Wednesday, July 23, 2008


People either love him or hate him, but one has to admit that in a very short time Steve Deace and his radio program on WHO Radio in Des Moines has become a political force here in Iowa. We shouldn’t be surprised, this is a guy who took down a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2002 with an interview on a sports station.

Anyway, Deace has devoted a lot of time on his program to discussing the internal struggles of the GOP. Yesterday, I emailed him during his show as he was discussing one of my posts. I wanted to try and expand on my line of thinking.

The following is what I sent Deace, and his response in bold. He asked if I would consider posting this on my blog, which I agreed to do as he has given Krusty Konservative a shout out on a number of occasions.

Below is the email, which he sent back to me during his show.


I read your blog post today and I think it is very well done, and something that I agree with.

I'm pleased that you read my blog, and I'm always thrilled when people like you help promote it. I think we both agree that people are intellectually lazy. Face it most people don't open the pantry and figure out what they can make for dinner, they instead they debate between McDonald and Burger King. The same laziness has taken over the political process. Do most people really know who our candidates are and what they stand for? Heck the majority of people don't even vote.

In my recent posts I've been focusing on the role of the Party. It’s not something that's easy to explain for some reason.

That's because to too many people, the Party is a like a church. On this I agree with Yepsen, but for a different reason. Yepsen sees any social/moral issues as the party overstepping its role. I see folks expecting the Party to be a tool of righteousness, which is a role reserved for the church, as incorrect. The GOP can't make people or society better, only the church (Christ) can. But any party or organization Christians of any stripe belong to must -- and I repeat MUST -- reinforce what the church is trying to accomplish and convey. Otherwise a house divided against itself cannot stand. This is why so many social conservatives blur the lines between the two, because it's a very fine line indeed and easy to cross. Particularly in a culture like ours that is infested with a weak, watered down, and ineffective church. At that point people like me get frustrated and look for a substitute, and they want the party to do what the church was intended to.

I think it is absolutely critical that the Republican Party stand for certain core principles. The candidates that run under the Republican brand also must support these core principles as well.

Couldn't agree more, which is why I don't understand people like your poster in the replies section who said we need to support all Republicans. Really? So if Hillary wants to be a Republican tomorrow without changing any of her core convictions we're okay with that? Bernie Sanders? Barney Frank? If it's only about being Republicans, then why believe anything? Then why even have a platform? Why even call yourselves Republicans? Why not call yourselves the Free Agents? Maybe the Ink Blots is catchier? And I keep hearing this 80-20 or 51-49 ratio theory in terms of agreement. Fine. Then how come people only float those to the so-cons? How come nobody asks the Log Cabin Guys to just plug their noses and vote for Huckabee? How come it's always the social conservatives that have to compromise and accept the pragmatic paradigm?

It is also important to find a mechanism in which the part can reach out and get people to vote for their candidates. I think you do that with the fiscal issues. And while every social conservative I know is rock solid on fiscal issues, we always seem to get bogged down on the social issues, which prevents the Party from reaching out to the masses on the fiscal issues.

Here's why this happening: about half of the people in the party don't believe the Bible is true and the other half does, and among the half that doesn't about half of those folks are indifferent and don't care one way or the other while the half actively looks to thwart the ones who have Biblical convictions. This creates gridlock, especially since those folks often find themselves in positions of leadership and use their leadership posts to thwart people like me. For a long, long time we took it. But after 2006 it became obvious to many of us that selling out your core principles only leads to losing in the end, so you might as go ahead and fight for them. The other dynamic is that the party's most loyal voting base is motivated by issues the party doesn't want/like to advance. That's not a long-term recipe for success. And I respectfully don't accept the notion you can't convert people on social issues. Almost 40% of the people at Iowa Right to Life are Democrats. Over 60% of Iowans would vote for a marriage amendment. But do we run on these issues? Do we try to advance them? I go and talk to people all the time that don't agree with me, and sometimes -- lo and behold -- when I have reason, data, and the courage of my convictions I can persuade a few to my side every now and then.

So what needs to be done?

The party needs to answer the question why do you want to win elections? Do you want to elections to stay in power and cash the check, or to advance an ideological agenda? People like me want to advance an agenda and then go home to our families to die in peace and wait for the Lord's return. The other side wants to perpetually stay in power, cash the check, feel important, and pad their resumes that they can't take with them to the grave. The party is in this position because it didn't advance the agenda that those that put them there wanted them to -- plain and simple. And this always happens to an apparatus like a political party, by the way. You're always just one generation away from rigor mortis. The Democrats went through this in the 1980s and now it's the GOP's turn. And the GOP will either embrace the generation changover that is occurring in the country or it will go the way of the Whigs from whence it came. This is history repeating itself. It's the 1850s all over again, with the social activists realizing after 1849 that the party was never going to truly oppose slavery, instead offering them an at best a state-by-state solution to calling Negroes property and not people. The activists left and started the Republican Party. Don't think that outcome can't repeat itself in this day and age. People like me, particularly my upcoming generation, are just not as interested in the esprit de corps and relationship-driven politics our parents were. Either advance the agenda the platform stands for or don't waste our time. It's that simple. Now, if you don't want us around just say so, change your platform accordingly, and we'll go do our own thing. Good luck trying to win without us. Maybe you can, I don't know, but I've got a sneaking suspicion that John McCain is about to find out.

The Social Conservatives need to realize that we have won.

Brother, we haven't won. We just had two Republican governors (Willard and Arnold) fail to uphold the rule of law in their states and establish sodomy marriage in their states. We had a Senate Majority Leader in Stew Iverson who refused to hold his caucus accountable on the oldest social institution in the history of humanity -- the marriage amendment. There are so many other examples of this two-faced politics I could cite if you want them, but in the end you don't win until you advance the agenda you believe in.

(I was speaking about the internal power struggle within the Iowa Republican Party)

There is a reason Giuliani stayed away from Iowa in the caucus. There is also a reason why a candidate like Huckabee struck lightning here in Iowa. It’s because Iowa is dominated by social conservatives. Now I'm not saying that Social Conservatives can relax and take it easy, they need to remain active. But Social Conservatives need to be engaged in the fiscal conservative issues like they are on the social issues.

On this I agree, but in the end you can't have low regulation, reasonable taxation, and small government without socially sound policy and Biblical morality in place. You can't stop illegal immigration by killing off one-sixth of your next generation's workforce through infanticide. You can't shrink the social safety net without preserving the family. And on and on. God is in charge down here, not us, and we simply will not prosper long-term trying to conduct society contrary to His law. Many, many Republicans/conservatives believe this. The real question is does the Republican Party. Does it want David Yepsen to write nice columns about them, or does it want to win elections? It won't be able to do both.

Does any of this make sense? I get frustrated even writing this.

Anyway, thanks for letting me vent a bit, and thanks for reading.

Likewise :-)


Here is an interesting take from HawkeyeGOP on the same issue.


  1. This post is more appropriate on this thread. I copied and pasted. I couldn't agree more with Deace. Remember Al Lorenzen? There were several former D's that just conveniently changed to R just to get elected because they depend on R's to turn out for R's without question. That's how Walt Tomenga got elected. He turned out to be a total D in his voting record.

    We can't just go along to get along. We need an agenda to move forward.

    Please ask Diane Crookham Johnson and Gary Kirke which kind of republican they are below. I would vote for one kind, but not the other, even though both would have R behind their name.

    "Krusty - how do you reconcile the republicans who keep trying to increase our sales tax? - project destiny - silo etc?

    How do you reconcile the republicans who believe taking private property via eminent domain to give to private citizens for their FOR PROFIT personal projects with those conservative republicans who believe a man's home is his castle?

    Where does Private Property rights come into play as we "listen" to Gary Kirke and others who now feed at the teet of the taxpayer via corporate welfare and eminent domain?

    How do you reconcile those republicans who voted with the fascist democrats over basic freedoms?

    How do you reconcile those republicans who think our schools are in terrible shape after 40 years of democrat liberal control and wish for legislative change with those, like Pomerantz, who won't let us touch the teachers union?

    That issue probably cost Nussle his governorship. He campaigned on outspending the democrats on teachers. Who told him that was a winning idea? The guy who gave the money? We need to stop that.

    The problem is we stand for everything and nothing.

    We need leadership on issues.

  2. Let's not forget Mr. Kum and Go - Touchplay Baron.

    I recall he was a republican and gave money to the party.

    Then, he got all involved in touchplay with the help of republican legislators, it seems.

    Then, he gave all his money to Chet so he could get a great big fat taxpayer bankrolled settlement.

    Looks like a good return on his investment in democrats.

    So, how do we make Mr. Kum and Go comfortable? I now longer care.

    Did the party leave Mr. Kum and Go or did Mr. Kum and Go leave the party?

    How does Diane feel about touchplay? R's voted for that too.

    We already know how Gary Kirke feels about gambling as economic development.

    Most R's I know don't believe that basing the government's budget on the hoped for bad luck of it's citizenry to not be fiscally conservative or sound business practice.

    How do the fi-cons feel about that?

  3. oh my and the biggest republican contradiction - Joy Corning.

    The first platform plank of the republican party is the right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness which comes therefrom).

    It is our fundamental principle that encases far more than just abortion. It's been that way since at least 1980 - advanced and advocated by Reagan.

    And yet, Joy Corning gets upset that "she was cast out of the party" because her number one chiefly most important issue in all of her life is to promote abortion on demand.

    She's on the national board of directors of Planned Parenthood. She is the chief fundraiser for them. She gives her wealth to people who want to abort children on demand due to inconvenience.

    So, how is it we make Joy more comfortable?

    Can't be done.

    She'd be much more comfortable in the democrat party where on demand infaticide is THEIR number one platform issue.

    She has an R behind her name.

    No one kicked her out. I'm just puzzled.

  4. There's always 98.3 where you can listen to Hannity if Deace starts to go off the cliff.

    It's interesting how Deace never mentions the last name of his female co-host "Jen". Yet if you send him an email, he posts it on his website with your last name included.

  5. You must not listen much if you don't know Jen's last name. And yet you feel the need to chime and comment on a topic on which you show your ignorance. Interesting.

  6. Spoken strong and confidently like a man who has never run for office, never helped anyone run for office, and certainly never attempted either thing successfully. An issue poll last week just came out and low and behold 8% of voters are most concerned with social issues here in Iowa. So lets get out there and campaign on them so we can sure them up. Nussle has a 16 year 100% pro-life voting record but for some that was not good enough and they are still complaining.

    WHO drive home guy knows nothing about campaign politics and proves it daily on his show. Spewing the most ridiculously ignorant arguments about how and who should get elected on his show regularly. You know who loves this guy… The Democrats because he helps them all day everyday! I have some questions that SD clearly does not know the answer to. Who do you call to become Chair of the party (since at least 2005)? Who do you call to be a delegate? Who do you call to run for SCC? Who has controlled the party entirely since 2005? 2 issue SoCo’s! The answer to these questions are obvious to anyone who has wanted to do any of these things or who is privy to the inside baseball of RPI.

    It is a complete joke to think that SoCo have not been running this party for years now. Now it is just coming to its pinnacle.

  7. What is Jen's last name then, O' faithful deace listener?

    P.S. Can't say I blame anyone for not listening to his show.

  8. Deace is such a political impotent. Hillary and Barney can run and not change their issues as a Republican then it is necessary to defeat them in a primary. Boy tough solution there.

  9. "WHO drive home guy knows nothing about campaign politics and proves it daily on his show. Spewing the most ridiculously ignorant arguments about how and who should get elected on his show regularly. You know who loves this guy… The Democrats because he helps them all day everyday!"

    Deace is a threat to the very issues he claims to want to advance. His strategy is political suicide. Deace considers it a moral victory to lose and lose and lose.

    The Deace strategy will drive Republicans back to oblivion if we demand that every Republican must be to our perfect standards before we will vote for them.

    I choose to advance my agenda, even if very baby steps. Any advancement is preferable to total defeat which is what makes Deace feel superior.

    Deace has the insatiable desire to consider himself a better "Christian" than any one else. Unless you fit his template, you're inferior. He's a political moron.

    You're right. Democrats love him as he is their best friend and helping to advance their agenda.

    No Republican should ever listen to him or go on his show.

  10. "But any party or organization Christians of any stripe belong to must -- and I repeat MUST -- reinforce what the church is trying to accomplish and convey. Otherwise a house divided against itself cannot stand."

    This is where Deace is crazy. The goals of a church aren't the same as a party or a government. They aren't.

    What is the goal of a church? Bring people to Christ?
    What's the goal of government? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, maybe?

    There's overlap, but these aren't the same thing.

    To say that ANY group a Christian belongs to must reinforce (and only reinforce) Christian doctrine is just a nice way of saying 'i expect the party to serve the goals of the church ... and if it isn't, i expect the Christians to join a new group that is'.

    I'm sorry Deace is unable to separate his personal faith from public law. Hopefully he does before he damage the party any more.

  11. If Deace is such a Christian, why do his bumps leading into the news use words that are offensive to his listeners? (like kick your a$$). One more reason to tune out WHO and listen to Hannity on 98.3 during the afternoon drive time.

  12. I think Deace is more interested in turning government into a church. Unless you subscribe to his version of the Bible (essentially the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers - although he certainly isn't as venomous about the adulterers) the GOP should cast you aside as a RINO. If he keeps up with this Operation Extinction crap the GOP will lose even more seats in the legislature.

  13. As always in a format like this, there a lot of very bold people behind anonymous screen names. However, if folks are interested in actually discussing the differences they have with me with me, feel free to call me at 515-245-8836.

    Or, you could continue to courageously flex your beer muscles from your mom's basement via your keyboard. Whichever route you think is more productive. Just remember, gutlessness is not a virtue.

    It's a vice.

  14. Oh, and Jen's last name is Green. She works for Iowa Christian Academy and lives in West Des Moines. Her husband. Scott, works for Shazam as a manager and they have two kids -- Piper and Ben.

    Let me know if you need anymore information.

  15. Steve Deace,

    You are our "voice". I agree with you 100% on what you had to say. My question for you is: "What happens if Willard is McCain's VP?" What will us Social Conservatives do? I wonder what Mike Huckabee would do. It seems like it would be time to form a 3rd party. It seems it is always fine with the GOP when a fi-con gets elected and praises the so-cons for volunteering and getting people out to the polls. Then, when a so-con gets the victory, the fi-cons complain and call us "bible thumpers" even though the stuff we stand for pro-life and traditional marriage are apart of the GOP platform. Why can't they support the so-con candidate when they get elected? Why must we be the ones to "give-in". I'm sick of making phone calls and handing out fliers for what? So when I finally get a candidate that holds strongly to social issues and the platform, he gets called a liberal? I'm sorry, but I don't think I can hold my nose again. If John McCain picks a pro-choice VP, then it is time for a nation-wide revolt. That'll teach the GOP that you can't put the grassroots and our candidates under their GOP Bus's tires.

  16. Steve Deace is FAT. And an IDIOT.

  17. Hey Anonymous post above my Anonymous post,

    I'll pray for you :)

  18. Deace -

    How is it that Republican lawmakers are wrong for not following the GOP platform (marriage amendment) but you think it is okay for Democrat lawmakers to oppose their platform (right to work).

    Yes Deace, you are a HYPOCRITE.

  19. Hey Anonymous above mine again

    I'll pray for you too :)

  20. Isn't it "Get over here, kid, so I can kick your butt"?

  21. Deace said, "...Either advance the agenda the platform stands for or don't waste our time. It's that simple. Now, if you don't want us around just say so, change your platform accordingly, and we'll go do our own thing..."

    Exactly! There was no attempt to take the social conservative planks out of the platform at the state convention.

  22. Please, everyone stop listening to Deace. If his ratings go in the tank maybe WHO will replace him. He is doing the conservative agenda great harm.

    Write WHO and tell them you're not going to listen any longer.

  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

  24. Though I categorically disagree with Mr. Deace on the majority of his comments, I will not bash him, nor will I personally attack him. I will however, refute each of his claims.

    First, Deace says "But any party or organization Christians of any stripe belong to must -- and I repeat MUST -- reinforce what the church is trying to accomplish and convey." This is WRONG. According to this reasoning, if the pitcher of the Chicago Cubs is a Christian, he need not concern himself with baseball, but rather proclaiming the gospel from the mound. For people of faith, I can understand how desperately they wish to promote their ideals and philosophies, but we must acknowledge the appropriate forum to do so. While I agree that there may be no separation of faith and state, in that an individual’s beliefs always influence his or her policy, there is a separation between church and state. This means that Christians are not compelled to reinforce their church in every organization or party to which they belong. To say that an individual MUST "reinforce what the Church is trying to accomplish" is in fact a threat to true conservatism and a direct affront to the principles of individual liberty that conservatism once stood for. I would question the extent to which Mr. Deace believes in our constitution.

    Next, I agree with Mr. Deace and Krusty in that the Republican party must stand for some core principles. I agree that it would be ludicrous to support Hillary Clinton merely because she changed her affiliation from “D” to “R.” Voting based on a letter is the type of intellectual laziness that Krusy and Mr. Deace, along with myself, are very troubled with. The problem, however, is that the Republican party, no more so than in Iowa, is very confused as to what those principles should be. I for instance, believe that in upholding the virtues of individual liberty, free-market economy, and faith influenced, but not faith compelled policy, our society can most successfully achieve economic prosperity, general morality, and individual happiness.
    However, my belief in individual liberty is so strong, that I believe we should not impose our faith, and by extension, morality on others. In my opinion, there certainly are some moral absolutes, that is, those morals universally shared by almost all cultures over the entirety of human history. These absolutes may be given from the bible, or determined by what most benefits society, such as “thou shall not kill.” In this sense, certain impositions of morality are justified, but only those, which we can reasonably conclude, are morally absolute.
    Mr. Deace might argue that anything commanded by God is a moral absolute. I would reject this argument, but even so, would rebut that while prostitution may be somewhere outlined in the bible as immoral, it was Jesus Christ himself who embraced the destitute, who embraced the poor, who embraced the weak, and who embraced the prostitute, and did not condemn them. His message was one of hope and love, and in many instances, I think it is a message lost among Christian conservatives today.
    To extend Christ’s message, I do not think homosexuality and abortion (in the first term) are immoral, even if I find myself very uncomfortable around homosexual individuals. However, I do see the merit of Mr. Deace’s argument in how these two issues can be detrimental to a productive, happy society, and how they might demean the importance of the nuclear family. But we should separate the issue of morality vs. what benefits society as I have distinguished previously in my argument.

    Next, Mr. Deace claims that, “about half of the people in the party don't believe the Bible is true and the other half does, and among the half that doesn't about half of those folks are indifferent and don't care one way or the other while the half actively looks to thwart the ones who have Biblical convictions.” I completely disagree with this analysis and have hoped to have demonstrated this with my prior reasoning. I understand the immense faith and devotion of my Christian conservative counterparts, as I am an individual of faith myself. But I think Mr. Deace’s generalizations are incredibly short sighted and incorrect. To claim that we can convince people on social issues because “40% of people on Iowa Right to Life are Democrats” is truly misguided. This assumption implies two things:
    1. That all democrats inherently are pro-choice
    2. That the fact that 40% of members of Iowa Right to life are Democrats means that social conservatives have somehow “convinced” or “persuaded” these inherently pro-choice democrats to convert!

    What about this reasoning: some Democrats are pro-life and they feel this way due to no thanks from the far right? It seems Mr. Deace is making a number of assumptions in his argument that simply are not sound. I could continue to Mr. Deace’s other assumptions but I feel this is already becoming quite verbose so I will attempt to summarize.

    But first, I must here reiterate that I respect anyone who fights what they believe to be the good fight. I truly believe that Mr. Deace believes what he says, and I’m sure he has had success in the past proselytizing “socially progressive” individuals. But I would also submit that Mr. Deace’s sometimes abrasive rhetoric has estranged numerous individuals both from the Republican party, and from the social conservative movement. The way to advance an agenda, any agenda, is not to dig in one’s heals and yell louder. The way to persuade is to capture hearts and minds, using a grounded, well-reasoned argument. If Mr. Deace and other social conservatives continue to yell louder and louder, I predict that they will eventually find themselves on the fringe of the party, and will have a much smaller audience for whom their message resonates. I urge Mr. Deace to reconsider his approach to advancing his agenda, and humbly ask him to open his mind, and look at this issue from a slightly different angle. With the sincerest respect, I think Mr. Deace is not always good for his movement, or his party, and I ask that he reevaluate his approach to promoting his message.

    My deepest thanks to Krusty and Mr. Deace for fighting intellectual laziness and promoting this dialogue. These are important issues and I truly thank you both for advancing the discussion.

    Warmest Regards,

    Mr. Stark

  25. Jonathon, I'm so glad to see a positive post with an intelligent argument!

    However, I think you are either taking Steve out of context or misunderstanding what he is saying, or maybe I am. But, I think he is saying that a group made up of Christians or a group with such a large number of Christians, such as the Republican Party, cannot and will not function if the Christians in that group do not truly live their beliefs. Basically, if you have a bunch of Christians in the Republican party and they don't fight against what they see as wrong/immoral/sinful, they are not living their faith, they are just proclaiming it. You can apply this to the party as a whole. The party is seen, by everyone, as the pro-life, pro-family, pro-moral party. If the party stands by and does nothing while more babies are killed, homosexual marriage goes unchallenged, and we see our family values go down the tube, the party will lose all credibility! And it won't be just the Christian social conservatives who pay. It will be the whole party! And the argument that pro life legislation would be against individual liberties is just wrong in my opinion, because we're not thinking about that babies' liberties. Being pro-choice is not being small government, it's the exact opposite. It's more about individual CONVENIENCE than liberty. Whatever happened to personal responsiblity? With all this talk about small government we have forgotten that the party also stands for personal responsibility! Encouraging personal responsibility is not being big government.

    Sorry, this post kinda jumps around a bit but it would take me way to long to organize all my thoughts well.

  26. Damn, I should have warned Deace about not feeding the Animals.

    Ranger Krusty

  27. JPRED -

    Agreed, and I apologize if I took Mr. Deace out of context. I think you've hit the nail on the head. The Republican party cannot be the party of values and personal responsibility, if we are not responsible enough to live up to the values we endorse.

    Thank you for the positive response and correction; I think we need to argue, but remain civil, to truly advance the dialogue.

  28. Boy, for you people who hate Deace and don't listen to him, you sure know a lot about him. You sound ridiculous. Go ahead and listen to Hannity. We won't miss you.

  29. Huh? Deace's ramblings make as much sense as an Obama speech.

  30. Maybe you can't understand Deace because he uses words with multiple syllables.

  31. Who is the gubernatorial candidate that Deace took down in 2002 while still on KXNO? And how did that happen on a sports station?

  32. Back in the day when I worked with Deace at the Register, we had to be sure to erase the browser histories on the computers he used because they were filled with porn sites. Every night he'd pick a computer back in a far off corner where nobody could see and surf porn sites.

    Without question one of the least talented, least intelligent and least interesting humans I've encountered in my lifetime. The fact that people actually listen to what that slapdick has to say is a poor reflection on them. I seriously doubt he believes any of his own bullshit.