Debating Deace: So Much More Than You Hear on the Radio
- Monday, February 1, 2010, 4:37
- Blogs, Craig Robinson
- 1,943 views
- 45 comments
As many of you know, Steve Deace is a personal friend of mine. The friendship is genuine. My wife and I have been to his home for dinner, I occasionally show up to his regular card game and I’ve even embarrassed myself while playing Rock Band with Iowa’s most controversial radio talk show host. From everything I’ve seen firsthand, Steve is a wonderful father and husband. His kids are adorable. Regardless of what you think about his politics and tactics, Steve Deace is a good man.
For the last couple of weeks, Steve and I have been at odds over political tactics. Our latest on and off-air spat was created by my reaction to the Iowa Family Policy Center’s endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, which actually focused more on Terry Branstad’s 16 year record as governor than anything else.
Last week, Deace escalated our disagreement when he sent the following email to a number of conservatives that have been guests on his show.
Steve Deace:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am emailing all of you because since the 2008 election cycle you have appeared on our show and either been portrayed by me or yourselves as conservatives, and you’re still considered active in Iowa politics at the moment. One of the ongoing debates we’re having within our vast listening audience is what exactly is a conservative? I’d like to get each of your takes on this on the record for our blog by getting your answer to the following hypothetical question:
Hypothetical: A political candidate knocks on your door asking for your vote. You ask him what he stands for. He says he’ll raise taxes/fees 30 times, the sales tax by 60%, the gas tax by 5 cents a gallon, grow government bigger than the population rate, support state-sanctioned gambling, earn the endorsement of the liberal teachers unions, and appoint pro-abortion and pro-sodomy people to influential positions in the government. Would you vote for him?
I will post both a list of those we asked this survey question of, as well as the responses you send back to me verbatim, on Monday’s blog and we’ll be discussing it next week as well. Please email me your responses by 5 p.m. on Friday if you would like to participate. Thanks in advance and keep fighting the good fight!
The following is my initial response, followed by the back and forth between Steve and myself.
Craig Robinson:
I think these questions are fun.
Here is another one for you to consider.
Hypothetical: A political candidate knocks on your door asking for your vote. You have seen this guy hanging around for a number of years. You remember that he supported a tax increase on dirty magazines and videos but now doesn’t even want to consider raising taxes on casinos. He was for a 10% ethanol mandate before he was against it. In his last job where he served as the CEO/Chairman of the Board, he plunged the organization into debt, but despite being the highest paid official with the organization, the unpaid CEO is to blame. Finally, the entire focus on his campaign is to give the office of Governor more power. Would you vote for him?
I’m sure we can come up with good ones on Rants and Roberts too. Lots of material to work with. You know things like the Dream Act.
Steve Deace:
Craig,
You didn’t answer the question.
I asked you a hypothetical question about a candidate’s record that could clearly be documented. Can you document the candidate in your hypothetical is guilty of the sort of corporate malfeasance you allege? I actually had the documentation Rants provided me (which you are referring to) looked at by a forensic auditor, I just haven’t told you or the audience that yet. Their conclusion was you can make the numbers say exactly what both Rants and Vander Plaats are alleging, it just comes down to if you buy Bob’s explanation the non profit suffered while he was running for governor as the rationale behind those dips. Not to mention the fact a guy that was the state auditor of Iowa for 20 years put his credibility on the line on a 50,000-watt radio station about those allegations. That’s a pretty credible witness in a court of law, let alone public opinion.
That said, if you have a more credible witness to the contrary, or the goods that a candidate currently running for office is guilty of what you’re alleging, I’ll give you all the air time you need on WHO to expose that. Especially considering the worst thing in the world for those of us who believe in Constitutional Rule of Law and Christian Morality is to have someone get elected on those issues who is that duplicitous. Who knows what damage he would do to our credibility while in office? Your wife deals with ethics in the legal profession for a living, so surely she can help steer you in the proper direction to move beyond snarky (which you know I love) innuendo and into separating fact from fiction before the primary, since afterwards you make get stuck with such a scoundrel representing your party at the top of the ballot.
Then there’s the fact that you worked for the Nussle Campaign in 2006, did you not? Were you a paid staffer for that campaign or a volunteer? Either way, if the candidate you’re clearly referring to is guilty of that sort of corporate malfeasance, explain to me how you can justify working to get him elected to the No. 2 position in the executive branch of the state government as recently as the previous gubernatorial election cycle?
If you don’t want to respond, I will be happy to post your initial reply as is on Monday.
Craig Robinson:
Steve,
I refuse to answer your hypothetical question because I find it to be a worthless exercise since you don’t want to apply your standards to the candidate that you support, advise, and are personal friends with. The only reason I submitted a hypothetical of my own was to illustrate to you how someone can pull the negative things out of someone’s record and make that candidate seem totally unelectable. This is what all campaigns do. I’m used to it. My only purpose is to show you that you can do this with most candidate’s records.
I also would remind you, and a number of people on this email chain (and my wife for that matter), that you guys voted for a candidate who was in favor of higher income taxes, higher sales taxes, higher gas taxes, higher grocery taxes, higher tobacco taxes, higher beer taxes, higher Internet taxes, and higher nursing home bed taxes.
You voted for a candidate who was the ONLY Republican to speak to the NEA and later receive their endorsement.
You voted for a candidate who called No Child Left Behind “the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime.” (Washington Times 03/01/05)
You voted for a candidate who supported amnesty and taxpayer-financed welfare and health care for illegal aliens.
What’s so ironic about your hypothetical question is that almost everything you take issue with in Branstad’s record are things that you either didn’t care about or chose to overlook in regards to Mike Huckabee. It looks like you have flip-flopped on these issues quicker than Mitt Romney ever could have.
In regards to Bob’s record as CEO/Chairman of the Board of Opportunities Unlimited, I don’t have to document the corporate malfeasance that I alleged because you just did it for me. Since your own forensic auditor says that the numbers can say want Rants said they did, then it not untrue. As for Auditor Johnson, the only numbers that he talked about while on the air where the years that Bob was the CEO, he did not comment on the years in which Bob was the Chairman of the Board. Additionally, I thought the reason why Opportunities Unlimited was in the red was because they were in the midst of a building campaign, not because Bob was running for office. I don’t think that is the rationale that he shared with your listeners.
I’m not being “snarky” at all. I’m simply asking you to apply the same standard to the candidate that you support as the ones that you take issue with.
Actually, I have never worked for Jim Nussle. I worked for a company that did work for Jim Nussle, but I have never been employed by Jim Nussle. I also don’t know if I can be called a volunteer either, since I was paid to attend campaign events and reimbursed for my expenses by my employer.
This past summer was the first time I have ever seen Opportunity Unlimited’s tax returns. I was made aware of that situation at the same time you were. Even if I had known about it and was disturbed with it, I did not hold any position with the [2006 Nussle/Vander Plaats]campaign. In 2006, my job required me to work with a number of clients that I might have had issues with.
Unfortunately, you have put me in a position where you are forcing me to defend a candidate that I don’t necessary support. Believe it or not, I’m only trying to be objective in pointing out that anyone’s record can be spun and manipulated into looking bad. I think it would serve you well to be able to look at things objectively too.
Steve Deace:
First of all, Ed is correct. Craig’s reply is very good, I just don’t agree it’s good for the same reasons Ed probably does.
The reason Craig’s reply is good is because based on what he wrote it’s obvious he has put some thought behind what he is advocating, and is clearly wrestling with the fact he’s seeing people he respects split apart and is trying to figure out if this marriage can be saved. On that level, I owe Craig an apology, because I didn’t have enough faith in him as my friend and immediately assumed that if he didn’t draw the same conclusion as me, it must mean it’s because he’s just not as convicted. I apologize for being self-righteous.
However, this is the second time that Craig has questioned the motives of his friends, first those at IFPC and now me. He’s right. I do consider Bob Vander Plaats to be a friend and we do have a personal relationship. I’m pretty sure I haven’t hidden that from the audience because I think it’s fair you know my biases before hearing my opinions. However, I also think its fair for me to question Craig’s motives in kind. Who is he supporting? What is motivating him? Does he have something personal against Bob? Is there a reason his website attracts people in the comments section that openly express disdain for Bob and Christian Conservatives in general? Those are all fair, and largely unanswered, questions. That said I also have a personal relationship with Jonathan Narcisse that is deeper and longer than the one I have Bob, and I’m not pimping his potential gubernatorial bid at the moment. Why? Because I don’t think Jonathan understands the nuances of the Constitution, courts, and what’s at stake on this issue as well as Bob does, and it’s my #1 issue.
It appears, Craig, that the premise of your argument is that those who refuse to support Terry Branstad are holding him to a standard they haven’t been willing to hold others to in the past, and you can’t figure out why they’re making this guy out to be the devil when it’s so obvious the guy with the pitched fork already lives at Terrace Hill.
If that is your argument, there is no question that your observation is correct. Branstad is being held to a standard we haven’t always held others. In fact, I will accept the point of your arguments against me pertaining to my previous support of Mike Huckabee. I could quibble with some points (like Huckabee was never endorsed by the Arkansas Education Association as governor, in fact they hated him; and his overall record as Arkansas governor is more conservative than Branstad’s which I’m sure even you would agree with), yet are there several things Huckabee did as governor that I would’ve opposed had I been in Arkansas at that time?
Absolutely, so me splitting hairs with you is a moot point.
Did I overlook those things when he was running for president? Yes and no. Some I knew and rationalized that they weren’t that bad, and some I didn’t until after the fact. I still believe I may have voted for the right guy in those Caucuses, but I may have done so out of the wrong premise. Mitt Romney represented a level of moral compromise at every level that everyone on this list knows is indefensible, which is why no one has taken me up on my offer to get me to resign if I lied about his record. Nevertheless, instead of taking the high road I played defense and selected a less flawed “hero” to confront the obvious “villain.”
In other words, I went for the lesser of two evils.
On some level we’ll always choose the lesser of two evils this side of Heaven, because all creation groans with sin. Every one of us on this list is evil on some level, very much including me. It’s Jesus that makes all things new, not us. At best we get to occupy until He comes.
I love Mike Huckabee as a person, and at times I’ve even found him an inspiring figure. We still communicate some times to this day (although some of my communications urging him to do better and be bolder he probably doesn’t like). Yet I lost my critical thinking over that campaign, and often made the right points for the wrong reasons, and became very much like that I was attacking. In short, I was guilty of hypocrisy.
This is why I have told Mike Huckabee personally, and expressed on the air, that should he run for president again it’s going to take a different and bolder candidate than the one we saw last time to satisfy voters like me. We want leaders, not just more winsome cliché givers or less morally compromised candidates than the establishment offers up. Our republic is falling apart, and I go home most nights from my job wondering what kind of civilization we’re going to leave for our kids. We’re now at such a dire point that simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic isn’t good enough. The Left is moving with such ferocity, such relentlessness, that it requires a response in kind from us that is better than “just win baby.
The question was “would you vote” for the candidate in question, not “have you voted” for him. There is a reason for that. All of us on this list have voted for candidates like that, and the only reason I didn’t vote for Branstad in 1994 is because I wasn’t able to vote in Iowa then. Those on this list who have told me they wouldn’t vote for that candidate now are claiming they have learned from the past, as am I, and it remains to be seen if we remain vigilant in that effort. Our credibility is on the line, too.
Nevertheless, the hypothetical question is a paradox. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what conclusion you ended up with as much as it does how you came to that conclusion. Craig, given his response, appears to be thinking it out, albeit drawing a conclusion I don’t agree with. It appears given Kent Sorenson and Iowa Family PAC’s recent statement they have done the same, whether you agree with their conclusions or not. What concerns me is that out of paralyzing nostalgia for a bygone era and/or the emotional desire to win we are making the same mistakes all over again that led to us being here in the first place.
This is why I wrote this piece six months ago: http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2009/09/01/8-simple-rules-if-branstad-wants-to-unify-the-republican-party-while-running-again-for-governor/. Frankly, given his stature, he probably ought to be the boldest of the candidates. He really has no one to answer to at this point in his life and can call his own shot. I wanted to see if Mr. Branstad was running on nostalgia, or because he was a man on mission who gave up a lucrative job to go back and finish the job he started before. Given the fact exactly none of these issues our listeners care so much about have been addressed by his campaign, I unfortunately think we have our answer.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Instead of allowing the candidates to set the agenda, why don’t you set the agenda? Why don’t you lead for a change? For example:
• Matt Strawn…why don’t you organize a series of gubernatorial and congressional debates across Iowa allowing your candidates in these primaries to openly discuss with your voters how they plan to lead Iowa into the 21st century? Then, after a fair and honest debate with Republican voters, you’re perfectly within the boundaries of integrity to say I respect the decision of Republican voters who made that decision after an open and vigorous debate, so RPI will work hard to elect the candidates they have selected after a transparent process. Are you the party chairman or the party orderly? You’re too successful at such a young age to be that compliant. Lead my friend, before it’s too late and defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory yet again.
• Ed Failor, Jr….why not have similar candidate forums in Sioux City, Cedar Rapids, and Des Moines to allow these candidates to explain their record and plans to make Iowa a low-tax, pro-growth state that creates new jobs? This could be a fundraiser for ITR, and one for RPI in Strawn’s case as well.
• Kim Lehman & Steve Scheffler…same suggestion to you. These are opportunities to let the voters hear an honest and open discussion between the candidates, and raise money and generate publicity for your issues/organizations.
Why aren’t we doing these things? I can tell you why my grassroots listeners think you don’t. They think you don’t because behind the scenes you’re playing favorites, stacking the deck for your favorites because you’re funded by the same people funding them, and that the current paradigm of letting that uneven playing field work itself out and then supporting whatever lukewarm candidate that gets served up out of that witch’s brew is a total and complete copout, and that’s why there’s more registered Independents in Iowa and nationwide than Republicans. These people do not trust you, because if they did I wouldn’t have survived on the radio saying what I’ve been saying for as long as I have. They don’t believe you’re being honest with them. They believe you’re helping candidates cover up their records, and that as long as they’re a Republican it doesn’t matter what they believe. These people want to know why have a platform at all then? And they’re tired of electing Republicans who talk tough on the campaign trail and negotiate evil down with the Democrats once in office. These are their perceptions, whether they’re factually true or not.
In short, the Republican Party’s credibility is shot.
All of you on this email list I have either love, respect, hope or fondness for on some level (or all of the above in several cases). And yes, that even includes you, Doug. J I don’t agree with you, but you don’t duck a fight and I respect that. And just so you know up front, I’m going to try to sell you on the executive order when we have lunch next week.
To all of you on this list I want you know I’m not trying to win an argument with you. I am trying to start one.
We all know the definition of insanity. What we have done before hasn’t worked, so why do that whole my team vs. your team emotion-based loser again? I’d like to find out why before my grandkids grow up in a civilization that thinks there is no god but Allah, pedophiles and polygamists acquire the same freedoms homosexuals are now winning, and the U.S. dollar is traded in for the North American Currency.
Thank you for your replies to my question as well as the times you have appeared on our show to speak to our audience. Here’s hoping this is the beginning of an honest evaluation about who we are, what we believe, and how we got here in the first place. I’m sorry it’s so long, but it’s from me. What did you expect? J
P.S…Craig, you’re correct about Bob’s explanation. My recollection of his explanation was wrong. Also, you have told me on several occasions you were “with” the Nussle Campaign in 2006. If I have misunderstood what you meant by that I apologize for that, too.
I did not respond to Steve’s last email response.
Steve took offense because he believes that I’m questioning his motives. I’m not, I’m questioning his tactics and asking him to show some consistency in the candidates that he supports or attacks. Steve asked who I was supporting. I’m not supporting any particular candidate. I offer analysis of every candidate’s campaign. That’s my role in the process.
Steve also asked if I have something personal against Bob. I do not. I have given the Vander Plaats campaign a lot of coverage. I spent the better part of day with Vander Plaats last spring. I’ve attended a number of his press conferences and traveled to Lake Okoboji to cover his big event with Mike Huckabee. I think the coverage on TheIowaRepublican.com has been fair to all candidates. I understand that candidates might not agree with my analysis, but that’s all that it is, my analysis.
As for the comment section on the site, that is something that is beyond my control. I invite everyone to participate. As for what motivates me, I have always been passionate about Iowa politics. It is why I chose to work on a caucus campaign after graduating from college. It is why I’ve stayed involved for more than a decade.
What troubles me about Steve’s response is that he quickly tosses aside the fact that he supported a candidate less than two years who has a similar record to his hypothetical candidate which we all know is Terry Branstad. I admire Steve’s convictions on the issues of life and marriage. Those two issues are at the foundation of his political ideology. What I find odd is that Deace, IFPC, and Rep. Kent Sorenson have not stuck to Deace’s non-negotiable argument when dealing with Branstad. Instead, they have all made a point to criticize Terry Branstad on fiscal issues.
The problem that Deace and other Huckabee supporters now must confront is that they are attacking Branstad for doing things that Mike Huckabee did when he was governor. In politics, it’s important to always stay on message. Thus far, Deace and IFPC have not shown much discipline in that department.
What we now see is that a couple of years ago Deace defended Huckabee’s record on taxes and overlooked the NEA endorsement he received, but in the next election, he is criticizing a candidate with a similar record. Making matters worse, he is making Branstad’s record some sort of litmus test that all conservatives and candidates must pass. Yet, he would have failed this test during the last presidential caucuses.
In December of 2007 Deace told his audience, “I hold my side and my views to at least as high of standard as I do my own.” That is all I’m asking him to do now. Mike Huckabee’s record on taxes wasn’t important to Deace in 2008. Neither was the endorsement he received from the NEA. Steve Deace and 40,953 other Iowans found it okay to overlook Huckabee’s record on a number of issues for the caucuses, so how can they now belittle or dismiss a candidate with the same record?
As for the issues of life and marriage, those are a different story. Branstad is pro-life and supports traditional marriage. He has said such numerous times. Does Branstad share the same worldview as people like Steve Deace? No, I don’t think he does. If Steve Deace wants to point that out to people, I think that’s fair and consistent with what he’s advocated for on the radio since June of 2006.
If he now wants to attack a particular candidate for having a record that is almost identical to someone who he supported enthusiastically just a few years ago, then he should get a job in politics, because that’s what political hacks do. Steve Deace is acting just like the political hacks he says he can’t stand.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
45 Comments on “Debating Deace: So Much More Than You Hear on the Radio”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Since I am one of Steve’s harshest critics(and without sin, SARC!!!), let me cast the first stone. First of all, I have never met the man so for all I know he could be a wonderful guy. However I question both his motives AND tactics. For starters, there are many of us here who I truly believe are conservative and Christian that are incensed that he and a few others have hijacked the issues and attack those same minded people that dare dissagree with them. I realize I’ve been around for a few more years, but I for the life of me can’t understand why someone would go out of their way to make enemies of people that are needed as allies. He goes on and on about how the GOP lacks “principles”, yet seems more than willing to accept populist socialism as just one example. He claims the party abandons the platform, yet who does he think it is that wrote the platform? As I recall, it was his buddy Bryan English that did his best to water down the platform when he served on the committee(I was there in the 5th dist. on the plat. committee and have been for some time so I know of what I speak.) The platform is nothing more than a statement of belief and support of issues that are important to party members at the particular time it is drafted. BTW Steve, it might amuse you to know there are several planks on the State platform that are basically the same as I had written them when I submitted them to caucus.
For some reason, he has decided that attacking conservatives is more virtuous than focusing on the fact it is the liberal left that is the real opposition. Yet for some reason I’ve rarely heard him do that(I’m sure all you little “birdies” will jump in line to criticise me as just a “deace hater”). So let me ask, why on earth take on someone like Steve King who is probably on of the most conservative Reps. in Congress and very popular in the 5th District(where BVP comes from)? Last session it was Senator McKinley that bore the brunt of his wrath, yet convieniently leaving out the fact that according to the rules of the Senate(yes, it is different than the House), as long as Sen. Gronstal was in charge there was little left that could be done. There were several very decent Iowa GOP Senators that recieved tons of messages, etc. from uninformed constituents that sometimes quite frankly weren’t very “christian”. I’m not going to re-visit Varnum here, but as long as Gov. Chet Culver(dem), Senate MAJORITY Leader Mike Gronstal(dem), and Attorney General Tom Miller(dem) were in charge of these key positions there was very little that could have been done. Why didn’t I hear him go after Polk Co. District Attorney John Sarcone for not appealing this to the US Supreme Court? There are countless other examples of this type of hypocracy that I don’t have time to go into now.
I would be more sympathetic if he offered constructive criticism and was more even handed in pointing out where the problems lie, however I haven’t seen much of that!
Finally, finally you have grown some balls. I have listened to you get bitch slapped by that corpulent ratings whore for way too long. Also, your experience with him shows what happens when you sleep with a dog–you get fleas. Like others have pointed out in these blogs Deace and his ignorant acolytes have the luxury of mouthing extremist views because they don’t have to govern or win elections. You appearing on his show plays right into his hand because you are giving him credence when he deserves none. Craig, I hand it to you for all of the thought and hard work you put into this site and the abuse you take for putting your name out there. However, all of your hard work is being undermined when you genuflect before the altar of Deace. It looks like after this article you will be able to give your knees a chance to heal.
Thanks, Craig, you’ve shown some real courage and clarity of thought. With Deace, it’s always about Deace. He claims to be a better Christian than anyone else but the truth is he’s only hiding behind his Christianity. For those who are willing to believe his propaganda, he turns them into political cripples.
They have been narrowed down to the point they only support one Republican House candidate–Shaw; and one Senate candidate–Sorenson; and VP for governor.
Deace works AGAINST a Republican majority. If he really cares about the issues he claims to care about, he would be working FOR a Republican majority. Deace only cares about his guests worshiping Deace. He is a phony.
Very fascinating read Mr Robinson, thanks for posting it publicly here for us.
I’d observe that the narrower the pedestal one chooses to stand upon, the more visible are one’s mis-steps off that pedestal.
DVFO your hatred blinds you to the truth. The truth of the matter is that fans of Deace tend to be free thinkers. The truth of the matter is that many of Deace fans support a variety of candidates. I myself will support any candidate that advances Republican ideals.
I don’t know how I got tossed into this debate between Craig and Steve but I absolutely understand the Constitution better than Bob. Infact, if Bob had had the courage to accept my September debate challenge the same way Chris Rants accepted my November debate challenge we’d understand just how much better I understand the full range of gubernatorial issues than BVP.
Al, it’s not free tought if you are always in agreement. Think about that!
Ooops, I meant thought. My bad….
Craig,
With this email exchange..you have exposed the hypocrisy that Deace and others have demonstrated during the campaign so far.
Folks like BVP, Brian English, Danny Carroll, IFPC, etc…were gushing over Mike Huckabee back during caucus season…even though Huckabee did not have a conservative record when it came to issues like taxes and government spending.
Yet, they now bash Branstad over the head for having a very similar record to what Mike Huckabee did.
That doesn’t matter to them apparently…because to them, Craig..the ends justify the means.
If it means that they have to tear down Branstad with negative attacks….that’s fine. Never mind that they’re attacking a candidate who actually SIGNED a Defense of Marriage act into law. Never mind they’re attacking a candidate who had a very similar record to the candidate they supported for President not more than a year and a half ago.
Craig..I don’t know Steve personally…however just from listening to your exchanges last week, it almost sounded like Deace was bordering between screaming at you and having a rational debate over you actually having the courage to question the strategy that BVP/IFPC were taking.
I have a feeling that this “debate” that you’re going to have with Deace and Brian English today is going to basically be a 2 on 1 gang up on you. They’re going to try to come at you with the line that if you’re not behind BVP..you’re not really a conservative or an evangelical.
I would disagree with that Timmy. Can two people not think freely and come to the same conclusion?
Al: Come on, a free thinking person can do better than use the word “hate”. That’s the word the left ususally uses to intimidate whomever they’re trying to shut up.
I allege you are no free thinker at all. You listen to the Obama Voter’s propaganda daily and can’t discern the BS from reality.
Robinson has demonstrated he can listen to it and still cut through the BS.
The truth is if you’re willing to follow the Obama Voter, you will suffer from political paralysis because you have to wait until the Obama Voter declares someone pure enough for you to support. The problem is there are only three Republicans who fill the bill. Good luck with advancing a conservative agenda with that. We already have a state legislature of Dims and a Dim governor and see where that is getting us. The Obama Voter doesn’t just keep his mouth shut, he is deliberately working AGAINST a Republican majority and you can’t see his tactics.
I have listened to Deace since he started out on sports radio doing stuff about the Des Moines Bucs. This was before his conversion. He is very talented but has always been very egotistical and a pot stirrer. This hasn’t changed. I think Steve has gotten so far in with he Cleon Skousen crowd that he cannot get himself out. He looks at anyone who disagrees with him as the enemy.
I do get mad when he talks about representing the “base” or the “grassroots”. This is yet another example of his ego running amock. I truly hope Steve takes a long look at what he hopes to accomplish. When you berate people who do not support you completely it makes concencus building impossible. Without uniting conservatives, liberals will win. Steve Deace is doing the Democrats work for them.
Huckabee makes Branstad look like an arch-conservative. It goes far beyond raising taxes. Huckabee opened Arkansas’ borders to illegal immigration so that Tyson and other Arkansas business could have a ready work force. He then opened up all the states social services and education system to illegal aliens and raised taxes to support the spending while turning a blind eye on their crimes. He even flipped-flopped on his abortion position. I won’t even get into some of the questionable dealings and the destruction of records, I think this guy is corrupt beyond belief. There are reams on him out there.
But he says Jesus alot, so that’s good enough for Deace. I’m sorry but Deace is passe, he met his Waterloo when he went after Steve King, which I remind anyone of who doesn’t elicit an immediate eye roll whenever Deace’s name is brought up. You can only wrap yourself in the Bible or ‘Judeo-Christian values’ or the Republican Platform so many times before people start to see through you. Well at least till the Tea Partiers came along, now the Constitution seems to be back in vogue again, which he now also apparently understands all the nuances of. He’s pretty much a toothless lion with a big ego in the 2nd District, more entertainment than anything.
lol @ Narcisse turning a piece about Craig and Steve Deace into a chance to talk about himself.
The Branstad criticism that rings most hollow is blaming him for appointing two of the justices in the Varnum decision. When Branstad appointed Ternus and Cady, the idea that courts would be deciding this issue instead of the people wasn’t even a serious consideration. If Branstad should be made responsible for the decisions of people he nominated a decade prior, then perhaps Deace should also remember that Mike Huckabee pardoned two felons who went on to commit murders a decade later.
Readers. Deace is on the air for one reason and one reason only–to sell ads. To sell them he has to sound like a loon. Accept him for what he is, an entertainer. Take him seriously only at your peril.
Mod: You’re only partly right. The Obama Voter is on the air to make a living for his family. WHO has him on the air to sell ads for them so they can make a profit. (BTW, profit is a good thing). As curious as I am about the possible exchange today with Robinson, I still cannot listen as I’ll only be contributing to the incentive for WHO to continue to keep him on the air.
If we want him to go away, everyone must stop listening. He’s boring anyway as he only knows one topic.
Whoa Judah! Politics is an ugly blood sport. This posting is like watching a head on crash between two guys in really big trucks. Ouch.
Counterpunch: I dunno what you mean by this: “When Branstad appointed Ternus and Cady, the idea that courts would be deciding this issue instead of the people wasn’t even a serious consideration. ”
Cady was appointed in 1998 after DOMA.
I dunno if i care for Deace personally, but it seems that the thrust of this argument is he supported someone for President that is more moderate than the person they are supporting for Governor. President is a very different race — you have to please the national press. But in Iowa Governor you dont’ and personally I think we should we should try and move past liberal fiscal policy like Governor’s Huckabee and Branstad (and yes Mitt Romney and his health care debacle).
Deace–as much as I usually disagree with you I agree with that the best way to make Deace go away is 1) quit listening to him or 2) listen to him but don’t take him seriously. His show is better suited for Sunday morning or late night radio with all of the other preachers.
“So, Barzini will move against you first. He’ll set up a meeting with someone that you absolutely trust, guaranteeing your safety. And at that meeting, you’ll be assassinated.” – Don Corleone, Godfather.
Watch your back tonight Craig. The Deace and English crowd will always stab you in the back and they are not to be trusted. The Corleone family looked into doing ads on WHO Radio and guess who’s show is the cheapest to run ads? Yes, Steve Deace. That says something.
Rod Roberts is looking better all the time.
You are correct dsmmoderate, the whole email exchange has turned into who Deace supported for President and who he now supports for Governor. Since we know exactly who those people are and have no idea who Craig supported for Pres. and now supports for Gov. this exchange is a joke. Craig, gain some credibility and grow a set and tell us your horses in the races and why. Deace has done that for you. You are taking the easy way out and your credibility is tanking. It’s the least you can do since you turned this fight into choice of candidates. It’s like someone claiming that Buger King sucks but yet hides the fact that his Daddy owns McDonald’s.
Iowans Rock: I did not vote in the Presidential Caucuses in 2008 because I served as the Political Director for the Republican Party of Iowa at that time. I was in charge of collecting and reporting the results to the media. I do not support any candidate for Governor nor do I know who I will vote for yet.
I think I have treated the candidates equally, and plan to continue to do so.
Craig -
You wrote an article that was to say the least, highly critical, of Mr. Vander Plaats, while highlighting the qualities of Branstad. An article that, by the way was given quite a bit of press in republican circle, even being discussed on WHO radio. And if that isn’t enough, you publish this article not 24 hours before Branstad begins his across the state campaign.
Craig if you’re undecided, then why are you attacking BVP so much, but not asking questions about Branstad? I have been posting for a couple days, but reading for a while. I like your site a lot, but I am confused about why people have so many issues with BVP and none with branstad. at the very least can’t you say you are certain you won’t vote for Vander Plaats? If he was the nominee would you vote for him in the general?
Can you explain why you’re so angry at them, but not upset that Branstad over his record? Or what he’s saying?
ConservativeThinker: That article didn’t have much to do about Vander Plaats, but more about IFPC’s endorsement. I published it on Monday so Steve Deace could take issue with it.
Dsmmoderate: I’m simply responding to an email that Steve Deace sent to me and others with a warning that he was going to publish it, or call out the people who don’t respond. My response was to show Steve that someone could pull out bits and pieces of a candidates record and make it look really bad.
Craig, aren’t the reasons you’re pointing out some of the the reasons that Huckabee didn’t get the nomination? It’s why I didn’t vote for him when I was living in Michigan. And the reasons everyone keeps pointing out on TIR is why I am not supporting Branstad. I would say as a reader I think you’re being disengenous if you are claiming that you haven’t decided against BVP. You have your reasons for not supporting BVP, and if he wants to win he and his supporters should answer them, and I am glad that i get to listen to the debate today.
But, the same goes for Terry Branstad and his supporters. Even people like you that think he is a better candidate with better supporters than BVP. He’s yet to explain anything about the budget stuff, the tax increases, and why i should believe him that he’ll be different when there are three other candidates to choose from. He won’t even go to a forum with other candidates to answer the questions. I am new to Iowa, but from what I understand the aloof campaign is not the Iowa way.
dsmmoderate
Dude, you’re Michael Kiernan and you work for the IDP, so get off this site! TB will be happy to answer all of your questions. Why don’t you go to one of his public townhall meetings and just ask?
I will. He hasn’t done an event here with Q&A yet has he? I was going to drive up to Ames to see the forum, but he’s not going (thinking of going anyway) But from what I see I like Rod Roberts and Chris Rants — and trust me despise Jennifer Granholm, Chet Culver and Barack Obama. They keep thinking that Government is going to solve things — and Michigan is proof it doesn’t work. I had to leave my hometown for a job here.
But Michael, I haven’t talked with you yet, so you clearly don’t know that my name isn’t even Michael. I don’t work in politics, (certainly not for the Democrat party) and I just moved here. So I am not sure I like what’s happening in the race with BVP being the focus of everyone’s attention and Branstad being ignored. We need people to talk about issues and fast so we can decide who should beat Chet in the fall. Personally I am not a fan of digging up old politicians in any state, same reason I didn’t join the draft Romney movement that a friend of mine had in Michigan.
All of you who are criticizing Craig for saying bad things about your candidate and good things about the others have very short memories. He’s been reasonably even-handed in talking about the pros and cons of each. I do criticize the extra circulation he gives to Mr. Tea’s [he is not a publican] attractive drivel, but that’s only one thing. While I don’t know who you are, I know that ABSOLUTELY NONE of you are from any place but vote-rich NW Iowa. WE DON’T HEAR HIM HERE. WE CAN”T. IT JUST DOESN’T GET THAT FAR AWAY FROM THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, DES MOINES. So let’s start on other topics, please. Plus, I can’t believe how incredibly verbose you all are. Ever learned the word “summary”?
Sorry I meant to say that abolutely none of you are from NW Iowa.
Anonymous – I am live in Des Moines now, but I am not really familiar with the regional politics here. I admit I am new reader and may have been quick to criticize Craig — and I apologize for that. But, I don’t really see where he’s lit into Branstad, Roberts, or Rants the way he did in this conversation. Most of it has been from his professional politicsl perspective. I am reading some of the archives, so I won’t speak to soon again.
Craig,
You’re a stud. Keep up the good work.
Anonymous, I have lived in the 5th District since it was drawn up. I was at the convention that nominted Steve King for the House seat. I have an understanding of the political viewpoints of many NW Iowa Republicans and with a good radio you can hear WHO thru most of the district(even in Sioux Co. for example. Been there, done that.)
DVFO,
Yes hate is a strong word, but dislike is not a strong enough word for the rhetoric you fling at Steve Deace.
Furthermore your assertion that I am not a free thinker rings hollow. I am not the one that follows one political party blindly. I understand that being a Republican does not make one better than a Democrat. It is believing and advancing Republican ideals and policies that makes one better than a Democrat. As such I refuse to vote straight party tickets. Instead I examine their positions, their records if they have one, and their history to determine if I believe they would be a good candidate to represent us in government. If being able to decide for myself what is best for our country makes me “not a free thinker” then so be it.
You would vote for a Democrat? Do you know what Democrats stand for? Abortion, gay marriage, socialism, homosexual propaganda in schools, failing school systems, deficits, corruption, and you like that?
Aahh dvfO, tis a simple world where you reside.
Let me be extremely clear here. I vote for the candidate that is the most conservative without regard to the party. I don’t swallow the kool aid that says that by simply declaring one is a Republican makes that person better than a Democrat.
How many Democrats have you found that is more conservative than the Republican?
Not that many, but I have found third party candidates that were more conservative than the Republican.
Timmy – I am glad to see that there is someone else who purports to be from NW Iowa. I have lived in the current 5th district since long before the current apportionment. I was also present and voting at the 5th district Congressional nominating convention in 2002. I also like to think that I know something of the perspective of NW Iowans. And maybe with a “good radio” someone can hear WHO, although for me it fades out around I-680. I don’t think you get my point, though. I am trying to make a point about the near fixation of this website with WHO and Steve Deace. A lot of people don’t listen to him and don’t give a rip about his opinions, but they will go to the polls to vote in the Republican primary. These may be NW Iowans who feel disenfranchised from the rest of the state and don’t care to listen to Deace even with “good radios.” Or it may be people in other parts of the state who choose to listen to something else during drive time. Or, shockingly, some people are at work during drive time. This website should be about something other than Mr., Deace’s opinions.
I do not even know where to begin: Just going to say I have so been there and so done that, and there must be something in the water in Iowa. Because I have been in most every other state in the nation and they have nothing like this drama.
My take is nearly the same is Craig’s and DVFO: These idiots (Deace, English, et al) all backed Huckabee because he said “jesus” on TV. They all back BVP for the same reason. Iowa has Gay Marriage while Illinois, California, and a host of other deep democratic controlled states do not, for one reason. The Christian’s in Iowa are suckers being played by masterful con men.
Which is why I call them Social-ist Cons. Not So-Cons and surely not Social Conservatives. They are not Conservative at all, on ANY issue, and have learned one trick: Talk jesus really loud and the money and power will come. It makes me sick. Just acid in my stomach sick.
I do not know Deace. I have only listened to a few segments of his show by accident, because what little I did hear and what I read or hear from others was far more than enough to clearly diagnose the problem. HE (and the other useful idiots) are the problem.
They are just informed enough to know WHAT is right and just ignorant enough to MISS HOW to accomplish it. This fight, like 99.99% of them, did NOT have to happen. But, ignorance and then the pride to stubbornly cling to a proven ineffective set of actions, will lead to failure 99.99% of the time.
Marl my words. Because NO ONE who can, will choose to change tactics, on either side, while they still might, Culver will be reelected. Bank on it. I will take wagers right now. While the rest of the entire nation from California to Massachusetts, throws out 90% safe Dem seats and the US House has a near 100 seat swing, Iowa will miss the boat ride in near totality. I say near, because I do hold out hope a few lessor races and particular candidates running there will have just enough favor and intellect to dodge this suicide bullet.
All I can do is hang my head and watch yet another epic failure hit my beloved state and wonder how long it will be, or if ever, enough people will even really know what happened and why.
And being no fool, I do not expect that this post will mean anything to any but less than a dozen people, so my prediction and bet stands. Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news for all those out there just watching it all….
Marl = Mark.
Craig, you need to allow edits!
Anon, I’m not from NW Ia, but the 5th covers a lot of territory in Western Ia. having said that, my former employment took me all over Iowa & the surrounding states & I spent quite a bit of time in Sioux Co.( A GOP haven) as one example. As far as 680, I’ll give you that there is a problem with WHO on the west side of the Loess Hills.
But to get back to your main point, I don’t think it is too cautious to go on the offensive when dealing with people who claim to support the conservative agenda, yet do everything they can to screw it’s chances at every turn. What do you do with people who would rather we all lose just because they don’t get everything exactly their way? Also, deace has the primetime slot on the biggest AM station in Iowa(if not the whole midwest) which is based in the largest population center in the state. This makes him a bit more of a threat to ALL Republicans statewide, whether or not he reaches out into the far corners of the state. And like it or not, Western Iowa usually gets shafted by the Central and Eastern parts of the state. I know, it sucks but it’s just how it’s always been.