Pulse of Iowa... (political junkies only)

[Taco John]

I haven't listened to this yet, but I'm hugely interested in Iowa right now for what are probably obvious reasons. I received a note that WHO radio in Iowa just put up a podcast on their page where the host, a Huckabee supporter, opened up the phone lines for anyone to call in (Democrat or Republican) and give 30 uninterrupted seconds on why they are supporting who they are supporting for president. I figured I'd drop it here, knowing that there are other politics junkies out there who might like a fix...

Right Click / Save as (http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DESMOINES-IA/WHO-AM/caller%20poll%20podcast.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DESMOINES-IA&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1165&STATION_ID=WHO-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Steve_Deace&PCAST_CAT=Talk_Radio&PCAST_TITLE=Deace_in_the_Afternoon)

[Hoover]

Here is my take:

Overall Iowa is wide open on both sides of the isle.

On the Dem side Iowa is the only battle ground as Hillary has massive leads in the other early states. The top three candidates all poll in the 20's. I think Hillary wins, Edwards comes in 2nd, and Obama finishes in 3rd. Hillary is the nominee after Jan 3.

The Republican slide is more fluid and will not be decieded til a few weeks after Iowa, but before Feb 5.

In Iowa

Romney currently leads but has failed to own any issue. If you ask someone what Romney's big issue is I doubt they could tell you. He is organized and hold a big lead but its going to take all he has to win Iowa.

Huckabee is the darling of the media, who have anointed him the SoCo Candidate. While I think Huckabee is going to do well and probably finish 2nd the hard core conservatives have their doubts.

Thompson has be flop but nobody has capatilized on it. If you think Rudy's endorsement of Robertson was big, I think Fred gets the best endorsement of all in Congressman Steve King. That endorsment on top of his quality TV ads should pump new life into his campaign which he needs. This is where the hard line immigration folks end up.

Rudy's direct mail is impressive and if his TV ads are similar he could make it interesting. He has visited the state with more regularity and having 2 Iowa caucus vet endorsments (Forbes and Robertson) will only help him here in Iowa.

McCain was left for dead a few months ago but he has steped up his activity here in Iowa. I like the Senator but he has wasted some of that time. Here is a thought, don't go to a renewable energy conference at Iowa State University and say that he substities for ethanol, wind and solar energy are bad.

No one knows what to expect out of Ron Paul on caucus night. My guess is that he doesn't break 10%. He has an interesting coalition of people supporting his campaign. he also now has the resources to run a top notch campaign.

Tancredo drops out before December but is going to go out with guns blazing on the immigration issue.

Hunter doesn't matter as he has done nothing in the state.

[recxjake]

Here is my take:

Overall Iowa is wide open on both sides of the isle.

On the Dem side Iowa is the only battle ground as Hillary has massive leads in the other early states. The top three candidates all poll in the 20's. I think Hillary wins, Edwards comes in 2nd, and Obama finishes in 3rd. Hillary is the nominee after Jan 3.

The Republican slide is more fluid and will not be decieded til a few weeks after Iowa, but before Feb 5.

In Iowa

Romney currently leads but has failed to own any issue. If you ask someone what Romney's big issue is I doubt they could tell you. He is organized and hold a big lead but its going to take all he has to win Iowa.

Huckabee is the darling of the media, who have anointed him the SoCo Candidate. While I think Huckabee is going to do well and probably finish 2nd the hard core conservatives have their doubts.

Thompson has be flop but nobody has capatilized on it. If you think Rudy's endorsement of Robertson was big, I think Fred gets the best endorsement of all in Congressman Steve King. That endorsment on top of his quality TV ads should pump new life into his campaign which he needs. This is where the hard line immigration folks end up.

Rudy's direct mail is impressive and if his TV ads are similar he could make it interesting. He has visited the state with more regularity and having 2 Iowa caucus vet endorsments (Forbes and Robertson) will only help him here in Iowa.

McCain was left for dead a few months ago but he has steped up his activity here in Iowa. I like the Senator but he has wasted some of that time. Here is a thought, don't go to a renewable energy conference at Iowa State University and say that he substities for ethanol, wind and solar energy are bad.

No one knows what to expect out of Ron Paul on caucus night. My guess is that he doesn't break 10%. He has an interesting coalition of people supporting his campaign. he also now has the resources to run a top notch campaign.

Tancredo drops out before December but is going to go out with guns blazing on the immigration issue.

Hunter doesn't matter as he has done nothing in the state.


Good analysis on the Republican side.

Is the King endorsement of Fred your thoughts, or acutal info?

[Hoover]

Just a guess

[recxjake]

Just a guess

I was talking to a county chair for Thompson's campaigin... he really regrets signing on due to the lack of everything Thompson has done so far... he's gonna hold on out just to be nice... but he said he doesn't think he will win.

I've noticed a complete shift in Thompson supporters. They were the last ones to jump on board a campaign, and were extremely excited for his campaign... now... absolutely depressed.

As far as I'm concerned, Fred in the race only splits up the anti Rudy caucus goers even more, so I hope he can hold on. But it is to bad that he has been such a flop...


I called it months ago... Fred Thompson 08 = Wes Clark 04.....

[Taco John]

I think Paul has to place in NH and come in third in Iowa, and he's in the game. I disagree that this thing is going to be settled by February 3rd. I think people are underestimating Paul's hand as far as that goes. I do believe that he's got a shot at the nomination thanks to a grass roots support base unlike we've seen in a long time. And we're just getting warmed up.

I hear the "Deaniac" criticism, but you really can't compare the two. Dean's supporters were lilly livered Democrats who went running for the hills at the first sign that they were being laughed at. Paul's grass roots, on the other hand, are made of ruggedly independant conservative libertarians who frankly don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

The point being, even if Paul isn't the "clear frontrunner" for the nomination, he's not going to back out. The grass roots will fund him all the way to the convention and leave it up to the delegates on the floor.

The only way this gets settled by February 3rd is if Ron Paul is the clear cut winner or Ron Paul completely flops in the primaries.

[Hoover]

I was talking to a county chair for Thompson's campaigin... he really regrets signing on due to the lack of everything Thompson has done so far... he's gonna hold on out just to be nice... but he said he doesn't think he will win.

I've noticed a complete shift in Thompson supporters. They were the last ones to jump on board a campaign, and were extremely excited for his campaign... now... absolutely depressed.

As far as I'm concerned, Fred in the race only splits up the anti Rudy caucus goers even more, so I hope he can hold on. But it is to bad that he has been such a flop...


I called it months ago... Fred Thompson 08 = Wes Clark 04.....


I agree with all of that. But nobody has slammed the door yet. I just don't know if he is smart enough to cease the opportunity

[Hoover]

I think Paul has to win NH and come in third in Iowa, and he's in the game. I disagree that this thing is going to be settled by February 3rd. I think people are underestimating Paul's hand as far as that goes. I do believe that he's got a shot at the nomination thanks to a grass roots support base unlike we've seen in a long time. And we're just getting warmed up.

I hear the "Deaniac" criticism, but you really can't compare the two. Dean's supporters were lilly livered Democrats who went running for the hills at the first sign that they were being laughed at. Paul's grass roots, on the other hand, are made of ruggedly independant conservative libertarians who frankly don't give a damn what anyone else thinks.

The point being, even if Paul isn't the "clear frontrunner" for the nomination, he's not going to back out. The grass roots will fund him all the way to the convention and leave it up to the delegates on the floor.

The only way this gets settled by February 3rd is if Ron Paul is the clear cut winner or Ron Paul completely flops in the primaries.
It over if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire

[Taco John]

It over if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire


Says you. That's our ultimate scenario though. Battling Rudy would be tough, because he's a 9/11 champion and steals a lot of hard nosed conservatives.

We would absolutely LOVE to race the Republican John Kerry to the St. Paul finish line.

[recxjake]

It over if Romney wins Iowa and New Hampshire

Iowa is about expectations... Romney now has to win... and win big.... anything other than that is a loss.

NH is still wide open. It is very tough to poll due to the Independent factor.

S. Carolina was supposed to be Freds... now it's a 3 way.

Florida is Rudy's

Feb 5 is Rudy's

[banyon]

Your link is spread pretty even, but Paul got the most callers, sounded like Huckabee 2nd and Tancredo? 3rd?

[SNR]

Iowa is about expectations... Romney now has to win... and win big.... anything other than that is a loss.

NH is still wide open. It is very tough to poll due to the Independent factor.

S. Carolina was supposed to be Freds... now it's a 3 way.

Florida is Rudy's

Feb 5 is Rudy'sI would agree about Fred. He's looking very shakey right now.

I would also add that McCain is another dark horse in all of this. He might be a big player in Iowa and in a state like South Carolina... who knows.

[billay]

Question: Anyone see a surprise and Thompson drops out somewhat early? It really does seem like he's not into it and it's never good when Bill O'reily (a neo-con) is taking shots at you.

[banyon]

Question: Anyone see a surprise and Thompson drops out somewhat early? It really does seem like he's not into it and it's never good when Bill O'reily (a neo-con) is taking shots at you.

No doubt. He's looked pretty lame. He seems confused and uninspiring. Why would anyone get behind him? I have no idea.

[Taco John]

No doubt. He's looked pretty lame. He seems confused and uninspiring. Why would anyone get behind him? I have no idea.


The only reason I can figure out is because you like the characters he plays in the movies, and you think he'd make a good president because of them.

[Adam]

I think Ron Paul pretty much has to win New Hampshire and place well in Iowa to have a realistic chance. If he can't win New Hampshire, we really have to ask - where can he win? He will have absolutely saturated that market with his ads and grassroots supporters for months by then. Everybody will know who he is and what he stands for by then. It either sells, or it doesn't.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Rudy was on campus today, as Huckabee was yesterday. Neither seemed to do that well with those whom attended, although Huckabee was better received. Other than that, I have no idea.

[Jenson71]

Rudy was on campus today, as Huckabee was yesterday. Neither seemed to do that well with those whom attended, although Huckabee was better received. Other than that, I have no idea.

I didn't get to see Huckabee, but I was right behind Rudy today. All the cameras were on me. When Rudy talked about there being too much litigation and how it ruins our economy, I was the guy in the green sweatshirt shaking his head at the claim.

I shook his hand afterwards and... I think he's fake. He had at least 3 pounds of makeup on his face.

[patteeu]

Question: Anyone see a surprise and Thompson drops out somewhat early? It really does seem like he's not into it and it's never good when Bill O'reily (a neo-con) is taking shots at you.

Bill O'Reilly's a neocon now too? :rolleyes:

[recxjake]

Rudy was on campus today, as Huckabee was yesterday. Neither seemed to do that well with those whom attended, although Huckabee was better received. Other than that, I have no idea.

ROFL...

That's not what the paper says:

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/11/09/news/breaking_news/doc473381602848a946202628.txt

[BucEyedPea]

Bill O'Reilly's a neocon now too? :rolleyes:
I would say so, yes. I was never sure at first, but I never took him for a conservative even before I knew of the NC phenomena. He was more of a JFK or Scoop Jackson democrat to me as certain issues he never came down as conservative on: global warming, gay issue points, doesnt' really understand economics/markets in a conservative mode taking more a dem stand. For instance when he attacks big oil like a liberal would and that the govt should step in here.

So finally, it dawned on me one day, he's actually that smooth creamy mix of liberal and conservative plus being a hawk. Besides, one of the surest indicators of being a NC is that they hate Ron Paul. When Bill does his "pin-heads & patriots" segment he actually puts Paul in the "pin-head" category. He uses a lot of the standard rhetoric of a NC: unpatriotic, appeasers, anti-semitic, concentrates exclusively on the far-left being the only anti-war group, incessant blaming and focus of liberals to keep attention of the failed NC policies. He's a moron and of course he wouldn't have the job he has unless it was for Murdoch hiring him. So he shills for him and the entire NC line.

Definitely a neo-conservative.

[Pitt Gorilla]

ROFL...

That's not what the paper says:

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/11/09/news/breaking_news/doc473381602848a946202628.txt
What in that article addresses anything about me being wrong? One of the people interviewed liked him? Another with a gun to their head would pick Rudy over Hillary? I spoke to a large group of students who attended (not a class, but a group of Bible study students I know) and they largely left unimpressed as Rudy "didn't say anything." Of the ones I know well, they are all Republican.

[Taco John]

Bill O'Reilly's a neocon now too? :rolleyes:


He's not? As far as I know, he's in favor of a foriegn policy that asks America to police the world and force liberty on people when it's economically convenient for our military complex. Isn't that all it take to be a neo-con, or are you changing the definition?

[patteeu]

I would say so, yes. I was never sure at first, but I never took him for a conservative even before I knew of the NC phenomena. He was more of a JFK or Scoop Jackson democrat to me as certain issues he never came down as conservative on: global warming, gay issue points, doesnt' really understand economics/markets in a conservative mode taking more a dem stand. For instance when he attacks big oil like a liberal would and that the govt should step in here.

So finally, it dawned on me one day, he's actually that smooth creamy mix of liberal and conservative plus being a hawk. Besides, one of the surest indicators of being a NC is that they hate Ron Paul. When Bill does his "pin-heads & patriots" segment he actually puts Paul in the "pin-head" category. He uses a lot of the standard rhetoric of a NC: unpatriotic, appeasers, anti-semitic, concentrates exclusively on the far-left being the only anti-war group, incessant blaming and focus of liberals to keep attention of the failed NC policies. He's a moron and of course he wouldn't have the job he has unless it was for Murdoch hiring him. So he shills for him and the entire NC line.

Definitely a neo-conservative.

Your idea that a neocon is a "smooth creamy mix of liberal and conservative plus being a hawk" is no more ridiculous than BucEyedPea's belief that they're all Trotskyites or that they are more prone to lying than others, I guess.

[patteeu]

He's not? As far as I know, he's in favor of a foriegn policy that asks America to police the world and force liberty on people when it's economically convenient for our military complex. Isn't that all it take to be a neo-con, or are you changing the definition?

I lose track of all the definitions you guys use, but I'd argue that Bill O'Reilly isn't much of an ideologue at all aside from possibly social traditionalism.

[Taco John]

I lose track of all the definitions you guys use, but I'd argue that Bill O'Reilly isn't much of an ideologue at all aside from possibly social traditionalism.


You think he's just a useful idiot?

Few people want to admit that they're neo-cons. It's turned into the modern day "nazi." But as far as I'm concerned, if you're in favor of policing the world and delivering democracy at the barrel of a gun when it's convenient for "us," then you're a neo-con. I guess I haven't been aware that there has been a rotating definition. This is the one I've always operated under.

[patteeu]

You think he's just a useful idiot?

Few people want to admit that they're neo-cons. It's turned into the modern day "nazi." But as far as I'm concerned, if you're in favor of policing the world and delivering democracy at the barrel of a gun when it's convenient for "us," then you're a neo-con. I guess I haven't been aware that there has been a rotating definition. This is the one I've always operated under.

I guess that by "always" you mean "for the last few years". You see, my understanding of the term goes back quite a bit further than yours so I still associate it with it's original definition (at least in the modern era of US poltics). I don't have too much of a problem with your definition as long as we recognize that it's much expanded from the way it was used to describe Irving Kristol, John Podhoretz and the rest of the formerly liberal, Jewish intellectuals to which it was applied a generation or two ago. We also need to be clear that it can't possibly mean what BucEyedPea and other poorly informed or nefariously intentioned commentators say it means by suggesting that neocons believe in lying to a greater degree than other political actors or that they are closeted Trotskyite communists or that it has something to do with profligate spending or supply-side economics. Given *your* expanded definition though, I suppose Bill O'Reilly could qualify. As would Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and myself. :toast:

[BucEyedPea]

Your idea that a neocon is a "smooth creamy mix of liberal and conservative plus being a hawk" is no more ridiculous than BucEyedPea's belief that they're all Trotskyites or that they are more prone to lying than others, I guess.
First off, I never claimed they were ALL Trotskyites. I actually have posted saying one "does not have to have the Trotskyite background to be a neo-conservative." That's right! So there's no such belief. Pay attention and/or don't play Trotskyite newspeak tricks. :p

[billay]

Patteu is probably one of those guys that really believes Bill O' is an Independent and his show is fair and balanced rofl

[patteeu]

Patteu is probably one of those guys that really believes Bill O' is an Independent and his show is fair and balanced rofl

If independent means he bases his positions on his feelings and his personal values rather than a well formed ideology, yes, I guess I do. I'm far more familiar with his radio program than his TV show so I can't really say how fair and balanced his TV show is. His radio program is all about Bill O'Reilly's personal viewpoints AFAICS.

[BucEyedPea]

I guess that by "always" you mean "for the last few years". You see, my understanding of the term goes back quite a bit further than yours so I still associate it with it's original definition (at least in the modern era of US poltics). I don't have too much of a problem with your definition as long as we recognize that it's much expanded from the way it was used to describe Irving Kristol, John Podhoretz and the rest of the formerly liberal, Jewish intellectuals to which it was applied a generation or two ago. We also need to be clear that it can't possibly mean what BucEyedPea and other poorly informed or nefariously intentioned commentators say it means by suggesting that neocons believe in lying to a greater degree than other political actors or that they are closeted Trotskyite communists or that it has something to do with profligate spending or supply-side economics. Given *your* expanded definition though, I suppose Bill O'Reilly could qualify. As would Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and myself. :toast:
Context and nuance would help when you read what we post too.
Also, knowing that a word can have several entries to cover the shades of meaning with several entries would help too.

Goldwater was definitely a militarist though, but not exactly a NC either.
RR was not a NC per se. He had both paleo-cons and neo-cons in his administration. Hard to delineate since the CW was a point of agreement between paleos and neos. So the differences didn't stand out then. That and a democrat congress even if he really could have done more to reduce govt and didn't. He had some nc advisors afterall. These were the guys behind Iran-Contra.

However the Bush administration is all neo-cons and NO paleo-cons. What were formerly considered as conservative publications/media/think-tanks have cleaned house of all paleo-cons too. Yes, there was a war internally and battles in these places. A veritable "Cultural Revolution" purge. So they act like leftists afterall. Wiki has what I consider a reasonably accurate description of what happened during this period, if you care to google the paleo-neo divide in the conservative movement today. That should separate the real cons from the neo-cons. Fox is nothing more than a fake opposition.

[patteeu]

Context and nuance would help when you read what we post too.
Also, knowing that a word can have several entries to cover the shades of meaning with several entries would help too.

Goldwater was definitely a militarist though, but not exactly a NC either.
RR was not a NC per se. He had both paleo-cons and neo-cons in his administration. Hard to delineate since the CW was a point of agreement between paleos and neos. So the differences didn't stand out then. That and a democrat congress even if he really could have done more to reduce govt and didn't. He had some nc advisors afterall. These were the guys behind Iran-Contra.

However the Bush administration is all neo-cons and NO paleo-cons. What were formerly considered as conservative publications/media/think-tanks have cleaned house of all paleo-cons too. Yes, there was a war internally and battles in these places. A veritable "Cultural Revolution" purge. So they act like leftists afterall. Wiki has what I consider a reasonably accurate description of what happened during this period, if you care to google the paleo-neo divide in the conservative movement today. That should separate the real cons from the neo-cons. Fox is nothing more than a fake opposition.

Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and I are all neocons by Taco's definition. Your definition is so convoluted and inconsistent that it's hard to know who fits, until you fill us in. I prefer to think of your demons as BucoCons rather than NeoCons though. :p

[BucEyedPea]

No my definition is based on an extensive list of stands and rhetoric used by them to attack from a speech or writing by Ron Paul ( the most accurate and thorough) which matches American Conservative's, Chronicles, Taki's Drawer, Justin Raimondo's, Scheuer's, Ray McGovern, Phillip Giraldi (the last three former CIA), Christian Science Monitor and even wikipedia. Sorry but there's nothing wrong with my definition(s). There are also a lot more of them than originally thought. There are the original founders who had the Trotskyite background. There is the cult following. Doesn't mean they can't differ on some issues and still not be one. Please explain why you always have a bad reaction to how we apply the term? Sorry I think it touches on a bit of truth.

[patteeu]

Because according to you a BucoCon can be anyone from a staunch libertarian conservative who differs from you on one key issue (e.g. the GWoT) to a communist who refuses to admit her communism. And once you mix all your various characteristics that describes any small group of BucoCons into your rhetorical mash, you feel free to paint it across the wide spectrum of BucoCons with your extraordinarily broad brush.

I can live with Taco's definition as a modern evolution of the older term (minus the over-the-top comparison to nazis of course), but yours, on the whole, is without any merit at all because it is so convoluted that it is meaningless.

[BucEyedPea]

Again, it's not according to me. My definition is not different than Taco's especially since he agreed with the article and list I once posted from Ron Paul on who and what they are more completely. He's just focusing on the key attributes which I agree are THE KEY attributes.

It's not just on the WoT where you agree with these guys either. I won't elaborate since it will just be the same old repetitious debate. You notjust a TheoCon who are in alliance with them.

So if you don't see me post on this again, don't assume I agree.

[Taco John]

Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and I are all neocons by Taco's definition.


I disagree. I don't think Reagan qualifies. He wasn't intent on delivering democracy to the world. And also, my definition is purposefully simple. The real definition is obviouly deeper, but for a "scratch the surface" look at neo-conservativism, I think it fits.

[patteeu]

Again, it's not according to me. My definition is not different than Taco's especially since he agreed with the article and list I once posted from Ron Paul on who and what they are more completely. He's just focusing on the key attributes which I agree are THE KEY attributes.

It's not just on the WoT where you agree with these guys either. I won't elaborate since it will just be the same old repetitious debate. You notjust a TheoCon who are in alliance with them.

So if you don't see me post on this again, don't assume I agree.

The key attributes are the only ones that can be generally applied to the group. But you don't EVER stop there. You seem incapable of nuance on this particular topic.

Don't bother posting again on this subject if you finally agree with me. ;)

[patteeu]

I disagree. I don't think Reagan qualifies. He wasn't intent on delivering democracy to the world. And also, my definition is purposefully simple. The real definition is obviouly deeper, but for a "scratch the surface" look at neo-conservativism, I think it fits.

I'm not intent on delivering democracy to the world either. Nor was Barry Goldwater. But all three of us fit the definition that you provided earlier in the thread. Don't go all BucEyedPea on me.

P.S. I reserve the right to reject your "deeper" definition if you ever decide to provide it.

[mlyonsd]

Saw my first Thompson ad this morning.....yawn. It's like he's giving the impression if you back him cool, if you don't, bleh, who cares?