Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
Reihan Salam, columnist at The Daily and blogger for National Review Online's "The Agenda" and Kate Wells, Iowa Public Radio reporter discuss the results of last night's Iowa GOP Caucus.
"I'm RuPaul and I approved this message"(NOT)
Now that the gloves are off, perhaps we will start to see some of the major problems withSuper-Pacs - namely the risk of FALSE FLAG ATTACKS.
For example, some non-descript super-pac backed by another candidate could PRETEND to be say Mitt Romney (or another candidate) and from that falseposition - make statements - seemingly approved by the target candidate and seemingly to benefit the target candidate (say Mitt Romney) - which are SOOFFENSIVE that it ALIENATES the Target Candidates Base - so rather than being a benefit, actuallyseverely HARMS that target candidates position (while seeming to be done to favor them) (Thereforethe term "FALSE FLAG ATTACK").
To make matters worse, let's say one of the Super-PACmanagers legally CHANGED his/her name to Mitt Romney.Presumably, they could then legally say at the end ofthe message : "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved of thismessage".
Hiding the identity of the people who control super-Pacs is a VERY bad idea when they are allowed to place unlimited TV Ads.
The risk of False Flag attacks is a serious one.(Although there are many others including controlof our elections by Foreign or Domestic commercialspecial interests, or even by Foreign powers).
Since Super-PAC ad revenue is thought to be decisiveand is thought to be granting an automatic win toRomney, again - our society needs to reexamine theSuper Pac laws.
False Flag Super Pac Attacks will probably expeditethis process.
"I'm RuPaul and I approved this message"....
Inflations can be caused by increasing money supply when output levels are static. The inflation of Vietnam years was caused by Johnson's war and social spending together. The two inflationary surges of the 1970s were caused by oil price spikes and each moderated as unemployment rose. Inflation was low during the Reagan years because oil prices were low, thanks in part to Russian production. The smooth substitutions of conventional scarcity economics are based on late nineteenth century equilibrium physics and miss the technological and energy dynamics of the real world.
We all need to stop with the two party bashing games. Ron Paul is not blaming Obama for all of our fiscal problems. He does, however, blame him for continuing the trend of reckless and corrupt policies. He blames all fiscally irresponsible policies and leaders -- which includes almost everyone in US government in the past several decades.
As for the ultimate realization of Austrian economists predictions of US currency melt-down, only time will tell. The trend certainly looks ominous.
And while we are on this topic... Brian's insulting assessment of the low-income voters in Iowa is better explained as the low-income voters being tired of having their savings and their jobs stripped away from them by never ending war, monetary inflation, corporate incentives to export jobs, and wall street subsidies.
JIMjohn's point was "Ron Paul...predicted massive inflation, as a result of Obama's policies to combat the recession"is obama the cause of inflation since 1940 or 1970?or was ron paul wrong on that point?
US Median Home Values: Unadjusted
2000: $119,600 1990: $79,100 1980: $47,200 1970: $17,000 1960: $11,900 1950:$7,354 1940:$2,938
So... up 600% between 1970 and 2000. Up 4000% since 1940. That's your federal reserve at work. And don't try to say that you should not look at the "unadjusted" numbers. Those numbers are meant to compare the cost of housing versus overall inflation. Unadjusted is the true measure of monetary inflation. But for what its worth, overall inflation is up 1500% since 1940 (www.usinflationcalculator.com).
Hospital and physician costs up 6000% and 4500% repsectively since 1970.
Up 1000% since 1978.
JIMby what percent have they gone up per year over the last 30 years?
@John from NJ
Gee John. Track the cost of housing, medicine, and college over the past 30 years. I'd call that hyperinflation.
I echo Dorothy. Incredibly condescending to declare that those lower down the economic ladder vote for Paul out of anger and being too dumb to cut through the rhetoric. No possibility, of course, that they have rationally concluded that all the other candidates just represent more of the same pols and bankers that got us into the mess we're in.
OMG you pompous --- now people only vote for Ron Paul because they're angry and swayed by rhetoric?
"Take back control of our country." -- typ campaign slogan.Its like having two parties nowadays is a form of foreign policy.
Funny thingMitt won only in the democratic parts of the state can he hold them in nov
I learned that Santorum = Tofromney! (anyone who would've voted for Romney except they think it's creepy he's a mormon, or they think "Romneycare" will opt for Tofromney/Santorum).
Re money spent, one of the networks listed a price per vote chart which, if memory serves, had Romney spending $156/vote and Santorum $21/vote. Romney was second in spending per vote; Perry was first, with a whopping $480/vote.
Re: Ron Paul, and we are all Austrians now, why isn't anyone mentioning that Paul and the Austrians were all WRONG! They all predicted massive inflation, 1930's German style inflation, 1980's Argentina inflation, as a result of Obama's policies to combat the recession. The TARP, the stimulus etc, did not lead to runaway inflation which tells me Ron Paul does not understand the economy or how it works.
And the GOP turnout? It was less than 08... thoughts on the soft turnout?
We learned that the "take our country back" attitude is alive and well.
Lenore if that’s true anything can be a slur
Good work Lenore
Ron Paul 2012
(Phone keeps dropping call while on hold.)
Until last night, I felt sorry for people in media for having to cover the Republican "field" ad nauseum. I really didn't know you were all just process wonks and were thinking of these people as viable candidates.
These are the "non-of-the-above" candidates. All un-electable, non-thinkers. How do we know? Mitt Romney is their best option.
Any casual observer knows there was an election in 2008, and there will be another one in 2016, with nothing in between.
Unless Obama starts performing abortions in the Rose Garden, he's going to win.Every viable, actual Republican candidate knows this. You'll see Christie, Thune, Pawlenty, Jeb (yes that one), Daniels, Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, maybe even Nikki Hayley in the real race in 2016. The one for an open Presidential seat. Not one to un-seat an incumbent with a 42% approval rating...which is all you need to win.
Hey Brian --
With proportional voting and a close to 3 way tie, how does anyone win? In a winner takes all, someone wins, not so with proportional voting.
How is Santorum a "Christian" conservative? He's a Knight of Malta and almost certainly Opus Dei. He's a Catholic conservative. Eventually Protestant Evangelicals will figure that one out.
@Sherry from LES
One word - Israel
Aren't Newt's views on foreign policy also considered very dangerous?
CarlaSurge refers to the fact that he was polling so low until recently
Ron Paul won if you count the people that were afraid to vote for him because they thought he might not win.
Can you speak about why every time Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are spoken about they are proceeded by "people say, or opponent's say he has very dangerous views on foreign policy before getting into them." This isn't so for other opponents.
Well based on every past election.. everything your pundits say will be wrong.. remember the 2008 election and the "permanent generational Democratic majority"? Remember McCain being dead in 2008?
Iowa heard Santorum supported the bridge to nowhere and said give me some of that red state socialism Iowa loves big government. Without it no one would live there.
What this election proved is that, regardless of what they think of him or Mormons, at least some conservative evangelicals will vote for Romney to beat Obama. That means that Romney will "hold the base." He will be nominated, because Santorum, his only real opponent, is not likely to win primaries in states less conservative than Iowa. Santorum is likely to be the GOP's VP choice, the fact that he is an Easterner being less important to the "base" than his conservatism. Newt will fight with Santorum for primary votes, and eventually throw his support to Santorum, but that's not going to be enough to stop Romney, who has the powerful Republicans and big contributors behind him.
The real question remains whether Obama can hold PA, OH and FL against Romney. Those states will decide the election. Santorum -- a Catholic -- on the GOP ballot would help in PA and OH, states that are white, ethnic and Roman Catholic. Florida is always difficult to predict.
I think that last night means basically nothing in terms of the outcome in November. What will matter is how Obama plays when his campaign gears up; and, of course, the economy.
I hope your guests and you won't call Ron Paul "isolationist." I think a better word would be "anti-interventionist." "Isolationist" is a slur, and an obsolete slur at that.
"Antiwar" would also be a possibility but isn't inclusive enough.
Why does the news -- including the New York Times -- keep calling Santorum's campaign a "Surge". A statistical dead heat is not a surge. 24% of the Republican vote is not a surge. Republicans obviously don't like ANY of their choices, and they're just pulling names from a hat.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR and PRI, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.