by Patrick Appel

Adam Sorensen asks:

It was probably politically unviable for Romney to support another term for Bernanke, who’s become a monetary boogeyman on the right in the wake of the financial crisis. But just because he opposes a third term for Bernanke does not mean he opposes Bernanke’s broader approach to monetary policy. (Romney has said Fed easing in 2009  was "effective to a certain degree.") On the same note, just because he opposes "massive" easing right now doesn’t mean he generally opposes the Fed’s mission to foster employment. (The Romney campaign didn’t immediately return a request for clarification on his position.)

Recent Dish on Ryan's monetary radicalism here.