The Thomas Chronicles

I’m republishing the back and forth between Michael Moore and Fred Thompson on Cuba and healthcare. The entertainment value of this was just too enticing to pass up…

Here’s Moore’s challenge, exclusive to the Drudge Report:

**EXCLUSIVE: MICHAEL MOORE CHALLENGES FRED THOMPSON TO DEBATE
Tues May 15 2007 6:00:01 ET

LETTER:

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 ad 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 shopping 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

And here is Thompson’s reply:

TheHill.com reported today that Democrats are planning to sue the President. No really, I’m not kidding.

Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill

By Jonathan E. Kaplan and Elana Schor
May 09, 2007

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is threatening to take President Bush to court if he issues a signing statement as a way of sidestepping a carefully crafted compromise Iraq war spending bill.

Pelosi recently told a group of liberal bloggers, “We can take the president to court” if he issues a signing statement, according to Kid Oakland, a blogger who covered Pelosi’s remarks for the liberal website dailykos.com.

“The president has made excessive use of signing statements and Congress is considering ways to respond to this executive-branch overreaching,” a spokesman for Pelosi, Nadeam Elshami, said. “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

It is a scenario for which few lawmakers have planned. Indicating that he may consider attaching a signing statement to a future supplemental spending measure, Bush last week wrote in his veto message, “This legislation is unconstitutional because it purports to direct the conduct of operations of the war in a way that infringes upon the powers vested in the presidency.”

A lawsuit could be seen as part of the Democrats’ larger political strategy to pressure — through a series of votes on funding the war — congressional Republicans to break with Bush over Iraq.

Democrats floated other ideas during yesterday’s weekly caucus meeting. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) suggested that the House consider a measure to rescind the 2002 authorization for the war in Iraq. Several senators and Democratic presidential candidates recently have proposed that idea.

“There was a ripple around the room” in support of the idea, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).

In the 1970s, congressional Democrats tried to get the courts to force President Nixon to stop bombing in Cambodia. The courts ruled that dissident lawmakers could not sue solely to obtain outcomes they could not secure in Congress.

The Democrat’s oft repeated accusations against conservatives and the President is that they’re undermining and destroying the Constitution. If the Democrats follow through on their threat, they are not going to undermine the US Constitution, they are going to run it throw the shredder.

Why are they making plans to do this?

Pelosi’s spokesman said, “Whether through the oversight or appropriations process or by enacting new legislation, the Democratic Congress will challenge the president’s non-enforcement of the laws.”

That’s right, folks. They are going to shred the Constitution because the President didn’t do what they want him to. They want the President to enforce laws that he didn’t sign off on. Never mind that without his signature or a Congressional override, their bills are not adopted as the law of the land…

Where are the Republicans? Where are the honorable men and women whose job it is to protect our Republic? Where are the loyal men and women to come to the President’s aid?

What follows below is my response to Bookworm’s post today titled, “Stale, flat and unprofitable.” Since it is a rather long response, I decided to republish it in its entirety here.

…

It is baffling how the conservatives imploded after winning a virtual landslide victory in 2004. In 2004, a Republican President was re-elected by a popular majority of roughly 5%, as opposed to the usual 3%, and the conservatives also picked up seats in the House and the Senate. Senator Thune dislodged Senator Daschle from his seat, which was a major victory by the conservatives. And then… nothing happened. The conservative party in America, the Republicans, started to fizzle, and this represents the most baffling reality in politics today.

Instead of the Republican majority ramming through the President’s agenda and ramming through a few of their own, they started to turn on each other. The President wanted to pass an energy bill. A few Republican legislators, senators and congressmen both, jumped over to the liberals. The President wanted to pass a comprehensive immigration bill, the Republicans shot him down.

These are just two of dozens of examples. In a word, the Republicans didn’t back their President when he needed them, and now the Republican Party is aimless, drifting and rapidly becoming listless. It is human nature to desire cohesion and direction. The Republicans don’t evince either of these qualities at the moment.

Back in 2004 during and after the election, I thought to myself that the Democratic Party is going to implode. Their mantra, their constant wild accusations against the President and their incessant lying wouldn’t fly with the American people. Then, their overt use of brownshirt tactics would surely do them in since Americans are not cowering peasant Europeans (but after these past few years, perhaps we are just cowering peasants…).

The Democratic arrogance and disconnection from reality should have done them in when, after their loss, they declared in their defeat, “The American people have spoken. They want the President to work with us!” (I.E. Give me what I want!) The mainstream media trumpeted all these ridiculous demands in the wake of the election, and, thankfully, the American people ignored them and turned to the Republicans.

What did the Republicans do? They started reacting to all the accusations of the Democrats. They played defensive and gave ascension to accusations against the President that should have been blown out of the water from day one. “Yes, okay, the President conducted the war incompetently, but…” “Yes, okay, the President doesn’t listen to anyone, but…” The conservatives hung our President out to dry and wondered why we are losing the domestic front and the war.

The thing is, we don’t know what would have happened had we followed the President BECAUSE WE DIDN’T. The conservatives didn’t shout down the accusations. The conservatives didn’t challenge the Democrats every time they got caught lying. The conservatives didn’t tell the American public every time Brownshirt tactics were used.

In a word, it is the Republican Party that is imploding and not the Democratic Party, as I previously thought.

One other major reason for this apparent listlessness from the conservatives is just voter fatigue and incessant insanity. You can only challenge, argue, oppose irrationality so often before wearing out. Part of the wearing out is because you can’t argue with subjectivists and irrationality because, well, you will receive subjective irrationality in return.

On the Democratic side, one can insist on supporting the troops and insist on an American defeat at the same time and not see any contradiction. On the Republican side, one can wrap yourself in the flag and be for patriotism but refuse to do anything to help the President.

(A small aside. When Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers came out three years ago, audiences cheered when they saw the scene before Helms Deep.

“Look! King Theoden stands alone,” Gandalf said.

“Not alone,” said Eomer. “Rohiddim! To the KING!”

Audiences cheered when Eomer and his riders charged down the slope, joined their king, who stood alone amidst thousands of orcs, and routed their enemies. Yes, we cheered and were elated.

Now, our President stands alone surrounded by enemies on all sides, foreign and domestic, and what do we do? We turn on the TV, eat our popcorn and feel cathartic, and say to ourselves, “Sucks to be him.”

(Yes, I’m feeling a bit pessimistic today…))

For people who attempt to be centrist, like myself, there really aren’t many places left to go…

God help us…

I repeat ladies and gents: Iraqi is devoid of any WMD’s whatsoever. Bush lied, people died. If he didn’t lie, where’s the WMD’s?

27 killed in Ramadi chemical attack

Ramadi: A suicide bomber targeting a police station exploded his truck full of chlorine gas in a residential area yesterday, killing 27 people in the biggest chemical attack by insurgents in Iraq since the invasion.

Amid the continuing violence, Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki ordered that jobs and pensions be offered to former officers of executed president Saddam Hussain’s military, many of whom had joined the Sunni insurgency against US forces.

The chemical attack took place in the western city of Ramadi. First reports said that 20 people had been killed, but the toll was later amended by police.

Um… Okay, so there WERE WMD’s…

This item off the Drudge Report caught my eye.

Is MySpace always mine or can it belong to someone else? At the cost of losing 160,000 friends, Democrat Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has taken over control of the MySpace page listed under his name on the popular social networking site.

For the past two and a half years, the page has been run by an Obama supporter from Los Angeles named Joe Anthony. At first, that arrangement was fine with the Obama team, which worked with Anthony on the content and even had the password to make changes themselves.

But as the site exploded in popularity in recent months, the campaign became concerned about an outsider having control of the content and responses going out under Obama’s name and told Anthony they wanted him to turn it over.

In this new frontier of online campaigning, it’s hard to determine the value of 160,000 MySpace friends—about four times what any other official campaign MySpace page has amassed. But the Obama campaign decided they wouldn’t pay $39,000, which is what Anthony said he proposed for his extensive work on the site, plus some additional fees up to $10,000.

MySpace reluctantly stepped in to settle the dispute and decided that Obama should have the rights to control http://www.myspace.com/barackobama as of Monday night, while Anthony had the right to take the contact information for all the friends who signed up while he was in control. That includes the right to tell them exactly how he feels about the Obama campaign.

Anthony referred The Associated Press to his MySpace blog, where he has written that he is heartbroken that the Obama campaign was “bullying” him out of the page he built. He said the candidate has lost his vote.

Boy, this tactic just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ve considered Obama vacuous and unsubstantial as a Presidential candidate, but to push “the little guy” around and bully him bespeaks an arrogance I would rather not have sitting in the Oval Office. Have someone do your legwork, then snatch it away without any compensation, or even acknowledgment? For someone supposedly smart (even if he hasn’t said anything but conventional liberal platitudes), he’s treating people pretty bad. And that’s just not good for PR.

It seems Mister Hope and Audacity is garnering some credibility issues with respect to being “for the little guy”.

Because I’m so passionate on this subject, I try not to discuss this subject very often and with as little amount of people as possible. However, since these kinds of protests were going on all around us today, I thought I’d say something brief. I think it the height of ingratitude that illegal immigrants would demand anything at all of their host country, least of all citizenship. I can understand illegals asking for citizenship and putting in the paperwork for that to happen, but I take extreme exception to have them march up and down the street demanding citizenship.

The last May demonstration last year was designed to cripple local economies and bring entire cities to a stand still, LA in particular. An estimated one million illegals Mexicans live in and around Los Angeles county (I actually think there is much more. At least 2-4 million.), and on the day of the march, entire streets were stopped, Mexican flags waved everywhere and illegal immigrants boycotted from buying anything. In other words, they attempted hurt the US economy enough to make the US government do what they say. Instead, the American people grew angrier and the debate on this subject became markedly more conservative.

So, this time around, there are more American flags flying around than Mexican flags, a reversal of last year. And I also don’t hear the extremist chant, “We didn’t cross the border. The border crossed us,” i.e. we own the American Southwest; you just stole it from us.

In my time, I’ve known a great many assimilated Mexicans and they were great to have around, no different than the run-of-the-mill American. I have also met many Mexicans who want to be Mexicans, who thinks America is evil, and who demands US citizenship. I don’t know the ratio of each, but this entire problem is reaching catastrophic levels.

There are also a lot of lies and half-truths floating around. The most recent one I’ve read comes from Oakland City Attorney John Russo, who said:

“People don’t come here for benefits,” Russo said. “If they wanted benefits, they would go to Canada where they have a real health care system. They come here to work.”

This is patently false and misleading. Canadian laws do not offer citizenship to babies who were born from foreign nationals. In fact, to tap into their health care system at all, you’d have to be a Canadian citizen. Otherwise, they’ll deport you faster than you can say, “By George!”

And no, immigrants do not strengthen our culture as many have been saying for this past year. America carries immigrants on its back and opens its treasury to their lot, even as many immigrants shamefully lie, steal and cheat our system. (I’ve known too many who do this.) Whatever we decide to do with those already here, whether a guest worker program or a pathway to citizenship or whatever, we have got to control our borders.