Streams

One Down...What We Learned on Iowa Caucus Night

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

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. 

Guests:

Reihan Salam and Kate Wells
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [31]

False Flag Super-PAC Attacks! from "I'm RuPaul and I approved this message"(NOT)

"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 with
Super-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 false
position - make statements - seemingly approved
by the target candidate and seemingly to benefit the
target candidate (say Mitt Romney) - which are SO
OFFENSIVE that it ALIENATES the Target Candidates
Base - so rather than being a benefit, actually
severely HARMS that target candidates position
(while seeming to be done to favor them) (Therefore
the term "FALSE FLAG ATTACK").

To make matters worse, let's say one of the Super-PAC
managers legally CHANGED his/her name to Mitt Romney.
Presumably, they could then legally say at the end of
the message : "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved of this
message".

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 control
of our elections by Foreign or Domestic commercial
special interests, or even by Foreign powers).

Since Super-PAC ad revenue is thought to be decisive
and is thought to be granting an automatic win to
Romney, again - our society needs to reexamine the
Super Pac laws.

False Flag Super Pac Attacks will probably expedite
this process.

"I'm RuPaul and I approved this message"....

(NOT)

Jan. 05 2012 01:06 PM

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.

Jan. 04 2012 02:21 PM
Jim

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.

Jan. 04 2012 11:53 AM

JIM
john'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?

Jan. 04 2012 11:29 AM
Jim

@hjs11211

Housing:

From http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html

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).

Medical care:

From http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/Classes/nhe00/

Hospital and physician costs up 6000% and 4500% repsectively since 1970.

College:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_tuition_in_the_United_States

Up 1000% since 1978.

Jan. 04 2012 11:23 AM

JIM
by what percent have they gone up per year over the last 30 years?

Jan. 04 2012 10:55 AM
Jim

@John from NJ

Gee John. Track the cost of housing, medicine, and college over the past 30 years. I'd call that hyperinflation.

Jan. 04 2012 10:42 AM

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:39 AM
Dorothy from NYC

OMG you pompous --- now people only vote for Ron Paul because they're angry and swayed by rhetoric?

Jan. 04 2012 10:34 AM
John A. from RoboCall of Duty

"Take back control of our country." -- typ campaign slogan.
Its like having two parties nowadays is a form of foreign policy.

Jan. 04 2012 10:33 AM

Funny thing
Mitt won only in the democratic parts of the state can he hold them in nov

Jan. 04 2012 10:29 AM
carolita from nyc

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).

Jan. 04 2012 10:26 AM
Barbara Perlov from Jackson Heights

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:26 AM
John from NJ

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:26 AM
Eric from Brooklyn

And the GOP turnout? It was less than 08... thoughts on the soft turnout?

Jan. 04 2012 10:26 AM
The Truth from Becky

We learned that the "take our country back" attitude is alive and well.

Jan. 04 2012 10:24 AM

Lenore if that’s true anything can be a slur

Jan. 04 2012 10:24 AM

Good work Lenore

Jan. 04 2012 10:24 AM

Ron Paul 2012

Jan. 04 2012 10:23 AM
Dan M from Greenpoint

(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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:23 AM
Cory from Planet Earth

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:21 AM
Dorothy from NYC

@Sherry from LES

One word - Israel

Jan. 04 2012 10:17 AM
Larry from Jersey City

Aren't Newt's views on foreign policy also considered very dangerous?

Jan. 04 2012 10:17 AM

Carla
Surge refers to the fact that he was polling so low until recently

Jan. 04 2012 10:15 AM
Dorothy from NYC

Ron Paul won if you count the people that were afraid to vote for him because they thought he might not win.

Jan. 04 2012 10:15 AM
Sherry from LES

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:15 AM
jason

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?

Jan. 04 2012 10:13 AM

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.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

Jan. 04 2012 10:11 AM
Karen from NYC

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:06 AM
Lenore from Upper West Side, Manhattan

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.

Jan. 04 2012 10:02 AM
Carla Tejido from Astoria

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.

Jan. 04 2012 09:54 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.