Cuba-Mitt doesn't get it...Fred does.
By pilgrim Posted in 2008 — Comments (15) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
At this Tuesday night Republican debate I hope Mitt is asked a question about Cuba. Mitt went to Miami to give a speech to some Cuban-Americans, and he quoted a line Fidel uses in his speeches. This was a huge mistake by Mitt. He has tried to blame the media for taking things out of context, and say that he speaks Spanish poorly. These excuses are not helping. He needs to convince the Cuban-Americans that he understands the myths about Castro, and understands how nothing created by Castro should be embraced including a slogan.
Fred Thompson does get it. Val Prieto of Babalu Blog definitely hopes that Fred runs in2008. He has an article that Fred Thompson recently wrote concerning the myth of Castro's 'Health Care'. Fred writes about a new Michael Moore on the subject. Here's an excerpt:
"The other thing that irks me about Moore and his cohort in Hollywood is their complete lack of sympathy for fellow artists persecuted for opposing the Castro regime. Pro-democracy activists are routinely threatened and imprisoned, but Castro remains a hero to many here. According to human rights organizations, these prisoners of conscience are often beaten and denied medical treatment, sanitation or even adequate nutrition.
If Moore wants a subject for a real documentary, I would suggest looking into the life of Cuban painter and award-winning documentarian Nicolás Guillén Landrián. He was denied the right to practice his art for using the Beatles' song, "The Fool on the Hill," as background music behind footage of Castro climbing a mountain. Later, he was given plenty of free Cuban health care when he was confined for years in a "mental institution" and given devastating, repeated electroshock "treatments."
There are many other artists and activists who have enjoyed similar treatment. I suspect we'll see movies with sympathetic portrayals of terrorists held in Guantanamo before we ever hear about the torture of true Cuban heroes. Even Andy Garcia's brilliant fictionalized movie about the real Cuban experience, "The Lost City," was given the Hollywood silent treatment. My bet, though, is that we'll hear lots about how Michael Moore showed that Cuba's socialized medicine is better than ours.
So go ahead and start working on the Oscar speech, Michael."
Val Prieto understands how Fidel's running of Cuba should be talked about, and he appreciates that Fred Thompson gets it too. I agree with Val.
there are posting rules at Red State concerning personal attacks. Calling me an oaf and the readers at RedState stupid are not in the spirit of the rules. Reading is fundamental. I never said Mitt endorses Cuban healthcare. I said that Cuban-Americans like, Val Prieto, did not like the way talked about Cuba. I also said I hope Mitt is asked about Cuba at the SC debate. It is a good thing for a candidate to make his positions clear. It is not a good thing to leap to assumptions. free advice.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
1. I didn't explicitlly call you an oaf - even though the logical leap you made was befitting of one. I said don't be one.
2. Most rational people can look at Mitt Romney's comments and realize that anyone who was really deeply offended by them is unreasonably hypersensitive. You can't accept this hypersensitivity and simultaneously criticize people who are hyper-PC. If you are more accomodating of those who are hyper PC, then I guess I have to give you a pass on this one, though.
3. You said that Mitt Romney doesn't "get" Cuba because he committed a small rhetorical faux paux while Fred Thompson does "get" Cuba because he recognizes that they have bad healthcare and that dictatorships are oppressive. (I'm wowed.) Not only are these not comparable events, but neither of these dispositively prove that Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson "get" or "don't get" Cuba. So now, if Mitt Romney comes out and states the obvious - oppression of free expresion is bad and Cuban healthcare is broken and not the model we should follow - does he then "get" Cuba in your book? LOL.
I might suggest that since Mitt Romney is stridently against McCain-Feingold (something he and Thompson both used to support and Thompson voted for before changing course) - our most oppressive law on the books against free expression - maybe he DOES get Cuba. :-)
I do suspect that Thompson probably does "get" Cuba. But I also think that Mitt Romney probably "gets" Cuba, also, when it comes to substance. After all, he's running against Democrats - the closest thing we have to Fidel Castro in America. At the very least, there is nothing to suggest that Mitt Romney doesn't "get" Cuba. Certainly not misuse of a slogan.
4. Fine...if you think that American-Cuban policy is really one of the top issues facing America over the next 5 years, then ask away about Cuba. Personally, I don't think that Americans really think or care much about that from day-to-day, but I also think that you should give him credit for actually joining the debate instead of sittig on the sidelines like Fred Thompson has done thus far.
5. It's not good to make such ludicrous logical leaps. Free advice.
That said...
A few more points...
Fred is not a candidate yet, ho hum, boo hoo so why compare him to Mitt, who is an actual candidate, meaning that he's actually taking a stand instead of putting out position papers and the like.
I know everyone can post what they want and recently the level of discourse has shown how bitter and nasty it's going to be but I'll ask again just because I love wasting my time, but how about lifting the discussion out of the hit piece stuff and give us something informative.
For all the people that say they like Fred, who is not a candidate yet, they really don't tell us anything good about him but it's all about how someone else is flawed.
I'm beginning to think that his candidacy will be based on all the rest having been savaged by those who want him to run so bad.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
In the meant time, what is the difference between "taking a stand" and a "position paper?" I see none; in fact, a position paper serves the purpose of "putting it in writing" so that it can't be taken out of context easily, nor can it easily be twisted to placate a given audience. Writing it down clarifies the content and intent. I recommend the "position paper" approach to all the candidates.
"For all the people that say they like Fred, who is not a candidate yet, they really don't tell us anything good about him but it's all about how someone else is flawed."
I think I've responded to you on this one before. (1) For his good points, check out the position papers, the speeches, the op-ed essays that come directly from the horse's mouth--cut out the middle men. (2) You want something more good about Fred? OK. He has the right position on the issues. (3) I guess I've missed the hit pieces by Fred's supporters. I've seen some baseless criticisms of him by those who don't want him in the race, though.
Personally, I think the Primary Season is a time to blow your own horn, not to try to stop up your opponents' horns. However, in a specific race, I wouldn't condemn a candidate for pointing out why his position is better than another person's position, or why he could do a better job.
“Political Correctness” is just double-talk for “Capitulation to Extortion.”
I have read a lot of hit piece stuff lately, but I did not write this as a hit piece. I did not expect people to make leaps of logic and assume this is a hit piece. I know Fred is not an announced candidate, but what is so wrong with linking to an article he recently wrote? The only thing that I know about Mitt and his stand on America's Cuba policy is that he was not well received by some folks like Val Prieto of Babalu blog. I don't think that wishing for Mitt to get questioned and make his stand clearer on America's Cuba policy is a hit piece. Perhaps there are some folks reading here wound up real tight with too many cups of coffee. I don't know. I get kind of tired of attacks on candidates that are personal in their nature. I have not been guilty of doing this.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
in which Romney committed the dastardly faux paw that has you calling him out before you, well, call him out to further explain? Maybe at least then you can write a blog that compares apples to apples.
I know that he used the Castro line in the context of something Hugo Chavez has decided to start using. What I don't understand is why he said that those words of Fidel belong to a free Cuba.
A free Cuba doesn't want to own anything of Castro. Perhaps Mitt will make his understanding about a free Cuba more clear to me.
I repeat I am not comparing the Fred Thompson Cuba policy to the Mitt Romney Cuba policy in this blog. It never was that kind of apples to apples comparison. What I did write about are the way Romney has been perceived and received by Cuban-Americans compared to the way Fred Thompson has been received by Cuban-Americans.
I know Fred is not an announced candidate. I don't know if Fred will be well received in the future by Cuban-Americans. I just stand by my point that right now they like Fred more than they like Mitt.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Saying that someone who aspires to be our nation's chief executive doesn't "get" it when it comes to relations with an island nation that's closer to Florida than Dallas is to Houston just because he misused a phrase was intended to compliment and flatter Mitt, I suppose?
As I said before, I'm liking a lot of what F.Thompson has been saying and I would welcome him to the national debate and discussion that is going on about the direction that the country should go on a variety of issues. But the suggestion that you make in this blog is very hard to interpret as anything other than an ill-informed broadside against Mitt Romney. If you insist that it's not, then I suppose that should (quite skeptically) be taken into consideration. I would suggest that you be more careful in how you phrase things in the future, though, if the conclusions drawn are not those that you intended to be drawn.
However...I suspect that you realize that you probably just went a little bit too far and are just backing down a bit, albeit not very gracefully.
There was no flattery for you to miss. Here is an excellent question for you to ask me? What does your title to this blog mean? The answer is that Mitt Romney does not get the approval from the Cuban-Americans from the exposure that they have had of him. Fred does get the approval from the Cuban-Americans from the exposure that they have had of him. I have not backed down any from this point. I understand that you don't care much for this blog. I'm Ok with that. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I can speak for myself. I really don't need anybody to speak for me.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
you must make a pro castro movie to get hollwoods endorsement.
It's ridiculous for a Fred supporter to ask that Romney be asked about positions during the debate when Fred wont even participate. Win or lose, you have to respect the person who puts himself out there and competes and fights as opposed to someone who isnt even competing at all.
Romney has shown the fortitude to confront different and hostile audiences and answer tough question. He will be on Sixty Minutes Sunday - a hostile forum for a conservative Morman like him. I'm sure the tools at CBS will do something to make him look silly. And I'm sure anti-Romney crowd will jump all over it. But he's out there and their guy is not. Proper respect is always given to the guy who isn't afraid to compete over the guys who are.
And I wouldn't make that link. But Fred is 100% right on this issue, and I'm glad to hear him speak on it.
Mitt Romney committed a cultural feaux paux when he went off script - something that often happens when people people are interacting with other cultures. And so OBVIOUSLY this means that Mitt Romney endorses Cuban healthcare!?!? Give me a break. I mean...I think that there are a lot of really stupid people who read this website, but I don't think that they're THAT stupid. But maybe they will prove me wrong and this will be a new low at RedState.
Listen...of the three current candidates, I think that there is no doubt that Mitt Romney is head and shoulders above McCain and Giuliani. But while I was initially found the idea of Fred Thompson - who was a well-liked though relatively undistinguished senator - running for the presidency 6 years after exiting public office absolutely preposterous, I must admit that what I've been hearing him saying has been winning me over.
That said, Pilgrim, you would be well-advised to simply prop up your candidate or to contrast him where there are real contrasts to be drawn. Mitt Romney's either misspeak or ill-advised attempt to "take back" a slogan and Fred Thompson's rebuke of socialized Cuban medicine is not such a comparison. This "nothing created by Castro" line is a very, very weak thread. I don't know that a fly could land on it without breaking it. You might as well say that if anyone enjoys Cuban cigars that were made during Castro's reign, that is equivalent to endorsing Castro's healthcare system.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk this up to intellectual laziness instead of ineptitude, Pilgrim. I hope you'll do better next time out of the gate.