Framed

253 days . . .

. . . until the New Hampshire primary.  Actually, not.  I got behind after last weekend.

But anyway, rumor has it that Michael Moore has challenged Fred Thompson to a debate in his usual, inimitable way.  No verification of this is available on Moore's website--much less Thompson's--but here is what Drudge (shudder) is reporting:

May 15, 2007

Senator Fred Thompson
American Enterprise Institute
110 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Senator Thompson,

Given that it has been publicly reported in The Weekly Standard, a leading neo-conservative publication, that you support Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime by being a purveyor of fine Cuban exports despite the trade embargo, I was surprised to see your recent op ed in a more traditional conservative outlet, The National Review, regarding my trip to Cuba (I suspect you choose The National Review in an effort to pander to an outlet that had criticized you for your opposition to medical malpractice legislation).

In your May 2, 2007 National Review article, "Paradise Island," you specifically raised concerns about whether my trip to Cuba with 9/11 heroes, who have suffered serious health problems as a result of their exposure to toxic substances at Ground Zero that have gone untreated was somehow going to support Castro and the Cuban government:

"It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro." [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWNhNzA2YmY3NTNjZjZhNjE1NmZjMDFkOTdjN2Q4ZmE=]

Putting aside the fact that you, like the Bush Administration, seem far more concerned about the trip to Cuba than the health care of these 9/11 heroes, I was struck by the fact that your concerns (including comments about CastroÕs reported financial worth) apparently do not extend to your own conduct, as reported in The Weekly Standard's April 23, 2007 story, "From the Courthouse to the White House Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role" (emphasis added):

"Thompson's work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like -- though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana." [http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13528&R=1136E33842]
In light of your comments regarding Cuba and Castro, do you think the "box upon box of cigars -- Montecristos from Havana" that you have in your office have contributed to CastroÕs reported wealth?

While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the "box upon box of cigars" violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.

Survey after survey has indicated that health care is one of the top issues to the American voters. Today, more than 46 million people lack health are coverage, including 9 million children. We pay significantly more than any other country in the world -- and get less back. Americans life expectancy is lower than other Ground Zero 9/11 workers live in a society where the Bush Administration has shown more concern about their travel than about their health.

Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage.

Over the course of the debate, we could specifically address the following issues:

(1) Your work as a lobbyist in light of the fact that the health care and insurance industries have maintained the current health care system through their effective control of the political establishment.

(2) The fact that you raised hundred of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries.

(3) Discuss the fact, highlighted in yet another conservative outlet The New York Sun, that you inexplicably wanted to cut funding for AIDS research. [http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html]

(4) Your relationship with the Frist family and by extension HCA, one of the nation's largest for-profit hospital chains. It has been reported that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who was renowned for his over-the-television-screen Schiavo diagnosis) is serving as one of your confidantes on your potential presidential campaign. The Frist family has historically controlled HCA, which paid a record $1.7 billion in civil and criminal fines, including a $631 million penalty for Medicaid fraud -- in other words, ripping off the taxpayers.

(5) Discussing whether Arthur Branch, as the District Attorney of Manhattan, supports a woman's right to choose, gun safety reforms, gay marriage, the trans fat ban and anti-smoking laws (which would impact Cuban cigars, including your Montecristos).

Like American Idol, we could even have the country vote to determine which one of us wins the debate. Though in the spirit of full disclosure, I feel obligated to forewarn you that I was the winner of the 1971-72 Detroit Free Press Debate Award for the state of Michigan.

The winner of our health care debate could even light a Victory cigar with one of your Montecristos (though we may want to consider shipping them to the safe house where I have put a master copy of SiCKO in the event that the Bush Administration tries to seize the film).

Sincerely,


Michael Moore

I'd pony up for pay-per-view to see that.

Trifecta

I give Michael Moore a lot of credit.  Who else in a single act could 1) point out the absurdity of our embargo of Cuba; 2) point out the inefficiencies and inequalities in the American health care system; and 3) point out that the Bush administration's let-em-rot policy toward wounded war veterans has its roots in its treatment of 9/11 rescue workers?

Troglodytic

Now that the Bushies' oil buddies have tumbled to the stupidity of our economic isloation of Cuba, it's fair to ask: is there anybody, other than some troglodytic right-wing Cuban exiles, who thinks that our policies toward that country make any sense at all?

Sometime later this year, less than 70 miles from Florida, a consortium of Spanish, Indian and Norwegian companies will likely start drilling for oil. It could mark the beginning of a Cuban oil rush - one that American oil companies won't be able to join, despite their proximity to the action.

And that has some U.S. oil industry executives and lobbyists seething, especially since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists calls the offshore Cuban oil deposits a "significant find."

U.S. oil companies can't play in these waters, of course, barred as they are by sanctions prohibiting them from doing business with Cuba.

Ironic, isn't it: it may take the prospect of a capitalist energy bonanza to make our leaders realize that maybe dealing with socialists isn't so bad.

Overdue

Some Congressional Democrats are discussing new policies toward Cuba, ranging from permitting Cuban emigres to freely visit the island to lifting the trade sanctions which have been in place since 1962.  As I've noted before, these steps are long overdue.  It's no coincidence that those communist countries we traded with, traveled to, exchanged with, and diplomatically engaged are now democracies, while those communist countries we attempted to isolate--Cuba and North Korea--with sanctions are still under dictatorship.  The fact that Cuba remains an undemocratic, politically repressive state is due in no small part to our misguided sanctions policy.  Amnesty International notes the irony of this in its 2006 country report:

The US embargo continued to have a negative effect on the enjoyment of the full range of human rights in Cuba.

Even Cuban dissidents agree that the U.S. policy is dumb.

With the end of the Castro era fast approaching, the U.S. needs to act thoughtfully so that the successors to the crooks and con men of the Batista days  will not return to power, and so that Cuba's admirable advances in education and health care will be preserved.

Given Republican pandering to and financing by hard-right Cuban exiles, I don't think that such thoughtfulness is likely from this administration. 

Cuba

T00 bad it's hidden (from most of us) behind a subscription wall.  Mario Loyola's commentary in the weekend Wall Street Journal is encouraging reading:

With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visiting Venezuela today, it might be a good time to consider another "change in course" for U.S. policy. The isolation of Cuba, a legacy of the Cold War, is pushing that country closer to America's most dangerous enemies.

In a recent open letter to President Bush, several major Cuban dissident groups called for an end to U.S. restrictions on travel and remittances to Cuba. Now joining their call is the Miami-based Cuban Consensus, a coalition of 20 pro-democracy groups including the "hard-line" Cuban-American National Foundation.

Loyola, a regular contributor to the National Review, points out what has been obvious for a long time: the U.S. sanctions on Cuba are counterproductive.  How is it that the strategy of trade and engagement that helped bring about the end of the Soviet empire and transform China is held to be inapplicable to Cuba?  The answer lies in domestic politics, and specifically the politics of Florida.  Politicians competing for the support of the Cuban emigre community there keep trying to outdo each other in ratcheting up the anti-Cuban rhetoric.  This has been a factor primarily in Republican politics there, so it is  significant that both the emigre organizations and their GOP supporters are starting to face reality.

Loyola is right that it makes sense for the U.S. to engage Castro's regime, not to isolate it.  He gets to that conclusion for some suspect reasons--chiefly, an inordinate fear of Venezuela's Hugh Chavez--but the fact that someone with his right wing cred is on board the sanity train is good news indeed.