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

There is finally a deal. The Democrats agreed to only spend the total budget amount that the president had asked for. That saves you nearly $150 billion over the next 5 years (because the base for future increases is lower) which is enough to avoid the increases in the alternative minimum tax that many want to see. I feel particularly happy about this because this all really started with the letter I circulated last spring on which 147 members of Congress agreed to uphold the president's veto of any spending bill over his requested amount. Bills went to the president, he vetoed them and the vetoes were upheld which is why majority Democrats had to make a deal. That all worked out quite well.

But I still voted against the spending bill.

• First of all, I actually thought the president's spending number was too high also. We cannot continue to increase spending by, or in excess of, the growth in the economy or we will never get to a balanced budget.
• Secondly, the deal included $11 billion in one-time new spending.
• Third, it has at least 8000 earmarks in it for nearly $20 billion. Much of this is complete waste. That's actually more than last year in spite of the Democrat leadership's pledges to reform this process.  It shows that the bipartisan earmark culture on Capitol Hill is alive and well.
• Fourth, the bill was 3500 pages long and weighs nearly 35 pounds. We got it at midnight on Sunday night and the first votes in rules committee happened about 14 hours later. Nobody, except the people who wrote it, really knows what is in it. I'm sure there's a lot of bad stuff. It should not happen like this.
• Fifth, there is a bunch of bad stuff I know is in there. Congressman Jefferson (D-LA), who is under indictment for taking bribes (allegedly money hidden in his freezer) for earmarks, received an earmark which is one of many hundreds thrown in the bill without any discussion or hearing. There is $10 million in there to pay for the legal defense of illegal aliens who are resisting deportation. And, the bill provides some funds for the border fence but reduces it from an ineffective one layer fence instead of two and does not provide the means to patrol it.

We saved some money. But there's a lot more left to be saved.

"What's your most treasured keepsake?"

Fred: "Trophy wife"

AP: "What's your lazy day activity?"

Fred: "Campaigning."

AP: Who's your favorite 20th-century president?

Fred: Martin Sheen (who played Josiah Bartlett in "The West Wing")

Thompson firmly believes he can play well with Evangelicals, sapping votes from their current favorite, Huckabee. He has been on the attack — trying to show holes in Huckabee's record both in press interviews and in a mailing that went out last week that accuses Huckabee of being weak on immigration.

"We've talked about immigration, we've talked about his record on taxes, we've talked about him wanting to lift the embargo against Castro and things like that and some of the stuff he switches his position on and some of the stuff he stays with," Thompson said.

He also had some pointed criticism of Romney. His campaign has labeled Romney a flip-flopper on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. When asked if the negativity could turn off Iowa voters, Thompson replied: "If you're supposed to go to the presidential elections without talking about the issues and where people's positions on issues that would be news to me."

The RNC just launched the new version of its website, www.GOP.com, and today, I had a chance to interview Cyrus Krohn, the man behind the site.

The GOP scored a major coup back in July when they recruited Krohn.  Prior to joining the RNC, he had spent ten years at Microsoft, started Slate.com, and served as Director of Yahoo’s! election strategy.   

Unlike many conservative bloggers, Krohn adamantly contends the GOP is not behind as it pertains to the internet.  He says it’s a false impression that has been perpetrated, generally, by internet consultants.  He notes the greatest area where Republicans are perceived as being weak has to do with online contributions.  He predicts that will change next year when we have a nominee.  (He declines to comment on which nominee would do the best online.) 

Krohn also knows that in the world of the internet, things change rapidly:

“Anyone who thinks Facebook is going to be the 'cat’s meow' ten years from now, they don’t fully understand the rate of change on the web.  Within a couple of months, YouTube went from nothing to what they are today.  People are going to build better mousetraps."

Krohn brings to GOP.com his strategies of "vertical issue-based social networks" and "content-to-community,” which are the most interesting aspects to the upgrade.  It’s easy to make a site “prettier,” but Krohn’s changes are fundamental paradigm shifts from the way the GOP used to view websites. 

As Krohn explains, people join social networks because of the cachet of the network – not because they want to be a part of a specific group.  But once a user joins a networking site, joining affinity groups is the next logical step.  The new GOP website allows users to build communities around vertical social issues.   

The site also seeks to find ways to activate readers. Content-to-community essentially works this way:  If you are reading an article on GOP.com about a topic, such as, say, terrorism, it would encourage you to join a group such as “safety and security.”   

Also, signaling they are up-to-date with the blogosphere, the RNC's blog, which is frequently updated, can also be found at GOP.com/blog.   

According to Krohn:  “Through the use of RSS feeds, email sign-up, mobile alerts, social networking and bookmarking, we're providing our audience with the opportunity to consume gop.com content at any time, from any place, and on any device.” 

This upgrade was the first of several upgrades slated for this year. 

For more information, TechRepublican has more technical info on the new revamped GOP.com.

I haven't a clue why Glamour magazine has a politics blog -- aren't there any celebrity break-ups or diet tips to cover -- but nonetheless, they were smart enough to ask our Amanda Carpenter to contribute a weekly post. 

From today: 

The feminist blogosphere is up in arms because Mike Huckabee pardoned a rapist and signed a petition that asks women to “submit graciously” to their husbands, but these same bloggers give him a free pass on taxes.

This make me think of that terribly stereotypical Teen Talk Barbie from a few Christmases back. “Math class is tough!” she said.

I’d hate to think that taxes are too “tough” for the Barbie blogs to address today. After all, the Huckster’s record on taxes portends a much more dismal future for women, more than his record on crime or a little unwelcome evangelizing.

Speaking of Mrs. Clinton: While she dispensed hand-shakes and hugs and chatted up Iowans herself, there were a couple of times when she stood by herself waiting for her husband to stop chatting up the crowd. Even Mr. Johnson had a moment where he stood alone watching the former president work his magic on the crowd.

“She has the experience, which is the key,” he said.

Asked why he wasn’t supporting a fellow African-American, Barack Obama, for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Johnson dead-panned about Mrs. Clinton, “Only 30 years of experience right here.”

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

Bill Clinton: He's a 1992 media-loves-me-and-doesn't-check-my-facts kind of guy in a 2007-2008 world.

“They have 12 field staffers, we only have 10 … so the idea that they are not actively working to organize has kind of been overblown.”

According to one Iowa Republican insider, it's hard to predict how the Romney vs. Huckabee match-up will turn out:  “People are going to try to determine:  Will Mitt Romney’s organization make up for any kind of poll deficit out there -- and I really don’t think there’s going to be a good answer to that question."

Clearly, it's hard to assess which organization is truly superior when Huckabee's organization is sort of under-the-radar, and their turn-out mechanism really depends entirely on themselves. 

Lastly, while most pundits are focused on Romney and Huckabee, Albrecht reminds me that there are other candidates to watch: 

 “There’s a perception out there that Giuliani’s not really organizing and not really trying to turn out his people, and that couldn’t be further from the truth.”

With the old Soviet Union in pieces, three elderly sisters turned to Google to put the missing blocks of their lives back together.

The Web search reunited Ossie Rasher, 81, and Sophia Altfeld, 78, both of Florida, with Rosalie Berkovich, 80, of Acton after decades apart.

The last time they met, Berkovich was a little read-headed cousin waving from a Moscow train in 1937.

The 'Net: Righting the wrongs of Communism, one Google search at a time.

“It was Mitt’s dad that kicked us over that one,” Ann Romney, Mitt Romney’s wife, recalled of the losing 1994 Senate race. “If people understood that equation of George Romney and his impact on my life and on Mitt’s life, they wouldn’t be so curious about why Mitt is running for president. He is why Mitt is running.”

Does failure to support Mitt Romney’s presidential bid qualify an individual as an anti-Mormon bigot?  

That’s the annoying message subliminally conveyed by the Romney campaign and expressed far less subtly by some of the governor’s increasingly desperate supporters. At a loss to explain the under-funded Mike Huckabee’s polling leads in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere, Romney loyalists assume that the Arkansan’s startling electoral rise depends entirely on prejudice against the LDS church. According to this theory, Evangelical Christians are too suspicious of Mormons even to consider supporting one of them for President, so instead they turn to an unqualified, unimpressive, unknown country bumpkin. 

For the record, let me say that I for one would be honored and proud to vote for a Mormon for president. As I’ve made clear on my show many times, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints are good citizens and great people – hard-working, generous, morally serious, patriotic, and pro-family. All Christians and Jews can learn a great deal from the spectacular success and refreshing wholesomeness of this vigorous religious community.  

But the fact that I’d be glad to vote for a Mormon, doesn’t mean that I want to vote for this Mormon ---and.Governor Romney looks less and less like a viable candidate to me. Part of the problem is the arrogance behind the current posture of the Romney camp. His backers suggest that their guy is so obviously qualified and brilliant and charismatic and wonderful that the only possible reason anyone could fail to endorse him must have something to do with his religious faith. 

There’s an odd sort of jujitsu employed in some of the public arguments: the only way you can prove, definitively, that you’re not an anti-Mormon bigot is to support Mitt. That line of reasoning parallels the notion that you can’t show you’re not a woman-hater unless you endorse Hillary, or that you won’t demonstrate that you’ve conquered racism without backing Barack. 

Come on, guys – there’s plenty of reason to oppose any or all of these candidates without imputing racism or sexism or religious bigotry to your opponents. 

It’s troubling that it was Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, who gave the campaign’s biggest address on religion and politics, and it’s the Romney rooters, not the Huck-a-Nuts, who seem most eager for every opportunity to discuss the role of faith in the campaign. 

In response to this manipulation, we need a clear assertion that refusal to join the Romney bandwagon doesn’t provide evidence of religious bigotry. It may, however, indicate a need for the former Massachusetts Governor to upgrade his campaign with a more positive focus, a clearer issues message, fewer attacks on rivals, and a less defensive edge.   

Late last night, Democrats released the omnibus spending bill that will be coming to the floor of the House for a vote tonight.  With barely 24 hours to look at this bill, it will be a mad dash to see what is exactly included in this spending measure that funds nearly every federal agency and will cost almost $1 trillion.

Democrats have talked a lot about fiscal responsibility, but they have not “walked the walk”.  In the short 10 months, while Democrats have been in the majority, Congress has passed legislation that would increase discretionary spending by a whopping $275 billion, and entitlement spending by $179 billion, over 10 years.

Here are a few things that I hope to see from the consideration of the omnibus spending bill and any other spending bill for that matter.

Earmarks

So far, the spending bills from the House have 6,651 earmarks, while the Senate spending bills have 4,700 earmarks.  This number is down from recent years, but Members have slipped millions worth of pork projects in conference reports.  This practice, known as “Airdropping” successfully bypasses transparency rules.

Authorization

The original request from President Bush in October was $933 billion. Since then nearly a quarter of the fiscal year has gone by. Counting previously appropriated funds, it is important that appropriations do not exceed the $933 billion level requested by the President.

Time

Upon becoming Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), pledged to allow 72 hours of study before any bill would be brought to a vote.  However, in consideration of this massive spending bill, we have barely 24 hours to disseminate everything present in roughly 3,500 pages.

Everyone talks about the Iowa Caucuses, but few people really know how they work.  With that in mind, following is a quick cheat-sheet on how Iowa works:

The Caucus System: Predicting the Winner is Tough

The hardest thing about running a caucus campaign in Iowa is figuring out who will actually show up.  Caucusing is much more difficult -- and time consuming -- than merely voting.  And because they take place in January, sub-zero temperatures are usually the norm.  Folks obviously can't vote absentee -- and this year, the Orange Bowl will be on TV. 

For this reason, it is notoriously difficult to get accurate polling numbers in Iowa.  At this point four years ago, John Kerry was polling in 4^th place in Iowa.  Historically, about 70 percent of caucus voters have caucused before, but when pollsters ask voters if they "may" attend a caucus, they are likely casting a wider net than the 80 - 90 thousand folks who are expected to attend the caucus.  Pollsters also tend to over-sample the number of Independents who will turn out for a Republican caucus. 

So take the Iowa poll numbers with a grain of salt.

How Campaigns Organize Iowa

There are 99 counties in Iowa and 1,781 precincts -- some of which have as few as 5 or 10 voters (who actually show up at a caucus).  As you can imagine, this creates a logistical challenge.  So how do campaigns organize for this? 

Campaigns are, for obvious reasons, hesitant to reveal too much insider information about their campaign.  But generally speaking, Iowa works like this:  Potential caucus-goers are rated on a 1-5 scale.  “Ones” are the uber-supporters who have literally signed a supporter card and agreed to voter for your candidate.  “Twos” are folks who have verbally told door-to-door canvassers or phone bankers that they support your candidate.  And, of course, fives are supporting other campaigns. 

Lists are culled by voter ID phone banks and door-to-door canvassing.  Then, precinct leaders are assigned to communicate with these supporters, making sure there is as little attrition as possible (and noting whether or not someone has switched affiliation).  Because caucusing is difficult, each campaign has field staff who conduct “caucus training” for their identified supporters. 

On Caucus day, each precinct leader is responsible for turning out his or her "Ones."  This is vital, because in order to win, a campaign’s identified voters must still turn out even if it rains, or snows, or if their car breaks down …

Caucus Day

Despite the romantic mythology that most Caucuses take place in someone’s home, the vast majority take place at a location such as a school.  Obviously, the way they are conducted varies from town-to-town and year-to-year, but here is generally what happens:

Upon arriving, voters check in with county GOP person.  If the voter isn’t registered, they may fill out a registration form at that time.  A representative from each campaign then speaks on each candidate’s behalf, and tries to sway undecided voters who may be there.  After speeches, they break into precincts (several precincts often meet at the same location). 

There are usually some GOP Parliamentary procedures to be performed, such as electing a chairman and a secretary, etc. Eventually, the time comes for folks to literally write down on a piece of paper the candidate preference.  After votes are tallied, they are reported to the Iowa Republican party.  After voting, there is also usually more Party business to be conducted, including discussing the platform.