The Cuban-American National Foundation is not what it used to be. Maybe it never was. But everybody knows that already, and if one has any doubts then its use of "migrants" to describe Cuban refugees on its website should dispel all illusions. It seems, ironically, that only Democratic politicians still take CANF seriously, having believed from the first every calumny that was ever levelled against it in its heyday, they still see it as the "black hand" of the exile community and accord it more importance than it retains. The Republicans don't see it as a menace or an asset. They either know better or take the support of Cuban exiles for granted and need no intermediary.
The CANF sent the presidential candidates a survey with 15 specific questions on various aspects of U.S.-Cuba relations, such as the trade embargo and the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy. The only candidates to actually answer the questionnaire were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. None of the Republican candidates did. Instead, they submitted canned statements on Cuba which avoided answering any of the questions in the questionnaire, which is a feat that defies the rule of probabilities but which, nonetheless, every Republican candidate managed to pull off (including those who ignored the survey).
We can only assume that their positions are more liberal than Hillary's, whose only unacceptable response was her support for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy (which all candidates share in common). This is frightening. Hillary Clinton, at least on paper, is more supportive of la causa than her Republican opponents! Of course, paper will hold anything and her positions may well change for the worse after the election. In fact, I'll bet on it. Still, I find it amazing that the Republicans no longer feel the need to cater to us, or, if you will, lie to us in order to secure our support. They are clearly saying that they know what is best for Cuba and feel no compulsion to share their "vision" with us. This is more than disrespect; it is disregard.