Press "Enter" to skip to content

Iowa Notes: Romney Slides, Lyon County Nuts, Paul Unhealthy for GOP

Last updated on 2012.06.12

As I watched Mitt Romney beat Rick Santorum by eight votes in last night's Iowa caucuses, I tried to figure out what the best headlines for the event might be. Some possibilities:

  1. Romney Slides in Iowa: in 2008, Mitt Romney won 30,021 Iowa caucus votes. Last night, he won 30,015. Another way of putting it: three out of four Iowa GOP caucus goers still don't want Romney as President. Romney won not because his campaigning worked, but because the other guys were weaker than his 2008 competition.
  2. Iowa GOP Caucus 2012: Lyon County Results
    Iowa GOP Caucus 2012: Lyon County Results
  3. Lyon County Crazy: The northwesternmost Iowa county, home to the Sioux Falls-leeching Grand Falls Casino, went 61% for Rick Santorum. Lyon County caucus goers also preferred Ron Paul, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich over Mitt Romney. Over 90% picked a radical who would wreck the country over those two nice Mormon ex-governors who might actually govern rationally. If I were a progressive gambler in Sioux Falls, I might seriously consider boycotting such a backwards county.
  4. Ron Paul Increases Death Grip on GOP: NPR commentators noted last night that the Paul campaign looked like a "children's crusade," turning out lots of new young voters to more than double Paul's caucus vote count over his 2008 performance. (Of course, by the LA Times' count, he still won't get any delegates.) The GOP can only hope that these kids will outgrow Paul's nuttiness and get serious about good government. As I've noted previously, Paul appeals to those with superficial knowledge of major issues. Paul's "libertarianism" is a game played by the inexperienced, unaware, and immature. Ron Paul is selfishness in philosophical drag. If these kids become the GOP base, the GOP is toast.
  5. Hope Remains for Gingrich: Take heart, Dan Lederman! Newt Gingrich finished fourth last night in Iowa with 13%. Who finished fourth in Iowa in 2008 with 13%? John McCain.

52 Comments

  1. larry kurtz 2012.01.04

    McCain was a sitting senator; Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum are all has-beens and losers.

    Paul is a sitting Congress member: he is still capable of advancing legislation that makes him look like a leader.

    The death-grip is being applied by a GOP desperate to mount a primary season that energizes its earth hater base to accept and propel whichever white guy they choose into some less-than-embarrassing repeat of 2008.

    Pathetic, really.

  2. Bill Fleming 2012.01.04

    Gingrich has now to decide whether to selfishly vent his spleen (and spend himself into oblivion doing it) or get out. He's supposedly good at math. So it shouldn't be too hard to figure out. If Romney can bust his chops in two weeks with a few million bucks, imagine what Obama could do to him with a billion. He should take the midnight train to Georgia and never look back.

  3. troy jones 2012.01.04

    My thoughts:

    Winners:

    1) Santorum obviously. However, I expect it to be short-lived. He has fully concentrated on Iowa and has no organization anywhere else.

    2) Romney: I think it effectively eliminated his strongest opponent (Gingrich). Unlike McCain who had issue/perception problems in Iowa (especially as it relates to who goes to caucuses), Gingrich should have appealed to caucus goers (unlike Romney).

    3) Huntsman: Yes, Huntsman. His only getting 1% of the vote (I might have been able to do better) will make him realize President will never be in his future. He will turn to opportunities which are possible (Cabinet) and where he is better suited.

    4) Surrogates: Caucus voters don't care much for endorsements. But Primary voters subconsciously do as it speaks to leadership skills (one has to have followers to lead). Iowa is over. Thune/Christie and the others who have endorsed candidates (still in the race) will be influential going forward. More than their public statements, they know organization and how to raise money. For instance, I'd have Thune be responsibile for Minnesota, Colorado and maybe Nevada. Give Christie other states.

    Losers:

    1) Gingrich: In less than a month, he lost 75% of his support. I think he lost it when he gave the interview (forget where) when he said he would be the nominee based on his surge in the polls. He underestimated the fluidity of the voter. More importantly, he doesn't seem to have a good argument in response to his "baggage." Finally, I think he lost some support when he got so emotional with regard to the attacks he suffered. They are not any more viscious than McCain/Romney or Obama/Clinton endured in their primaries. Gotta be a big boy.

    2) Bachmann: Like Gingrich, she won the straw poll yet fizzled over the course of the campaign. Like Santorum, she bet everything on Iowa. She killed herself when she played the gender card. She made it too easy for her base to move to Santorum.

    3) Perry: He is the victim of the reality his "base" had better candidates (Santorum, Bachmann) with regard to articulating their views. If Santorum hadn't surged, I think Perry would have been close to 20% and could have stayed in the race.

    End result: It has been announced Bachmann is suspending her race.

    After NH and SC, Santorum and Perry will be non-entities. Santorum stays in ala Edwards through at least Super Tuesday. Perry goes home to Texas before Super Tuesday.

    Huntsman surprises in NH but fizzles bad in SC and Florida. Leave the campaign then.

    Gingrich and Paul stay in all the way to the end. Romney has it effectively wrapped up after Super Tuesday.

    Bonus predictions:

    1) Santorum becomes the Biden and gets serious VP consideration. Maybe gets it. His Michigan/Pennsylvania/Ohio/Missouri appeal is undeniable. His speech last night would win many a union hall/blue collar voter.

    2) Paul does not turn on Romney like he did Gingrich. Two reasons: First, I think Paul doesn't like Gingrich. Gingrich marginalized Paul when Newt was speaker and Paul remembers that. Second, Paul's son is a better spokesman for Paul's issues. If Paul goes crazy, Rand is hurt permanently.

  4. troy jones 2012.01.04

    Probably off on my prediction if conventional wisdom/commentary proves to be true. Gingrich appears to be making a last stand in S.C. (close to Georgia base). If he doesn't do well there, the commentary is he will end his campaign. Their rationale: Gingrich's lack of ability to stay on the message that led to his surge and lack of organization skills were exposed. These were always the beef with him. Zebra's don't change their stripes.

    They also seem to think Santorum will have more staying power. They think he might be able to capture the fluid group who are issue driven (and surged Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich). They said Santorum had amazing organization at the caucuses.

    Personally, I think their Gingrich analysis rings more true. Santorum to me is more Huckabee-ish (flash in the Iowa pan). But, their analysis does give more credence in my mind Santorum is the 2012 Biden. Obama got benefit with Biden to the "traditional" Democrat while Obama had the "true believers" wrapped up. Romney is strong with the "traditional" Republican. Santorum will help with lock up the "true believers." Biden and Santorum both have a disposition that is good with independents.

  5. LK 2012.01.04

    "Paul’s son is a better spokesman for Paul’s issues. If Paul goes crazy, Rand is hurt permanently."

    I think this analysis is spot on. Much of what Ron Paul is doing this cycle seems to be laying the groundwork for his son to make a strong run in 4 years as either a Republican or Libertarian.

  6. LK 2012.01.04

    I wonder if anything will come of this threat.

    "In an interview with Laura Ingraham, Newt Gingrich raised the possibility of creating an anti-Mitt Romney alliance with Rick Santorum.

    "Ingraham: Can you see a scenario under which the two of you would align together to try to defeat the establishment candidate, Mitt Romney?

    "Gingrich: Absolutely. Of course. I mean Rick and I have a 20-year friendship, we are both rebels, we both came into this business as reformers, we both dislike deeply the degree to which the establishment sells out the American people. We both think Washington has to be changed in very fundamental ways, and we have lots of things that fit together. And the thing that's interesting is if you take the votes, you add to that Perry and Bachmann, you begin to see the size of the conservative vote compared to Romney...if you take, you know, Santorum and Perry and Bachmann and Gingrich you get some sense of what a small minority Romney really represents."

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/04/gingrich_floats_idea_of_anti-romney_alliance.html

  7. troy jones 2012.01.04

    LK:

    1) I think Gingrich's true base is more similar to Romney than it is to Perry/Bachmann. The Gingrich supporters I know are more likely to gravitate to Romney in my mind than to Santorum.

    2) Santorum has to agree to play ball with Gingrich. I don't believe it serves his purpose. Nor his disposition. I was at the Sioux City debate and watched his speech last night. He stayed on message to his merits as a candidate. If anything, I think it more likely for Santorum to let Gingrich be his Romney attack dog and distance himself.

    3) Alliances require both parties to bring something to the table. Gingrich was in single digits when he was an attack dog, surged when he came across as measured and not centered on self, and dropped when he became acerbic and ego-centric. His speech last night was too ego-centric.

    4) And then, related to #2, Santorum has to want what Gingrich has. Santorum is more likely to want what Perry/Bachmann have and that is standing with the social conservatives and appeal to those who have more narrow (vs. broad) issue focus.

  8. David Bergan 2012.01.04

    Hi Cory,
    Did you receive the books I amazoned to you a few weeks ago? I'd like to take a stab at defending the "superficial", "inexperienced, unaware, and immature" ideology of "nuttiness" and "selfishness".
    Nutty position #1 - Bring the troops home... from everywhere
    With a tough economy at home, why are we spending US tax money on stationing troops in 761 overseas bases in countries like Germany and Japan? Not only is that a waste of our money, but it is imperialistic. Nothing inspires terrorists like having our boots on their home soil. How would we feel if Sweden, Switzerland, and Canada had bases in South Dakota? In 1776, we didn't take too kindly to the outpost of Redcoats stationed here. Save money and make friends.
    Nutty position #2 - Don't invade Iran
    Is the American attention span so short as to forget what happened when we meddled with Iran in the 70s? We forcibly put the shah in charge and the country revolted to put Khomeini in power. We had to incite Saddam Hussein to go to war with him for a decade because their opposition to our interests was so strong. They took our embassy hostage.
    Demagogues prey upon fear, and this time around it's the fear of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Is the world really that unsafe if that happens? Only 25 years ago, our mortal enemy had 45,000 nuclear warheads. Just a few election cycles ago we were talking about the need to invade North Korea, and then they developed nukes... so now we don't. That's the kind of respect Iran desires. They wouldn't possibly launch one, because of the balance of power already in the region. India and Pakistan have a hundred nukes each and Israel has enough to level every Arab metro area.
    Beware of candidates "talking tough" about Iran, because that only leads to pre-emptive wars, nation-building debacles, and money for the military-industrial complex. Again... why should our treasure be wasted on that kind of crap when we have imminent economic needs?
    Nutty position #3 - Scale back the powers of the president
    At what point do we worry about the president being too powerful? When is the presidency ripe for a dictator? We all understand that the president has the launch codes... which have never been used since Harry Truman, and hopefully never would. But the more insidious danger is the stuff that a president can do against specific perceived enemies. Do we really want someone like Michelle Bachmann having the power to declare war without Congressional approval (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya) or torture her enemies (that may or may not be innocent)? Assassinate a list of enemies with drones? Detain suspected terrorists (including US citizens) indefinitely without a trial? Conduct naked scans on airplane, boat, train, and truck passengers? Read our emails? Wiretap our phones?
    The Constitution was crafted to prevent any one person from oppressing the citizens. Certainly Thomas Jefferson didn't wield this kind of awesome power when he was president... and he still made it to Mount Rushmore.
    Nutty position #4 - Stop all sanctions on other countries
    When have sanctions ever fostered goodwill and prosperity? Cuba didn't exactly warm up to America after a 50-year embargo. In almost every case, the effect of our sanctions causes poor people in the country to starve, and their family members to hate us. It gives the leaders of said countries ammunition to take drastic retaliation measures.
    “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will.”
    Nutty position #5 - End all taxpayer foreign aid
    When we give money to Mubarak, he purchases weapons and holds a deathgrip (using the term much more literally than you did) on his citizens. Like sanctions, the poor people in the country are still the victims. In essence, our foreign policy isn't any different from one of the most despised aspects of domestic politics... a major corporation dumping money into politicians' pockets for preferential treatment. In Egypt, the "major corporation" is the US government. The citizens then dislike us as much as they dislike Mubarak. Even our ally and chief beneficiary, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has stated that foreign aid may do more harm than good.
    Nutty position #6 - End the War on Drugs and the War on Terror
    How can we possibly win? Neither "terror" nor "drugs" can surrender. So when is victory achieved? When the last cigarette is ripped out of a free person's hand? When the last anti-American statement is uttered?
    In every high school civics class, it's taught that prohibition was a terrible policy. When alcohol went black-market, the profits soared, and guys like Capone held a deathgrip (again, a better use of the term) over the general population. Banning drugs has the same effect. Cocaine can be grown for 3 cents and sold for $100. With profits like that, cartels hold a deathgrip over children (i.e. kidnapping) to control their business. Our government spends a ridiculous amount of money incarcerating people for non-violent crimes... and our civil liberties are massively eroded (see #3 above).
    Neither I nor Dr. Paul is in favor of recreational drug use. Nor are we in favor of alcoholism. But being against alcoholism is not the same as being for prohibition.
    As for the War on Terror, let's put things in perspective and do some cost-benefit analysis. More people die from lightning each year than terrorism... yet our government hasn't declared a "war on lightning"... nor spent a couple trillion dollars trying to control the clouds. It would be much more efficacious to spend said trillions on cancer research or better highways. As silly as it sounds to drum up 4-for-the-future on highway 34... there are significantly less accidents on a divided highway than a 2-lane one. And we could pave a helluva lot of them if we had the money back from what we spent fighting the phantom of terror. (And, arguably, making enemies out of allies.)
    Paul's policies of ending sanctions, foreign aid, foreign meddling, and military occupation abroad make us less targeted for terrorism and save money for domestic economic projects (or paying off the debt... where we spend $1.2 billion a day on interest... gaining nothing for way more taxes than anyone reading this blog will contribute in a lifetime).
    Nutty position #7 - Deregulate marriage
    Let individuals define marriage as they see fit, and it ceases to be a battle in the culture wars.
    Conclusion
    I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything. I personally differ from him on abortion and creationism... and am not yet sold on the gold standard. But even with our differences, his policies for abortion and creationism are to let the locals decide... which makes a lot more sense than to have major urban states decide South Dakota policy and vice-versa.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party who's taking these stands. These are the ones that typically get him labeled as "non-mainstream" and "isolationist", anyway. (Switzerland must be extraordinarily isolationist because they don't have any bases outside their country.)

    I'll leave it to individuals to decide whether these analyses are "superficial, inexperienced, unaware, immature, and nutty".

    Kind regards,
    David

    PS Feel free to reply by phone or email if you'd rather take the discussion off the record.

  9. Curt Jopling 2012.01.04

    Best headline I have seen came from borowitzreport.com. "Romney Jubilant After Finishing in Dead Heat with Walking Joke in Sweater Vest". Priceless.

  10. larry kurtz 2012.01.04

    Cory: I was going to defend Ron Paul just for the halibut but couldn't find the words. David Bergan: thank you for saying it so well.

    Bet me that the President wouldn't love to run against Rep. Paul just for the exercise.

  11. larry kurtz 2012.01.04

    Btw, earth haters (sorry, Mr. Jones): Ron Paul is the real conservative in the GOP race.

  12. larry kurtz 2012.01.04

    Disclosure: I said stupid shit for money 30 years ago, too.

  13. Steve Sibson 2012.01.04

    "Romney is strong with the “traditional” Republican."

    Traditional meaning Big Government supporting Big Business fascism. Traditional meaning the Industrialists destroying the agrarian.

  14. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.04

    Troy, your thoughtful post gets me wondering: what's the track record of candidates who bet everything on a single state? Who recently has been able to do like Santorum, bet everything on Iowa and get good enough results to make up for the lack of organization in subsequent states?

  15. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.04

    The books were waiting for us when we got back from Christmas break, David. Thank you. Alas, they don't seem much more promising than longer interviews I've seen with Paul. I want to believe he can make sense. He'll get going on, say, his anti-war issues, and I'll be rolling with him, thinking, "Dang, this guy sounds like my man Dennis Kucinich!" But then out comes the deep dark muck of the gold standard and Austrian economics, the kind of nuttiness that would sink the country faster than any errors President Obama or President Bush committed. At my most generous, I might rank Paul a useful gadfly. He is not Presidential material. I do not fear a Romney or Huntsman Presidency. I deeply fear a Ron Paul Presidency.

  16. David Bergan 2012.01.04

    Hi Cory,

    So the gold standard/Austrian economics is your only strike against Paul? What exactly have you read that convinces you he's wrong on that subject? I have a minor in economics, and personally don't feel qualified to weigh gold vs fiat currency and call one or the other "nutty". (Although, if I had to choose, there does seem to be something odd about being able to print money whenever you want to just to pay your obligations...) I certainly haven't read as much as Dr. Paul has on the subject... but we have to give him credit that he's been publicly making predictions of specific economic troubles that have come true. (Much like his foreign policy predictions...)

    How sure are you that he's really wrong on economics? How sure are we that any economist knows what the hell they're talking about? I mean Greenspan's been wrong, so has Keynes, Friedman, Marx, Krugman, etc.

    Are you really convinced that Richard Nixon's executive order getting us off the gold standard was purely for the good of the country, and not just a self-serving short term economic boost that he could take credit for... that we have to pay for later? The Nixon equivalent of signing huge tax cuts and Medicare Part D.

    Tell me how you know so much on this subject, because I really do want to read and learn more about it. I bought an econ textbook last Saturday just to refresh myself on the basics so I can try some more in-depth research papers.

    Kind regards,
    David

  17. Steve Sibson 2012.01.05

    Cory, how did America make it to 1913 without the Federal Reserve? And when did the Great Depression start, before or after 1913? And what would one penny buy in 1912?

  18. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.05

    Steve, how did America make it to 1913 without automobiles, polio vaccines, and computers?

  19. larry kurtz 2012.01.05

    Sen. McCain says the GOP needs to fix its relationship to Hispanics. Let's ask the people of Mexico to suspend their constitution and petition to be the 52nd State.

  20. troy jones 2012.01.05

    Steve,

    People might doubt my GOP credentials on some matters but one I know I take no back seat to anyone is both my understanding and support in free enterprise. Let me just say I believe the three strongest candidates in support of traditional (not a bad word) & historical principles of free enterprise are Huntsman, Paul and Romney (no particular order). The bottom two are clearly Perry and Gingrich.

    Cory,

    I think the three best historical examples of betting everything on Iowa are Huckabee, Dean, and Carter. Huckabee bet all his money and organization. Carter bet his credibility with regard to being a serious candidate. Dean bet money and credibility. The results of the winners is Carter had organization/efforts beyond Iowa and Huckabee NADA. Deans loss of Iowa sent him on a tirade.

    Santorum is clearly parallel to Huckabee. There could be a difference in this election though because of one dynamic: Santorum's speech the other night was in my mind inspirational. A young college student who I know texted me and said "I was for Romney but now need to know more about Santorum." If indicative, Santorum might get life-sustaining support (votes in NH and money).

  21. David Bergan 2012.01.05

    "I do not fear a Romney or Huntsman Presidency. I deeply fear a Ron Paul Presidency."

    Three last points...

    1) Judging from the results, I would have to say that modern macro-economics is about equal to 19th century medicine. Sure they might be able to take a temperature and know some symptoms of disease, but we have no confidence to think their prescriptions will help us rather than hurt us. If they're so wise and trustworthy why are so many countries in deep economic trouble? Greece. Ireland. Iceland. At what point can we call conventional macro-economic thinking nutty? (If you know more on this issue, please point me to some links... I'm eager to learn.)

    2) I didn't hear any replies to the 7 issues in my first post. So... pro-torture, pro-assassination, pro-detention, pro-foreign-meddling, pro-drone-attack, pro-sanction, pro-foreign-aid, pro-imperialism, invade-Iran, wiretap, read-email, naked-scan, anti-habeas-corpus, triple-the-deficit and double-the-debt policies don't pass the Cory Heidelberger threshold of being either "nutty" or "scary"... yet the gold standard (of which there are exactly 0 posts on this site that explain its demerits) is both? Personally I fear indefinite detention at a torture base without trial more than a gold standard. (But hey, in the signing statement, Obama promised that his administration would never use this power against US citizens.)

    3) If the most liberal senator in history was given two Democratic houses in congress to work with, and still he hasn't delivered on about 95% of his 08 campaign pledges... I don't think we should expect Ron Paul to accomplish too much of his agenda. He'll pull the troops home, he'll veto a lot of spending bills (a la Grover Cleveland), and he'll work to make the presidency more transparent and less dictatorial... but I'm pretty sure your fiat currency and the Federal Reserve will be safe until all of Congress has been baptized in the name of Ludwig von Mises.

    Kind regards,
    David

  22. larry kurtz 2012.01.05

    Ron Paul is from Texas where earth hatred is not just a way of life, it's a way of red state death, Mr. Bergan. Rep. Paul is an earth hater who would gut environmental protection in favor of states rights and a sovereign citizenry.

    He fails the Earth miserably.

    "On Romney, a Washington tax expert took a stab at it, “If I had to guess, you would find a very large charitable contribution deduction [based on Romney’s affiliation with the Mormon church] and then I’d think you’d see a lot of capital gains…. It’s likely to show a pretty low effective rate — but the same thing would happen if you saw Warren Buffett’s tax return.”"

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/reverse-engineering-romneys-low-effective-tax-rate.php

  23. Steve Sibson 2012.01.05

    Cory, you are using a strawman to avoid the truth. Polio vaccine prevents polio, the Federal Reserve did not prevent the Great Depression.

    "Let me just say I believe the three strongest candidates in support of traditional (not a bad word) & historical principles of free enterprise are Huntsman, Paul and Romney (no particular order)."

    Troy, Romney passed Obamacare in Massachusetts before Obama was elected President. The SDGOP implemented it last session with SB38. Clearly not a good example of free enterprise, and neither was SB1230.

  24. LK 2012.01.05

    David,

    I seem to see an LD case in some your recent comments.

    I appreciate Paul's non-intervention and pro civil liberties stances. He may be the only one who would score 100% on my scorecard of those issues.

    I do worry, however, about his Ayn Rand obsession. Much of her work can be read to indicate that selfishness is indeed the greatest value. Her view that capitalists, even those with great power, can do no wrong is naive at best. Finally, her disdain for Christianity bothers me. I am also bothered when those who claim to be Christians express disdain for those of other faiths or those of no faith.

  25. David Bergan 2012.01.05

    "I do worry, however, about his Ayn Rand obsession."

    Hi Larry King,

    What obsession? In his manifesto he mentions Rand only in the bibliography saying, "I consider all of Rand's novels worth reading, in spite of my strong disagreements with her on important matters."

    I don't believe in religious tests for presidential candidates, but for what it's worth, Paul is a Christian.

    Kind regards,
    David

  26. Bill Fleming 2012.01.05

    I have heard Ron Paul say numerous times that a lot of what he wants can't happen immediately because of how bad everything is already screwed up. This strikes me as being similar to what Obama is saying about why changes can't all happen "overnight."

    So in the final analysis, it comes down to political philosophy.

    If (big if) things could suddenly be completely different tomorrow having fast-forwaded through an 8 year transition, which world do you want to live in? Ron Paul's, Barack Obama's, or neither of the above?

  27. LK 2012.01.05

    David,

    I don't have time to go back and forth with citations for our respective positions about Rep. Paul. I have to buy new suspenders and plan for softball questions to ask irrelevant celebrities.

    Two quick points: First, I was referring to factoids like the following: "National Journal has reported that Ron Paul quotes Ayn Rand on the House floor more than any other member" http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/12/18/the-gop-candidates-read-wacky-books.html

    Second, I never advocated a religious test. I just wanted to explain why I find Rand's views troubling and selfish.

  28. David Bergan 2012.01.05

    "I have to buy new suspenders and plan for softball questions to ask irrelevant celebrities."

    You win.

  29. troy jones 2012.01.05

    I never made the connection. His son Rand obviously was named after Ayn Rand. Explains alot for me and what is in my gut why I've never been enamored with Paul despite the many views I agree with him about.

    Don't get me wrong. "Atlas Shrugged" is among a small list of books I've read more than three times. "Walden", "Travels with Charley," "Confessions," "Screwtape Letters," and the Tolkien trilogy come to mind.

    I've also read at least 10 books by Rand. I'd call myself a devotee during my college years. But over time, I've come to reject the "Objectivist" philosophy in part because it has no explanation or even place for Love. All mind. No heart.

  30. LK 2012.01.05

    Troy,

    The good editors at Wikipedia disagree with your analysis about Rand Paul.

    "Randal Howard Paul[6] was born on January 7, 1963 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Carol Wells Paul and Ron Paul. Paul's father is a physician and U.S. Representative of Texas's 14th congressional district. The middle child of five, his siblings are Ronald "Ronnie" Paul Jr., Lori Paul Pyeatt, Robert Paul and Joy Paul-LeBlanc.[7] Paul was baptized in the Episcopal Church[8] and identified as a practicing Christian as a teenager.[9] Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand".[9][12][13]"

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

  31. larry kurtz 2012.01.05

    It's important to remember that people, especially men, training as physicians tend to bury themselves in their studies, don't develop skills in social interaction except as demi-gods, then build pedestals for themselves.

    Ron Paul is just one more example of someone tortured by self-worship.

  32. troy jones 2012.01.05

    LK: Good catch. But maybe the "al" was a concession to the mother. Those compromises are made all the time. I wanted to name my youngest daughter MacKenzie with the hope she'd have the nickname Mac. She was named McKenzie and now I live with her being called Kenzie. I'm the only one who calls her Mac. :(

  33. Elliot Knuths 2012.01.05

    I too will jump to the Ron Paul defense- with my old neighbor David (Also, David, how have you been? I haven't heard much about you in ages!) I think it's difficult to agree with any single candidate on every possible issue- there are just too many things out there to argue about! Since there's not a perfect candidate running in this election, nor in any other, I think it's quite clearly wiser to vote for the candidate that's closest to perfect. Based on my world view (and interpretation of the Constitution), this is Ron Paul. He represents social liberty, nonaggression, states' rights, and limited government spending. I don't necessarily agree with his view on the gold standard, but realistically, I can't see any such proposal getting through both houses of Congress without some pretty solid amendments, and I don't fear that too much.

    Although I'm just one of the kids that supports Paul, I would argue that Obama had a similar class of supporters a few years ago, and I can't remember them taking nearly as much heat, despite the fact that many of them were more supportive of his campaign slogans, inspirational speeches, and electing him based on his race, than they were of his stances on key issues. Paul has a strong, young group of followers who believe that he is the candidate that can bring prosperity for our generation, as well as generations to come. At least one of his supporters believes his love of liberty can usher in an American Renaissance (NOT a reference to the racialist publication, by the way.)

    Of the candidates running, I see Paul as the only one really aiming for positive change, the only one who is running for something other than a big, fancy, white house, a tricked out private plane, the prefix of "Mr. President," and a huge entourage for himself and his family. I see Paul as running for America itself.

  34. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.05

    Paul is running for change. His change will be the wrong change. I will accept our rotten status quo over the states' rights anarchy Paul would usher in. Paul is "don't believe in government" taken to its worst extreme. By disappearing government, Paul certainly eliminates the abuses of the Patriot Act and other issues that rile us progressives. But his "libertarianism" also dismantles the government we need to act together as a national community to protect civil rights. Government done right is the people's check on the power of corporations. We may not be doing it right now, but we can't do it right at all if Ron Paul dissolves it.

    Ron Paul combines the worst of GOP free-market fundamentalism with Austrian economics. Basing our economy on rocks in the ground is caveman economics. We'd do more good if we sold our 8,000 tons of gold to pay down the national debt.

  35. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.05

    Hope! Sanity! Bring on the surge!

  36. troy jones 2012.01.05

    I am sure the GOPers in NH weigh the Boston Globe heavily. About how we would consider what the MPLS Trib says.

  37. larry kurtz 2012.01.06

    Santorum: "the role of government is to steer its population toward morality."

    Think: Ahmadinejad.

    Romney: "the role of government is to steer its population toward prosperity."

    Think: Putin

  38. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.06

    "Though out-of-state, the Globe carries significant weight in New England. But it doesn’t pack the same punch as the New Hampshire Union Leader, which previously endorsed Gingrich and has been actively supporting his campaign — and criticizing his opponents."

    I would suspect the Boston Globe would have more influence in New Hampshire than the Star-Trib does in South Dakota. Maybe 300K-400K residents in southeast New Hampshire live within 60 miles of Boston.

  39. larry kurtz 2012.01.06

    NPR: Gingrich likely violated federal lobby law.

  40. Michael Black 2012.01.06

    All of your points are MOOT when it comes to voting for our choice in SD. By then the decision will already be made by a very small part of the population. A vote in Iowa means far more than one in SD.

    I am not saying we should not care. I am saying that Iowa and the early primary states matter and we do not.

  41. Steve Sibson 2012.01.06

    "Ron Paul combines the worst of GOP free-market fundamentalism with Austrian economics."

    GOP free-market fundamentalism is a lie. The GOP is about using the Hegelian dialectic on commuisn and free-markets to create fascism...Big Government getting bigger to make Big Business even bigger. Same strategy coming from the Democrats. Don't believe me, then tell me what Gingrich and Daschle are doing on GE's healthcare board?

  42. larry kurtz 2012.01.06

    Will Gary Johnson get your vote, Steve?

  43. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.06

    Owen's real sin: wanting his wife to live. Shame, shame.

  44. David Bergan 2012.01.06

    "I will accept our rotten status quo over the states’ rights anarchy Paul would usher in. Paul is “don’t believe in government” taken to its worst extreme. By disappearing government, Paul certainly eliminates the abuses of the Patriot Act and other issues that rile us progressives. But his “libertarianism” also dismantles the government we need to act together as a national community to protect civil rights."

    Hi Cory,

    I expected a more specific critique of Paul's specific policies. You have 2 of his books... you know exactly his blueprint if he were elected... you don't need to get it from fifth-rate blogs. Just dive in, get it from the horse's mouth, and expose the so-called nuttiness. Your slam on Paul's "anarchism" and "libertarianism" is no better than the same type of broad fear-mongering generalization that wing-nuts shout against Obama's "socialism". You're better than that. (And, if you read his book, you'll see that he doesn't believe that states have rights, only individuals do.)

    "Basing our economy on rocks in the ground is caveman economics."

    And basing it on paper is wiser? I'm sure if the Pharaoh had a printing press he would much rather print his vast fortunes than steal them.

    At least we know that the world's supply of gold is finite, meaning it will always be, to some degree, scarce. (Scarcity is still the cornerstone of economics. I just checked.) You can't double the world's quantity of gold with a single click of the mouse. The Fed can do that with dollars.

    And if you read his book, Paul's "nutty-superficial-radical-chaos-anarchy-deathgrip" solution is simply to allow citizens of the US to trade with either dollars or precious metals. You can still have your paper money. But anyone who's concerned about the value of money that's created by mouse-clicks, could purchase goods and services using actual gold.

    You are constantly deriding those who disagree with you for using nothing more than fear-laden generalizations. When did you stoop to their level?

    Kind regards,
    David

    PS I'm still waiting for some expert information that addresses the gold standard. If it's so nutty, it should be pretty easy to find.

  45. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.01.06

    David, Ron Paul and libertarianism are the intelligent design of politics. I shouldn't have to work this hard to dismiss complete crap.

    ...but if I must, let me at least note that Paul Krugman (more qualified to render judgment on economics than any 20 Paul backers) says Ron Paul-onomics would bring us another Great Depression. He also notes that when it comes to economics, Ron Paul has been wrong about pretty much everything.

    ...I don't lend this video big credence, but it's fun. Remember: the bankers own all of the gold. As a bonus, the video comes from folks supporting creating a whole bunch of state banks issuing fiat money. Wrap your noggins around that one, states' rightsers!

  46. David Bergan 2012.01.07

    Hi Cory,

    So... I asked for evidence of Ron Paul's nuttiness, and receive evidence that says Krugman disagrees with Ron Paul. We all knew that, just like we knew that Ann Coulter disagrees with Obama, and for a decade they have been nearly equal in partisanship . We also know that Krugman is willing to use his "expert" persona to demonize those who hold different opinions, including ones he used to hold.

    Krugman alleges that Paul would bring us to a Great Depression. (And he mis-reads Paul... his actual policy proposal is to allow gold as a second currency, not replace dollars.) But seven days earlier, he said we were already in a depression and inflation is the way out. The end-of-year stats came out and Krugman was wrong about that.

    Again... it's like 19th-century medicine. We can recognize the symptoms and conjure lots of hypotheses... but we're still waiting for the penicillin breakthrough. In order for one side to be "nutty" (a la creationism) the other side has to have hard evidence... not just partisan speculation.

    However, interesting that at least we have the cards on the table. Ron Paul criticizes establishment economics because it devalues the dollar (creates inflation). Krugman argues that we should create inflation and that the Fed has massively expanded the monetary base. There's the rub.

    So let's have a lesson in macroeconomics 101 from what I've been able to cobble together. How can the dollar fluctuate in value (inflation/deflation)?

    1) Quantity. If there are more dollar bills in the economy, they are less scarce and, hence, worth less. This is the essence of Ron Paul's argument... that the government just prints dollar bills to pay its debts/entitlements/bureaucrats/wars/foreign aid. Thus, each year, the $100 dollars we have under our mattress is worth less (it buys less gold/milk/oil/land). The government takes money away from us in taxes... and then takes value away from our remaining money through inflation. Enacting the gold standard would mandate, by law, that each dollar bill represents a certain amount of gold in the government's vaults each and every year. We could only have as many dollars as there is gold to back them... and gold can't be "printed" the way paper money can be. Thus the quantity would stay the same over time. (And in this day and age, it isn't even printed. It's mouse-clicked into existence. We're virtually a cashless society.)

    2) Perception. Market bubbles seem to be a quirk of human psychology. We are probably neurologically wired to follow patterns and be more optimistic/greedy than is logical. So when we see a chart of the price of housing or technology stocks rise, we assume it will continue to rise after we get in... and/or assume we'll somehow be smart enough to get out before it loses significant value. It's not our first instinct to try to assess what the real value of the asset is... instead we fear that if we don't get in right now, we'll miss the opportunity. On the flip side, we have panic... that if we see a line of people pulling their money out of our bank, we also get in line... out of fear that the bank is shutting down and our savings account will be gone. Or if our favorite stock slips more than we think it should, we all pull out, and it absolutely tanks.

    3) Velocity. Pretend 10 people were on an island and the only currency was a sole dime (and bartering was outlawed, as it is in the US). If every time someone received the dime, they immediately went to one of the other islanders and purchased something, the dime would circulate very quickly and they would each receive a lot of goods and services from each other. On the other hand, perhaps one man decided that when the dime came to him, he was going to horde it. Maybe he was mean and wanted everyone to bow before the power of the dime that he alone controlled, or maybe he was paranoid and wanted to save the dime because he didn't want to be caught in a crisis without it... But either way, nobody is making goods and services for each other because the velocity of currency stopped. Hence, the value of that dime is worth more, because it shows up less... i.e. it's more scarce. One of the other islanders may offer to build a house for the dime, just to get it from the hoarder. In a real economy this is what happens when people stop spending... like in the Great Depression. Everyone was afraid, so they spent as little as possible. Even though the quantity of dollars was the same (they were on the gold standard), they became scarce due to low velocity.

    And this leads to why economists generally consider deflation to be a bad thing... if currency velocity slows down and the value of the dollar starts rising... then a normal person thinks, "why buy a house today for $100,000 when I could buy one next year for $80,000?" The velocity slows even more... a vicious spiral. If everyone is hording money, no one is buying things, so no one needs to make things. Nobody is working... which is a depression.

    If, on the other hand, the value of the dollar is dropping (inflation)... then a normal person wants to spend it before it loses even more value. Money's a hot potato. If inflation is rampant, you take your paycheck to the store immediately after you receive it and buy as many groceries as you can, because next week you would only get half as many. Long-range planning is impossible... employees need a raise every week and it's impossible for a bank to make a loan because the amount you write it is for is going to be chickenfeed when the borrower pays it back. That's the chaos of the Wiemar Republic and why Germany now has constitutional provisions against drastic inflation.

    With all these factors involved it's impossible to believe that a currency could ever stabilize to the point where there was no inflation or deflation. And the standard economic thinking is that's it's better to err on the side of a little inflation to make sure velocity doesn't seize up. The intent of the Federal Reserve is to use its influence to keep the economy in that "safe zone" and avoid future depressions. Printing new money is basically the same as velocity... they both make dollars less scarce. So if velocity slows... you can manufacture it... which is what we've been doing and what Krugman advocates.

    But here's Ron Paul's point... how do you get the dollars out when the velocity is too high? If you've over-printed when people were hoarding money, and the velocity revs up again, now you have an avalanche of dollars that you can't take out of the system... which leads to hyperinflation.

    Moreover, the Fed, like any other policy-making institution, doesn't stay on task forever. And when their policies start encouraging malinvestments, moral hazard, and government ownership of private banking corporations, you have to wonder if we weren't better off with a little deflation.

    Personally, it's the moral hazard that concerns me the most. The banks made awful policies that would have lead to their own bankruptcy... but because they were "too big to fail", the government steps in to bail them out so that they retire with millions. Why wouldn't the industry get back on the horse and do the same thing again? It's like rewarding someone for building a Ponzi scheme.

    Again, where's the nuttiness?

    Kind regards,
    David

  47. larry kurtz 2012.01.07

    Hey, Mr. Bergan: don't misunderstand, we'd love to run against Ron Paul.

    South Dakota: help the Democratic Party nominate Dr. Paul the GOP's nominee for President!

Comments are closed.