[Cincinatus' Wife]

For the "Mrs. George Will" crowd: As George Will says, his wife works for Walker [she's also worked for Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, among others].

So, what do you think about internal polls?

[jospehm20]

I think George will is a giant POS. I would not believe him about much of anything.

[fortheDeclaration]

Walker is a good man who got caught up in the Trump wave.

[Yo-Yo]

Watched the Trump rally in Dallas last night, and he really unloaded on George Will.

[silverleaf]

Scott who ?

[sushiman]

The Time Is Now : Trump 2016 !

[afraidfortherepublic]

George Will declares that internal polls show that Scoott Walker leads among likely Iowa Caucus voters. Specialized poll canvassed experienced Iowa caucus voters instead of random voters. Will’s wife works for the Walker campaign.

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.

[taildragger]

Internal poles are like Saddam’s Generals, they them what they want to hear or your gone, that is what you are payed to do. Seen it first hand, give me the who, what, when, where and why of these poles. I want to see how they are messaging it....

[fieldmarshaldj]

Ludicrous.

[Yosemitest]

George Will is a DemocRAT who got SO OFFENDED by the DemocRATS, that he couldn't tolerate being associated with all those "CRAZIES" .
Now for a deeper understanding of just WHO George Will IS:

The word "neocons" is ONLY used by LIBERALS, trying to insult Conservatives.
The is no such thing as a "NEW" Conservative.
Conservatives ARE Conservative, plain and simple.

But read this"
Liberals, Conservatives, and Neocons — Learn the Difference!
March 12, 2014

Almost everybody is confused about the word "neoconservative" and its shortened form, "neocon."
I find that liberals/Democrats seem to use it as a sort of disrespectful form of "conservative,"
and probably have no idea the the words have distinct meanings.
On the other hand, I know of some conservatives who define it as "new conservatives,"
meaning people who were formerly something else, but have converted to conservatism.
Both are wrong.
As near as I can tell, "neo-" doesn't apply to any other word that way —
formerly not X, but having become X.
No, "neo-" almost always refers to an ideology that is different from the root word in a significant way.
Neoconfederates are not people who want to secede and become a separate country.
They want the ideals of the Confederacy to be applied to modern politics, more or less, but not all of them.
Neoliberal is a more vague term,
but it specifically applies to people who may have SOME of the attributes of liberals,
but who contradict liberalism in their advocacy of free trade and privatization
and other ideas usually thought of as conservative.
And, finally, neoconservatives are mostly those moderate cold war LIBERALS who defected to the Republican party when the Democrats got totally flaky with McGovern and his ilk.
Their ultimate origin, however, is not the Democratic party but the Trotskyite movement.



Jack Kerwick elaborates.

Read this:
Most "Conservatives" Are Secretly Neoconservatives
12 March, 2014, by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.

A colleague of mine has drawn my attention to a Washington Post blog post — “Why Most Conservatives Are Secretly Liberals” — by a Professor John Sides, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

Sides agrees with fellow political scientists Christopher Ellis and James Stimson, co-authors of Ideology in America.
Ellis and Stimson CONTEND that
America is, at bottom, a “center-left nation,”
for while “30 percent” of self-described “liberals” are consistent in endorsing “liberal” policy prescriptions,
the same sort of consistency can be ascribed to only “15 percent” of “conservatives.”
And another “30 percent” of “conservatives” actually advance “liberal” positions.

In short, Americans may TALK the talk of “conservatism,” but they WALK the walk of “liberalism.”
That is, they favor Big Government.

Sides, Ellis, and Stimson, it seems clear to me, are “liberals.”
It doesn’t require much reading between the lines to discern this.
That they associate “liberals,” and “liberals” ALONE, with such virtues as “consistency” and such lofty ideals as “a cleaner environment” and “a stronger safety net” is enough to bear this out.
Yet in peddling the ridiculous, patently absurd notion that
“conservatives” see the media as PROMOTING “conservatism,”
the verdict regarding their “liberalism” is seen for the NO-BRAINER that it is.

There is, though, another CLUE that unveils Sides’, Ellis’, and Stimson’s ideological PREJUDICES:
They equate the term “liberalism” with a robust affirmation of Big Government.
They treat “liberalism” synonymously with its modern, “Welfare-Statist” incarnation.
There is no mention here of the fact that, originally, “liberalism” referred to
a vision that attached supreme value to individual liberty,
a vision in which government played, and had to play, a minimal role in the lives of its citizens.
And there is no mention of the fact that, if “liberalism” is now “an ugly word,”
it is because the very same socialists who made “socialism” an ugly word hijacked “liberalism” when it enjoyed a favorable reception
and visited upon it the same fate that they secured for “socialism.”

In other words, if Sides himself wanted to be bluntly honest, he’d have to admit that “liberals” are secretly socialists.

Still, though their premises are bogus, Sides and his colleagues draw the correct conclusion that
most “conservatives” are NOTHING OF THE KIND.
The truth of the matter is that
the vast majority of contemporary “conservatives” are neoconservatives.

Now, “neoconservatism” is a term that hasn’t the best reputation.
It has ALWAYS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL,
and most of its proponents have DISAVOWED IT to the point of, preposterously, condemning it as an “anti-Semitic” SLUR.
But George W. Bush and his party inflicted potentially irrevocable damage upon the label.
“Conservatism” is a more marketable label.

Nevertheless, the reality is that neoconservatism is indeed a distinct school of political thought.
Beyond this, it is fundamentally different in kind from classical conservatism.
Irving Kristol, the so-called “Godfather” of neoconservatism, an appellation that he readily endorsed, ADMITS this in noting both
that neoconservatism exists
and that “conservative” “can be misleading” when used to describe it.

Neoconservatism, you see, is THE INVENTION OF LEFTISTS like Kristol himself.
When the Democratic Party began veering too far to the Left in the 1960s, Kristol and more moderate leftists began turning toward the Republican Party.
So as TO DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES FROM traditional conservatives, they coined the term “neoconservatism.”

Neoconservatives, Kristol asserts, are “not at all hostile to the idea of a welfare state” —
even if they reject the “vast and energetic bureaucracies” created by the Great Society.
Neoconservatives ENDORSE “social security, unemployment insurance,” and “some kind of family assistance plan,” among other measures.
But what’s most interesting, particularly at a time when ObamaCare has DIVIDED the country, is that Kristol reminds us that
neoconservatives SUPPORT “some form of national health insurance.”

In all truthfulness, however, neither a degree in political science nor an IQ above four is required to know that
neoconservatism has always championed Big Government
for it is its foreign policy vision more than anything else that distinguishes it from its competitors.
For neoconservatives, America is “exceptional” in being, as Kristol puts it, “a creedal nation,”
the only nation in all of human history to have been founded upon an “ideology” of equality, of “natural rights.”
The U.S.A., then, has a responsibility to promote this ideology throughout the world.

And it is by way of a potentially boundless military — i.e. Big Government — that this “ideological patriotism” is to be executed.

Had the foregoing political scientists been looking in the right places, they would BE FORCED TO CONCLUDE that most “conservatives” are secretly neoconservatives.

So, you see that those WHO THEY CALL "neoconservatives", are really nothing more than the old moderate side of the DemocRATS.
It's just THAT SIMPLE .

[Yosemitest]

It really IS quite revealing the the LIBERAL George Will and the LIBERAL ATHEIST Charles Krauthammer are BOTH SELLING Scott Walker.

See, there's NO DOUBT that Walker has been BOUGHT and PAID FOR by the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS", if their puppets in the LAME Stream Media are blowing polls to the public about Walker.

What a bunch of baloney !

[TexasFreeper2009]

lol

right.

I didn’t even know Walker was still in the race!

[scrabblehack]

Back in 1980 they were more accurate than the public polls.
It’s a bit hard to believe they could be *this* far off though.

[ConservativeMind]

So, what do you think about internal polls?

Anytime you ask everyone in your campaign who they'd vote for, you will get a lot of them saying they plan to vote for their employer.

[USS Alaska]

So, what do you think about internal polls?

By definition, they are slanted.
Paid for by the candidate, what kind of results will keep the polling company in business for the next poll?

I like Walker, he was my third choice, but Wifey, you know that he rolled over for his big donor on the anchor babies kerfuffle.

I'm for it, no, I'm against it, no, I have no position until further orders from my money master.

[Vendome]

Liar and push polling for his wife

Just plain dishonest

[Diogenesis]

The RINO Walker LOST when he hired George Will and his
wife (through her spouse) to attack Mr. Trump
and real patriotic Americans.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Just watched last night's round table on Special Report

---

So did I, literally! I was listening to Pandora on my new Echo while they were "talking"...muted.. Interesting to see the subject and watch the body language,

[BigEdLB]

People who have shown up for the past two caucuses. However Trump and Carson are generating new attendees who exceed in numbers those who have been before, and both those campaigns are working on how to get the new attendees to the caucus sites

[mad_as_he$$]

“Initial results reported that Mitt Romney beat out Rick Santorum by just 8 votes, but when the final results came out two weeks later Rick Santorum secured the victory over Romney by a margin of 34 votes with Ron Paul in a strong 3rd.”

https://www.google.com/#q=who+won+the+republican+iowa+caucus+in+2012

Let's see the “voters” that picked Romney with Mad Rick as a close second are a good measure of the race. Right...

[OldNewYork]

Internal polls? Look who drank the Kool-aid.