Townhall.com The Blogspot for Political, Conservative and Republican Blogs and Bloggers

"Republicans are actually in an excellent position to embark on such a course right now. What with an unpopular president, an unorthodox presidential nominee, congressional conferences bottoming out in terms of their numbers of safe seats, and only a handful of well-known rising stars in the states, conventional wisdom says the Republican Party is a mess. I don’t see that at all. What pundits see as disunity can be very easily transformed into creative competition."

Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that brought the 43^rd President of the United States into the Oval Office, most can agree that the story of the 2000 recount was a riveting and extremely intense story, one with ample potential for movie-making possibilities. As two rival presidential campaigns fought to end up with 50% of the electoral college votes (plus 1), a captivated country watched intently as hours turned into weeks and hanging chads became a common term.

Unfortunately, HBO’s “Recount” (premiering this Sunday at 9 PM) fails to use the rich subject material effectively in its retelling of the story behind the Florida recount. Instead of depth and thoughtful insight into what happened during the highly-controversial period, the film instead relies on the media-driven superficialities of the whole situation, especially blatant in the portrayal of then-Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris by Laura Dern. This movie could have explored Harris’ motivations and mentality during the situation that brought her into the worldwide limelight but it instead makes her into an unfair caricature that has become the modus operandi for portrayals of the unsuccessful 2006 Senatorial candidate.
Read More...

It seems everyone these days knows how the Republican Party can stop its internal bleeding and win a few elections this November. And while there are many good ideas floating around (and a few bad ones), almost everyone offering their free advice is offering it specifically to presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain. And while McCain needs as much good advice as he can get, his name is only going to be the one at the top of the ballot this November.

Thousands of other Republicans running for offices around the country have not only a chance to win, but a chance to rededicate the Republican Party and reform our country in the process...

A few months ago, when Fidel handed over many of his titles to his brother Raul, the Cuban regime announced a series of so-called "reforms." For example, Cubans are now allowed to purchase mobile phones and DVD players and computers. And they've been told that they will be able to purchase toasters and other basic appliances in 2010.

If the Cuban regime is serious about improving life for the Cuban people, it will take steps necessary to make these changes meaningful. Now that the Cuban people can be trusted with mobile phones, they should also be trusted to speak freely in public. (Applause.) Now that the Cuban people are allowed to purchase DVD players, they should also be allowed to watch movies and documentaries produced by Cuban artists who are free to express themselves. (Applause.) Now that the Cuban people have open access to computers, they should also have open access to the Internet. (Applause.) And now that the Cuban people will be allowed to have toasters in two years, they should stop needing to worry about whether they will have bread today. (Applause.)

There is another problem with the regime's recent announcements: It is the height of hypocrisy to claim credit for permitting Cubans to own products that virtually none of them can afford. For the regime's actions to have any impact, they must be accompanied by major economic reforms that open up Cuba's inefficient state-run markets, to give families real choices about what they buy, and institute a free enterprise system that allows ordinary people to benefit from their talents and their hard work. Only when Cubans have an economy that makes prosperity possible will these announcements lead to any real improvements in their daily lives.

Just a few years ago, Senator Obama had a very clear view on Cuba. When asked in a questionnaire about his policy toward Cuba, he answered: “I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene.” Now Senator Obama has shifted positions and says he only favors easing the embargo, not lifting it. He also wants to sit down unconditionally for a presidential meeting with Raul Castro. These steps would send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators – there is no need to undertake fundamental reforms, they can simply wait for a unilateral change in US policy. I believe we should give hope to the Cuban people, not to the Castro regime.

The Obama campaign quickly sent out a response from Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, both supporters with foreign policy experience, who argued the country needed a change from a Bush administration approach that had for much of the past seven years frowned upon dialogue with certain adversaries, though it has more recently shown signs of shifting.

“John McCain needs to explain why continuing to do exactly what George Bush has done will somehow produce a different result,” Mr. Dodd said.

Garrison concluded: "With reasonable men, I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost." It is inarguable that after Fidel Castro took control of Cuba, his tyranny trampled the fundamental human rights of the people of Cuba. Today the Cuban people do not have the benefit of free press that Garrison and Douglass placed at the service of the abolitionist cause. Neither do the Cuban people have the ability to somewhat gather as America's Founding Fathers did to debate the form of government and rally popular support for independence. Yet Cubans share the same goal and desire for freedom and political rights.

Americans of all origins should find it fair and easy to conclude that not only are Cuban Americans uncompromising "hard-liners" on the issues of freedom and full emancipation of Cuba but also that there is no reason to back away from that hard line. It is, after all, a most American tradition.

For that dialogue to be meaningful, he (Thomas Shannon of the State Department) said, "the fear factor really has to be removed from Cuban political discourse, and that one of the most dramatic ways to begin this process would be by freeing political prisoners and for the Cuban regime to make clear that it has enough confidence in itself and enough confidence in the Cuban people that it can begin a dialogue without using the secret police and the security services as a moderator of political discourse."

With that in mind, said Shannon, Cuba Solidarity Day aims "to call for the freedom of political prisoners, to call for full compliance with human rights accords that Cuba has signed," with the most recent accord being U.N. covenants on political and civil rights.

Today the Washington Post reported on a massive new program in the recently passed farm bill that managed to slip by most House members and staff, during consideration of the 637 page farm package last week.

The new program will install a program to increase taxpayer-financed subsidies by billions of dollars if high commodity prices decline down to the historic typical levels.  Therefore if commodity prices drop from their current exorbitantly high levels, the government would institute subsidies to match current inflated commodity prices.

The program in question, dubbed the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), if enacted will be a bloated and wasteful program since the subsidy amounts are tied to recent record commodity prices.

For instance, the Agriculture Department has projected that subsidy payments for corn alone could reach $10 billion per year if prices were to drop from its current extravagant price of $5-$6 per bushel to $3.25 a bushel; a level that was seen last year.  Currently, subsidies are disbursed when bushel prices drop below $2.63. 

If this senseless level of subsidation wasn’t enough, the farm bill also includes billions of dollars in additional subsidies and handouts to wealthy farmers.  That’s not to mention the other horrific parts of this legislation, but that is for another blog.

This is hardly an example of sound fiscal policy to say the least.

The issue: the nation’s top environmental regulator refused to say whether he had spoken with President Bush before deciding on a host of environmental policies. Waxman, a Democrat, wanted an answer. Issa, a Republican, had been cutting him off, insisting that lawmakers were supposed to take turns speaking, rotating from a member of one party to a member of the other.

Issa said that White House involvement in EPA activities was nothing new and happened in the Clinton administration, according to The Associated Press. Furthermore, said Issa, such involvement "is allowed" under the law.