenly there was a very real military threat mere miles from America's coast -- Cuba had effectively "switched sides" in the Cold War. That switch led to the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the missile crisis, and eventually to an embargo that continues today.

So the embargo has never just been about the excesses or wrongs of a communist government (not that they didn't exist, of course). It's also about the loss of a close partner to the "other side" of a war, and the sense that reconciliation can only come from a return to the "old days" when Cuba was virtually a U.S. territory.

Of course, that war is over...it's been over for years...and Cuba is never going to be the Cuba of 1950, no matter how much pressure we exert.

It seems to me, then, that we should instead give up that fantasy of "unswitching" Cuba, of returning them to "our side" in a Cold War that's no longer being fought. My view, instead, is that we should stop giving Cuban communism undue weight in a new world where it really doesn't matter -- that we should just lift the embargo.

I, like TreeRol, call bullshit on the idea that this has anything to do with people fed up with high or wasteful taxes.

First off, bullshit on the idea that this is a "growing movement," that "more and more" people are joining, etc. That's just the old Karl Rove bullshit of claiming victory -- even when you're getting rolled -- as a substitute for having actual ideas or support.

Second off, bullshit on the idea that this is grassroots. These events are so astro-turfy, I think I saw Craig Biggio playing second base.

And, of course, bullshit on the idea that this is about taxes or government waste. Taxes are going down for most people -- particularly the middle class -- because of Obama. Government waste went waaaaay up during Bush II, and the bailouts these bozos are supposedly railing against were initiated by Republicans. But nobody was protesting until the Republicans lost power... Funny how that works.

Come on, Americans are not stupid -- they know this isn't about taxes. This is about sore losers, mad that the elected government suddenly isn't "their team." The teabaggers didn't mind being taxed by Bush -- but by Democrats?! Oh my! Bush burned through money like a coke addict on an eight-year bender, with nary a peep from the right -- but Obama might also actually have to spend a little to get us out of this economic mess?! Lordy, get me the smelling salts!

Everyone can see through that transparent bullshit -- they know that these "tea parties" are about Republican strategists trying to engineer a political strategy to tear down and undermine the democratically-elected government, in the hopes of winning a future election (even if they harm the country in the process). I have faith that the American people know bullshit when they smell it, and that this will simply go to widen the Republican Party's "credibility gap."

And, look, I'm no flaming liberal here -- I'm a conservative, a Federalist, and a strong believer in small, efficient, serious government. But this stunt is stupid, it's embarassing, it's damaging to the Republican Party, and it's deserving of all the laughter that it generates. (Teabagging! Dick Armey!)

I've yet to see an infantile response TO one of your posts. But, ok, let me see if I can summarize your argument:

1. You earnestly believe that your local event is a grassroots response to some perceived overreach by President Obama (notwithstanding that it's part of a national Republican strategy planned before Obama was even elected...).

2. You think the important issue here is "who said what first." (In fact, the important issue in Greenwald's column was whether we can take seriously positions that change depending on whether one or the other party has control.) You think the "teabagging" jokes originate from Democrats (rather than a poorly thought-out idea that naturally lent itself to humor)...and deeply care about that for some reason.

3. You believe that President Obama, by moving only incrementally away from prior administrations' wasteful "lower taxes while increasing spending" approaches, is betraying the American people. (Even though unlike previous administrations he's forced into it by an economic crisis that really allows no other response.) Of course, given your belief that lowering taxes while increasing spending will bankrupt our country, I have to assume that you railed against Bush regularly, calling him a betrayer of the national trust and joining protests against his "bankrupting" of America, including burning those chintzy tax rebate checks...I mean, a girl's gotta be consistent, right?

4. And, of course, you're declaring victory. (Yeeeaaah, let me know how that works out for ya.)