Mitt Romney Announces Rep. Paul Ryan As Vice Presidential Running Mate

Mitt Romney has picked Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin as his running mate and will introduce him at a campaign stop in Norfolk, VA at 9:30 A.M on the USS Wisconsin. The Romney campaign announced this morning via its smartphone app, and then later via Twitter. Most media outlets reported the choice before the official announcement. As Gizmodo notes, the smartphone app unsurprisingly failed at is sole purpose.

Drudge points to this interaction between Ryan and Obama over healthcare, which is worth a watch.

And there’s Rep. Ryan’s keynote address at the George W. Bush Presidential Center’s Tax Policies for 4% Growth conference at the New-York Historical Society, where he destroy’s President Obama’s economic policies.

As is pretty clear from those videos Rep. Ryan is a serious guy, perhaps the anti-Palin, which is a good thing.

The Inevitable "Hitler Reacts To The Paul Ryan VP Choice" Shows Up
Olympic Babe Of The Day - Luciana Aymar
  • Hugh_G

    Interesting pick. Will energize both sides.

    • 914

      The energizer bunny couldn’t energize the failure of Hope and Change!!

  • PBunyan

    Ryan is a good pick. Of course the print and broadcast media will be telling us he’s a horrible right wing extremist but that would happen no matter who Romney picked. Too bad he’s not a top of the ticket, though.

  • Commander_Chico

    I guess the fix is in for Obama. Romney takes a dive in round 3.

    At least Ryan has a brain, but I don’t think Granny will give him much credit, except for being an evil genius.

    • jim_m

      So you are claiming that obama can win on his fiscal platform? Because that is exactly what Ryan is going to put front and center.

      Ryan is an issues candidate and highlights the debt and the lack of a budget. These are areas that obama is very weak.

      • Commander_Chico

        Ryan’s the guy who wants to privatize Medicare and SS. That is not a popular position. He’s also a member of the Cult of Ayn Rand and kind of a geek. The media will soon hang Rand’s rotting Atheist corpse around Ryan’s neck.

        Obama will have some say, and considerable powers, to shift the debate to any subject he wants.

        Romney should have picked Rubio or Portman, two big essential swing state guys. Rubio would have brought Hispanic votes and cut into Obama’s base. I guess he had skeletons in the closet, though.

        • jim_m

          As Iowahawk accurately puts it: You know what will end medicare as we know it? Medicare as we know it. What the dems are really against is not fixing medicare but stopping their looting of the American public

          • There isn’t much more to loot. The con men have just about drained us dry.

            The question is whether the people will believe that the con men aren’t going to give them the promised payoffs, or if they’ll fight the folks trying to keep them from being ripped off.

          • jim_m

            They may have drained us dry, but they still see the opportunity to enrich themselves while driving us deeper into debt.

          • That’s the whole purpose behind the con man. They don’t ‘care’ about the mark – only the money the mark can deliver, in exchange for promises of wondrous things in return.

            And it can be very hard to dissuade a mark, as I all to well know.

            My father, unfortunately, in his later years got hit by scammers a number of times. Fortunately we were able to talk him out of it the time one promised him $100k in exchange for sending me $10k by Western Union.

            At BEST, I would have gotten $10k (which I would have had to return, since they needed it more than I did.) At worst, that $10k would have gotten ‘misrouted’ – and they’d have been out the money.

            Sigh. The gullible can persuade themselves against all reason that they’ll get something big for little or nothing.

        • Jwb10001

          And Obama is hell bent on bankrupting the entire country medicare, social security, medicaid and all. Not that he’s alone in this he gets plenty of help, not just from democrats,

          • Hugh_G

            No, he just wants to bankrupt conservatives – especially the Tea Party folks and the regular wingnuts on this blog.

          • jim_m

            Hey I agree with Hugh. Obama only wants to screw his ideological enemies. Hugh admits that dems see the law as a weapon to use against their political opponents and not something that they themselves have to abide by.

            Thanks for that inadvertent bit of honesty, Hugh..

          • Hugh_G

            Only folks like you Jim, only folks like you. (Hear the helicopters yet?)

          • jim_m

            I just appreciate our honesty that you see the law as a weapon and not something that the left needs to obey. I have said this for some time but you are the first here to admit it.

          • Hugh_G

            It’s very selective – you and your kind only.

          • jim_m

            And that would be what? The ~50% of the population that opposes obama? Like I said, thanks for proving me right. Again.

          • Hugh_G

            No, just the few like you. You know who they are.

        • Everyone has skeletons in their closet, and if they don’t, the media will find dust bunnies and call them skeletons.

        • Vagabond661

          Privatize Medicare? Actually that’s Gary Johnson.

      • Hugh_G

        And he highlights that, like Romney, he wants to take from the poor and the middle class and give it to the rich.

        Good luck with Florida now and good luck with the arguments about Medicare. A good choice for the base probably a bad choice otherwise.

        Bit at least he’s not Palin – he actually knows some things.

        • Jwb10001

          Good lord take from the poor? please explain exactly how you take from people that don’t pay income tax? You’ve complete bought in haven’t you, if the government takes less of someone’s money they are GIVING them that money? Let me ask you a question, if you had a low life relative the always begged you for money then wasted it on Nevada Poet Coybows how long would you continue to give him money?

          • Hugh_G

            Love your attitude about the poor. My guess is you fancy yourself a good Christian. Wonder what Jesus would think of it.

          • Jwb10001

            What attitude is that? I don’t believe I expressed an attitude toward the poor. By the way my anual income is 40K per year so please don’t assume things you don’t know. Also I’m no Christian so stop with the attempts to plug me into some sterotype. Now what about the irresponsible government do you really feel like giving them more of your hard earned money?

          • jim_m

            Hugh can’t vilify you unless he pigeonholes you into some obnoxious stereotype. As a lefty he understands everything through stereotypes which is why he can accuse conservatives of being racists while spewing racist bile himself.

            In fact just a couple of days ago he accused me of being a racist bigot for pointing out the fact that obama really did say “You didn’t build that.” Hugh claimed that obama was an ignorant fool and doesn’t understand proper grammar or sentence construction. I gave obama credit for having greater that a 4th grade education and was called a bigot.

          • Hugh_G

            You are a bigot since you brought it up. And, of course, ogt had nothing to do with your post about grammar. That’s how incredibly dense and closed you are.

          • Hugh_G

            No, I feel like the government taking their fair share from the robber baron corporations and the Romneys of the country.

            You certainly did express an attitude about the poor though you rather clumsily tried to disguise it.

          • jim_m

            Yep. And obama is pissed because he doesn’t get enough credit for continually trying to throw medicare under the bus.

            As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security,

            I’m sorry. I suppose that doesn’t correspond with your narrative of the GOP heartlessly trying to kill grandma. Now why not be a good boy and call me a bigot for telling the truth about you lord and savior.

          • Hugh_G

            No, I only call you a bigot about gender, race and religion.

          • jim_m

            I spoke the truth about Barry’s “You didn’t build that”. JLawson and others called you on it and you fled the scene. I made a comment and backed it up with factual argumentation. You responded with an unsupported ad hom attack like the empty headed leftists stooge that you are.

          • Hugh_G

            Jim – you wouldn’t know the truth if it hit you square in the face. Nuff said.

          • jim_m

            Too bad you were so completely unable to articulate how what i said was false then. Even if you did know the truth (Which you do not) you demonstrated that you are incapable of communicating it in any understandable fashion. Instead you resort to unsubstantiated insults.

          • Jwb10001

            You’re out of your mind I did NO SUCH thing I don’t diguise any thing jack ass,quit projecting…

          • Hugh_G

            Projecting is the favorite attempt at deflection by wingnuts when called out on their words and statements. Just own it.

          • He would think that charity belongs in the realm of the individual not the government. Next question?

          • Jwb10001

            Hugh thinks he understands conservative and so tries to insult me with some sterotypical bull shit he hears on his liberal web sites. He assigns an attitude to me that I never expressed tries to pull some WWJD bull shit thinking I must be a relious nut. He takes to personal attacks and name calling he’s done it time and again.

          • Just pointing out that even WERE you a “religious nut” he’s butchering the actual religious position on the matter rather badly.

          • Jwb10001

            well of course that’s what he does as he doesn’t understand christians any better than he understands conservatives.

          • Hugh_G

            I very much understand Christians, conservatives and the extreme right wing. All you have to do is read the posts here.

          • Jwb10001

            I”m calling BS on that you have no idea who you’re talking to or you wouldn’t say the stuff you say.

          • So you ‘understand’ them and then flat out fabricate positions they don’t hold? Why?

          • Hugh_G

            You whine like a “typical” conservative.

          • Jwb10001

            wow and here I thought you were just going to post something stupid….

          • 914

            Who cares? Bottom line is what are ‘We’ going to do about it.

          • ABO in 2012. The Romney-Ryan ticket looks pretty good from my point of view.

          • Hugh_G

            LOL – and from mine as well. They are actually the progressive’s dream ticket.

          • Trouble is, the ‘progressives’ have shown they haven’t a clue aside from “Rip it down, and it’ll magically become stronger without any effort on our part”.

            They’re still walking, but dead on their feet.

          • Hugh_G

            Not sure what you mean, but I’m sure I’d disagree if I did. 🙂

            There’s no doubt by the way that Ryan has more ideas than Romney – actually i don’t think Romney has ever had an idea or at least one he’d change more times than his underwear.

            Unfortunately for the Ryan folks he’s not running for president and folks just don’t vote for vice-presidents.

          • I could point you towards the Bob Hope clip… 😉


          • Hugh_G

            Thanks. I really liked that.

        • 914


      • herddog505

        Of COURSE Obama can win on his fiscal platform. Why, his stimulus saved or created millions of jobs! He’s made historic investments in green energy! He’s saved our crumbling infrastructure through carefully targetted investments! His investments have brought us back from the brink and saved American industry! Investment, investment, investment.

        Romney, on the other hand, only invests in destroying American jobs, killing the wives of American workers, and Swiss banks. Ryan wants to invest in killing old people. Now, how can ANYBODY support a program like that?

        At least, this is what MiniTru will tell us. Over and over and over again.

        • Commander_Chico


          Well, yeah, so why did Romney feed into it? It would have been better to have Rubio wrapping up Florida for him or Portman, Ohio. Now all the grannies in Florida will be turning out to vote for Obama.

          Rubio seemed like such the logical pick to me, I wonder what led Romney not to pick him.

          • herddog505

            Maybe he couldn’t stomach the idea of the inevitable liberal bigotry about “coconuts”.

            As for Romney “feeding into it”, ANYBODY he picked would be smeared by lefties as wanting to kill granny. “Killing seniors” and “warmonger!” have been staples of democrat campaigns against Republicans for decades.

          • Commander_Chico

            There is one thing we could agree on: I wish Ryan was at the top of the ticket, as Romney introduced him.

            I always prefer a man of conviction over a jellyfish.

          • herddog505

            I agree.

          • Vagabond661

            Are they not setting Ryan up for 2020?

          • Or 2016, respectively.

          • Jwb10001

            So if Ryan was on the top of the ticket you wouldn’t waste your vote on Gary Johnson?

          • Commander_Chico

            I don’t know, Romney is so loathsome even as VP, but if it were Ryan/Portman or Ryan/Corker, or Ryan/Daniels I could vote for those tickets.

          • LiberalNightmare

            So why did you vote for Obama?

          • Commander_Chico

            So why did you vote for Obama?

            Sarah Palin could not be trusted near nuke codes.

          • jim_m

            That’s a load of crap. You voted for obama because you are a leftist. Everything you post these days is right out of the left wing talking points.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            To win the presidency, Romney needs Ohio as much as Florida (he probably needs them both), and Rubio has a little baggage, and is opposed to the Dream Act, a very popular ‘road to immigration’ Act with latinos.
            As someone quoted on another blog, given the way Romney’s polls have been dropping of late, Ryan is a “a hail mary” selection, in the third quarter.

          • cirby

            Romney’s polls have been dropping because of the huge amount of money spent on attack ads by Obama’s Super PACs. Romney is prohibited by law from direct responses – he can’t spend money on his own ads until after the GOP convention.

            On the other hand, most of Romney’s “slippage” has come from extremely skewed polling – when you look at reasonable polls with fair Republican/Democrat ratios, among likely voters, he’s pretty much tied with Obama. Which is not a bad place to be, when you haven’t even really started to campaign, and the other guy’s people are doing nothing but negative ads…

          • Yeah, you get that when you massively oversample Democrats.

    • AndrewX

      Hey CC, climb in the wayback machine and check out Democrat reactions across the board when it became clear that Ronald Reagan would be the GOP nominee. It’ll be good for a few laughs, you’ll enjoy it.

      • Commander_Chico

        Romney is no Ronald Reagan. And need I point out, Ryan is no JFK.

        • retired.military

          Yeah but they are ABO and they are running against umm Obama, AKA the worst president in history and in the running for the worst democratic ruler in history.

          • Commander_Chico

            Wait until Romney and Ryan go after military pensions and TriCare. Kiss the Commissary and PX goodbye – they will be privatized. Socialist military life will be dismantled.

          • herddog505

            And they’ll start nuclear wars with Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Canada, and Lithuania! And boil babies to make oil! And they’ll repeal the XIII Amendment so that Romney can turn homosexuals into slave labor! They’ll draft handicapped children to use for mine clearance when they invade Mexico! Little girls will be forced to dig coal with their bare hands to provide power for rich Bain investors while they swelter in unlit, un-air conditioned shanties! Romney and Ryan will personally rip the teeth from dead (or dying; why wait?) people to get the metal in their fillings! They’ll round up family pets to grind them into cat food for seniors! They’ll send death squads around to VA hospitals to strangle everyone they find there! They’ll use piles of women, children and minorities in place of bridges! They’ll mug old people, steal their Social Security checks, and deposit them in Cayman Island accounts.

            Have I missed anything?

            Oh, yeah: they’ll take away birth control, force college girls into sexual slavery by eliminating their student loans, and then make them get knitting needle abortions, and THEN deny them medical care so they’ll DIE.

          • Commander_Chico

            Lol, only wars with Iran and Russia.

          • Lichtenstein! You forgot war with Lichtenstein!

          • As opposed to Barack “the only spending that can ever be cut is the military” Obama?

          • LiberalNightmare

            Actually, its Obama that is going after tri-care.


            What is the administration’s reasoning on this? Well, they actually
            admit that Obama would rather the troops partake in ‘alternatives’ that
            were established in the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as
            Obamacare). In a report from the, Bill Gertz states:
            officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force
            military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually
            opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010
            Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.”

          • Damn. Just when I think I can’t get more cynical about this administration.

            When I got into the Air Force, the promise was free health care for life. Then that got pulled, for Tri-Care. I’ve never used it, got a much better plan through my wife’s insurance.

            Now THIS?

            Oh, fuck that… Okay, it’s not ABO any more – it’s Romney.

          • jim_m

            Don’t confuse chico with facts. He’s revealing himself to be a full out kool aid drinker with a stack of left wing talking points to keep him on the narrative.

          • All things considered, in the continental US you get better prices for pretty much everything at WalMart or off Amazon, and even booze & beer isn’t that much cheaper. (Men’s civilian clothing is expensive as hell at the local BX – brand names, with no markdowns.) Can’t speak to the overseas market.

        • Jwb10001

          Well look who they are running against… It really shouldn’t take a lot given the current state of the union.

    • retired.military

      Want to put your money where your mouth is chico? Yeah I thought not.

      • Commander_Chico


        what would you like to bet? $100 to charity of your/my choice?

        • retired.military

          Sounds good chico. I say republicans win presidency, house and senate. If those 3 happens than I win. If not you win.

          • Commander_Chico

            ok, but i am only betting on obama winning. I am still voting for Gary Johnson, though.

          • retired.military


          • In other words, voting FOR Obama.

    • jim_m

      You know that Chico is voting for obama when he comes out immediately with the very first dem talking point in response to he Ryan selection. CNN declared this a “ticket death wish” 2 hours later.

      Chico is tuned in to the dem narrative machine.

  • herddog505

    Ryan seems capable (a rarity in the Congress). He’s a great man to beat the fiscal drum, which is – or SHOULD be – the dominant issue of the campaign. He ought to be at the top of the ticket.

    And speaking of beating drums, it should be amusing to watch him debate Slow Joe.

  • Vagabond661

    After the last 4 years, this country needs some R & R.

  • jim_m

    Shocker. The left’s reaction is that the selection of Ryan is Raaaaacist because Ryan is white.

  • ackwired

    This is a positive step, and Romney has gained some respect in my eyes. Hopefully this will stimulate some campaign discussion about how to handle the debt crisis before it handles us. Ryan’s budget is great on entitlements. It ignores empire maintenance (which is the primary cause of our problem) and revenue enhancement, and it increases the deficit as a result. But it is a good place to start the discussion. Wouldn’t it be nice if both of the major parties had to face up to the problem?

    • We’re the most inept empire in history. We never seem to loot properly.

      Genghis Khan would be ashamed. Alexander the Great would laugh.

      • ackwired

        LOL…Right you are. What ever happened to “Tribute”? We decided that all we had to do was control the natural resources to support American Industry. Somebody forgot to tell the government that American Industry is now in China and we can quit worrying about controlling the world’s natural resources.

        • And we’re not even controlling the resources! Letting Iraq sell the oil to whoever they damn well please? Like I said, we’re laughable as conquerors.

          Pretty fair as liberators, though our record is spotty there as well.

          • ackwired

            10-4. We can no longer afford to be in the business and we need to get out of it.

          • jim_m

            The day we cannot afford to stand up for liberty is the day when we surrender to unending tyranny. While the left is early anticipating that day the rest of us are not.

          • Commander_Chico

            What a joke – you mean the way we stand up for liberty in Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea, two of our client states?

          • jim_m

            Wait I thought you were complaining that the Saudi’s were funding the spread of radical islam. SO which is it? DO we run the Saudis or do we not? You’re having it both ways.

            You are also taking the unconscionable position that if we fail to stand up to ALL oppressive governments that we should not bother to stand up against any. That is an old far left excuse for defending the atrocities of communism. I’m not surprised to see you running back to your far left roots these days.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, you got me, I was a member of the Spartakist Front. Before I was out keeping the Soviets from overrunning Europe.

            The Saudis fund Salafi extremists and are one of the most oppressive countries in the world. Yet, we kiss their asses and arm them. Like with Israel, we have limited influence and they have the pimp hand in the relationship.

          • jim_m

            OK. So Israel is like the Saudis and funding anti-American cells throughout the world? You are claiming that Israel is part of the great international Jewish conspiracy now? Perhaps you need to get a new edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion because you’ve worn out your old copy.

          • We could have changed that. Drill here, drill now. But that concept was laughed at – the Dems would rather our economy spend hundreds of billions over there, despite knowing what’s done with the money.

            Slightly shortsighted, I’d say… just like how they kept saying that “It’ll take 3-4-5 years for any oil exploration starting now to get oil to market!” We’ll certainly not need oil 3-4-5 years from now, will we?

            But it was a good sound bite, designed to persuade the gullible who thought themselves wise…

          • ackwired

            We have not been using the military to stand up for liberty. We have used it to prop up dictators who allow our corporations cheap access to their natural resources. Take a look at what we have done with the military since WWII. Do you see any instance where were defending the local people’s liberty?

          • Iraq – GW1 comes to mind immediately, and the liberation of Kuwait..

            Frankly, I think we should have ignored the UN and kept going to Baghdad once we moved over the border and cleaned out Kuwait. It might well have saved 10 years of problems.

            Go in, take out Saddam, let the country figure out their own government with the provision that (A) – You get froggy and try to jump on anyone else, and GW1 repeats itself, and (B) You fund terrorism, or if there’s even a HINT traceable to the Iraqi leadership, and all of a sudden the leadership is violently removed, and you get to figure things out all over again.

            But that would require a certain sort of ruthlessness the UN would hardly have approved of, with their infatuation with dictatorships and strong-man ‘democratic republics’.

            And then there’s the whole ‘deliberately targeting the head of state’ thing that they object to…

          • ackwired

            Kuwait is another example. Kuwait was and is ruled by a King and the royal family. There is no liberty in Kuwait, either before or after Saddam Hussein’s invasion.

          • There, we were supporting the UN. Doing what the UN wanted. STOPPING when the UN decided we’d done enough.

            At this point, the UN’s a joke.

          • ackwired

            I’m not as convinced as you are the GHWB was being told what to do by the UN. Has Bush or any of his top aids written anything to indicate that?

          • Weren’t we acting under UN auspices during GW1?

          • ackwired

            My memory is that the UN passed a resolution condemning Iraq’s invasion, and that GHWB put together the military coalition and that the US led the military action. It is my memory that the UN was used as cover to legitimize the invasion, not that they led it.

          • jim_m

            We used it to overthrow Noriega in Panama, who was a drug running dictator. We used it to overthrow a communist coup in Grenada. We used it to push Hussein out of Kuwait and then to depose him. We used it to remove the Taliban.

            We used it to fight off communist take over in Korea and we used it to try to stave off communist hegemony in Indochina and when we lost our nerve we turned over 3 million people to slaughter.

            You can say what you want about our supporting dictators. That’s our foreign policy not our military. When we have used our military it has not usually been to prop up a dictator. Your argument is the same leftist crap of “we shouldn’t oppose dictators unless we can oppose all dictators”. Your response is an excuse for tyranny.

          • ackwired

            There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Let’s look a little deeper into the instances you cite. Noriega was our dictator in Panama. He was on the payroll of the CIA, and his drug money laundering was ignored by the DEA until he decided to not do all of the US bidding. When he made that decision, the troops went in to depose him and install someone who would follow orders. Liberty had nothing to do with it.
            In Grenada the coup had overthrown a dictator and replaced him. This one did result in free elections. So you could say that liberty was involved.
            In Viet Nam we supported a dictator who publicly stated that Hitler was his hero. It was a despotic regime that could not gain the support of their own citizens. No libertly involved there.
            The overthrow of the Taliban was accomplished primarily by the CIA using local forces. We then installed a corrupt dictator who is unable to win the support of his citizens. No liberty involved there.
            When we use our military it usually has been to prop up dictators. Often dictators that we have installed and supported and who have run despotic regimes. It seems to me that it is necessary to ignore tyranny to make your argument.

          • And the regime that took over after we left Viet Nam and the south fell – they were so much better, weren’t they?

            Hindsight’s wonderful. It shows you where you’ve made your mistakes in the past, but it’s a lousy predictor for the future.

          • ackwired

            They were about the same.

          • Trouble is, someone’s got to do it. Admittedly, the collapse of the USSR and the conversion (at least temporarily) by China to a less, um, real-estate grabbing form of Communism is encouraging, and it doesn’t look like there’s anyone in the Western hemisphere that looks troublesome in the near (10-20 year) future’s a good sign… but you don’t disband the fire department and police simply because there’s been no trouble for a few days.

            All Russia needs is a charismatic leader (more so than Putin) leading them down the acquisitive path, and there might be a mess in the offing…

          • ackwired

            What is it that has to be done and why does someone have to do it? We spend as much on military as the rest of the world combined. We maintain about 700 overseas bases. We could surely cut that in half and be in a position to react if a foreign power became a threat that we had to deal with.

          • Really?

            Funny thing – we tried that before. In the ’20s and ’30s there wasn’t much money to maintain the military at all. (In the ’20s, it was because there weren’t going to be any more wars. In the ’30s, it was because there wasn’t any money.) We were terribly under equipped before WW2 started. The cost of a weak military back then was Hitler ascendant, and a war that cost tens of millions (if not a hundred million or more) lives.

            Then we tried it again, post-Viet Nam. We ended up with basically a hollow shell that thankfully the USSR didn’t know was as hollow as it was. Few spares for maintenance, badly trained personnel, low morale. The money was needed elsewhere… to ‘fight poverty’ and get more democratic votes.

            Oh, if we’d gotten into a serious war and the USSR had decided to invade Western Europe we might have been able to stop them, but it wouldn’t have been cheap, and likely there would have been a few cities nuked.

            We were damn lucky then.

            There’s also been more than a few theorists who speculate that if it hadn’t been for a kind of ‘Pax Americana’ post WW2, we’d have had a few more WW1 style wars. But having a cop, so to speak, watching the shopping mall tended to keep the gangs from coming in and offering ‘protection’ for a price.

            What price are you willing to pay for peace? Yes, what we’ve got is expensive. But good men and good machines aren’t cheap. (The F-22 for example, zoomed in price because Congress kept cutting the quantity they were going to buy. Yes, it was super-capable, but the development cost had to be amortized out over the production run. The shorter the run, the higher the price each.)

            Would you be willing to cut back what we’ve got at the cost of a WW2 style event every twenty or thirty years?

          • jim_m

            What price are you willing to pay for peace?

            The left is willing to pay with our freedom and with the lives of every conservative.

          • herddog505

            Remember the shrieks of outrage from the left when Rummy announced the simple truth that “you go to war with the military you have”?

            All the weapons and armor and gizmos that lefties claimed we SHOULD have had before going into Iraq… who was going to pay for them? Who will pay for them now?

            democrats are and have always been good for exactly two things when it comes to military policy: gutting the military, then waxing outraged when we get clobbered.

          • Won’t disagree with you there.

            Folks on the left are anti-war. And I can understand and sympathize with that – nobody in their right mind wants war.

            Trouble is, there’s a lot of leaders out there who aren’t in their right minds. And though it takes two to make peace, it only takes one to make war.

          • Yeah. Seen it happen… let’s see, late ’70s-early ’80s, then came a buildup, then GW1 hit, and we saw what an all-volunteer force could do with good equipment against a dictatorship armed with the ‘best’ the USSR had to offer. Then there was a drawdown in the middle-late ’90s, but 9/11 hit… and there’ve been a number of calls to cut military spending since.

            And to go back to a draft. Oddly, they never seem to get much traction…

          • Commander_Chico

            The point is not to invade countries like Iraq. National defense, not empire.

          • ackwired

            Not the same thing at all. After WWI we cut back way more that half, to a token force. Hitler did not pose a danger to us as we were protected by oceans When we were attacked we built the greatest war materials machine that the world had ever seen and prevailed in a brutal war of attritition. During the cold war we did what was necessary to contain communism. We won. We are now broke. Our government assumed massive fraudulant debt that was created by our financial elite to make their managers rich. Cutting military spending and presence by half will leave us by far the largest military in the world, and cutting our overseas presence by that much will leave us with far more overseas bases than any other country. This is not an argument for disarmament. Just for samity and fiscal responsibility.

          • And you’d have us cut back. The trouble is – once you start cutting, you’ve got plenty of fools in Washington looking to glom onto some of THAT dough for themselves. It’ll be damn hard to stop, especially if the anti-war folk get the upper hand again.

            And as I asked you – “Would you be willing to cut back what we’ve got at the cost of a WW2 style event every twenty or thirty years?”

            “Hitler did not pose a danger to us as we were protected by oceans.”

            No, but he posed a danger to our allies. And if you don’t stand by your allies, you’ll be SOL when the shit hits YOUR fan.

            As it is, our trustworthiness is decidedly in question. Viet Nam was a great example of us promising support, and then turning away when politically expedient.

          • ackwired

            Actually, we did not have a formal alliance with GB before WWII. That’s why we waited until we were attacked to get into it. I think that your assertion that we would have another WWII every twenty years is unsupportable.

          • (Shrug.)

            Isolationism doesn’t avert wars, it just ups the body count when they occur. And there’s no protection from oceans any more.

            But you could be right. No more WW2 style wars, instead we get terrorism. And the possibility that, eventually, someone will sneak in a nuke in a cargo container or something. (Wouldn’t put it past NK, or Iran. Don’t think there’s anyone else quite… insane enough to do it.)

            One thing for sure – about all we can do is learn from history.

          • ackwired

            I agree about the current terrorist threat. Large conventional forces do nothing to prevent or deter these attacks, and our large overseas military presence aids the terrorists in their recruitment. Let’s concentrate instead on our intelligence capabilities and special forces to effectively combat the terrorists.

          • herddog505

            JLawsonOne thing for sure – about all we can do is learn from history.

            WE can. Libs, not so much.

          • herddog505

            We aren’t broke due to Cold War spending. The Cold War effectively ended in 1991.

            US National Debt in current dollars (with % of GDP):

            1991 – $3.802T (63.4%)

            2011 – $15.126T (99.7%)


            Some perspective on defense spending (% of GDP):

            1962 – 9.3% (Eisenhower / Kennedy defense build; prior to heavy US involvment in Viet Nam)

            1968 – 9.5% (heavy US involvement in Viet Nam)

            1978 – 4.2% (post-Viet Nam drawdown; prior to Soviet invasion of A-stan)

            1985 – 6.2% (height of Reagan defense build-up*)

            1991 – 5.5% (end of Cold War)

            2001 – 3% (prior to 9-11)

            2012 – 4.5%



            Go have a look around the web at what we spend on entitlements. Then tell me that defense is busting our budget. Ike and JFK spent huge sums on defense; LBJ maintained much of their strategic weapons spending AND fought the Viet Nam War while keeping the debt under control. Relative to them, we’re spending a pittance on defense. So, where’s the money going? Answer: grandma’s Social Security and deadbeats.


            (*) I can recall some half-hearted liberal protestations that Reagan’s defense build-up was actually started by Jimmuh. There’s actually some truth to this; even Carter was smart enough to see that a hollow military was an invitation to Soviet aggression, a lesson driven home when they invaded A-stan in ’79.

          • ackwired

            I didn’t say that cold war spending was the cause. Nice strawman, though. Every objective person or group that has looked at the debt problem has concluded that we need to significantly cut entitlement spending, significantly cut military spending, and increase tax revenues. I agree with them.

          • herddog505

            Well, when you wrote, “During the cold war we did what was necessary to contain communism. We won. We are now broke.” I assumed that you meant that we became broke due to military spending during the Cold War.

            Nevertheless, my point stands: we are NOT broke due to military spending (which is half what it was during JFK’s term in office as a %of GDP), but rather due to entitlement spending. As for “objective people and groups”, who are they? My guess is that they are liberal-oriented groups who take it as given that our military is too big, leaving unanswered the question of how much we REALLY need to have; see my remarks about liberal b*tching over Rummy’s comment that you go to war with the military you have. They throw in entitlements as a sop: “We need to cut military spending. Yep, our military is too big. We spend WAAAAY too much on defense. Oh, and entitlements. Probably need to think about maybe doing something to reform them, too.”

            We can’t defend ourselves with welfare checks.

          • ackwired

            Sorry if the proximity of the words implied cause and effect. The cause of our debt problem is that we have used debt to finance our empire maintenance since 1913, and used debt to finance our annual government spending since the 80’s. The government then assumed a massive fraudulant debt to save the banks in 2007.
            I don’t get involved in blaming the left or the right. That just clouds the issue. It is not a question of cutting either entitlements or military. If we don’t cut both and increase tax revenues, we can’t solve the debt problem.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, that’s why we’re losing money on the empire.

        • It’s not like we don’t have historical examples, after all…

        • As soon as someone uses the term “empire” in reference to the USA I know they are no longer to be taken seriously …

  • LiberalNightmare

    This is a good selection. It might actually force the obama team to lie about policy as opposed to lying about cancer victims and puppy dogs.

  • jim_m

    John Fund says that the smart dems should be worried (Which explains why trolls like Hugh think that Ryan is a bad candidate)

    if Ryan is an extremist and his proposals are so unpopular, how has he
    won election seven times in a Democratic district? His lowest share of
    the vote was 57 percent — in his first race. He routinely wins over
    two-thirds of the vote. When Obama swept the nation in 2008, he carried
    Ryan’s district by four points. But at the same time, Ryan won
    reelection with 65 percent of the vote, meaning that a fifth of Obama
    voters also voted for him.

    Read the whole thing. Ryan won’t back down and his arguments win over independents because he doesn’t think people are too stupid to understand, which is something obama has said repeatedly, by blaming the public for not understanding how brilliant his policies are.

    And contrary to the bogus narrative being pushed by the left that Ryan wants to kill Medicare:

    Despite the attacks on Ryan over his budget plan, he’s easily the most liked of the short-listers among likely voters 65 years of age and over, with a 52/29 favorability rating. His “very favorable” rating of 31% in the 65+ group is more than 10 points better than the other shortlisters in the Rasmussen survey

    Seniors understand that Ryan actually wants to preserve their benefits for more than just one election cycle. obama doesn’t.

    • Obama’s policies are about as brilliant as Wyle E. Coyote’s.

      Somehow, he always seemed to get flattened by his own machinations…

  • jim_m

    This is why Ryan is a disaster for the dems. He understands math:

    If you don’t want to make big “cuts” and structural changes to
    government spending, then the President’s current set of proposed tax
    increases are, at best, only a short-term fiscal band-aid. You
    mathematically force yourself into supporting income tax increases on
    the middle class and big value-added taxes. Tax increases only on the
    rich won’t suffice no matter how high your rates go. You are also
    choosing to keep raising taxes, repeatedly and forever,
    because the spending line slopes up while the tax line stays flat.
    This is an arithmetic result that is independent of my policy

    Idiots like Hugh think that everything will be ok as long as we confiscate enough wealth from the super rich. What he is so obviously incapable of understanding is that the rich don’t have enough money to run our government for even one year. The left wants to keep spending until the while thing implodes and we end up with a country that looks more like Wiemar Germany than the USA. Come to think of it the left would like what came after Wiemar Germany too.

    • “What he is so obviously incapable of understanding is that the rich don’t have enough money to run our government for even one year.”

      I’m not sure he doesn’t understand it – in fact, I think he knows very well there’s not enough.

      But that doesn’t matter.

      It’s class warfare, plain and simple. You’re looking at someone who would dearly, DEARLY love to be a leader of a new Bolshevik revolution, with him leading the poor and oppressed against the rich and powerful.

      The trouble is, the ‘poor and oppressed’ weren’t poor enough, or oppressed enough. So FUBAR the economy to get ’em poorer, and whip up the class envy to a frenzy so they can feel oppressed and have someone to blame. Eventually, the serfs will rise up and destroy who they’re directed at. The oil companies. Wall Street. Bankers. The ‘rich’… Won’t they?

      The OWS crowd was, I think, supposed to serve as the seed that a massive anti-business, anti-rich movement was supposed to coalesce around. They spoke all the ‘right’ things, they were angry at all the ‘right’ people for a good class-warfare uprising. Except they didn’t… sell. There wasn’t anything particularly laudable about them, nothing that people would look at and go “Yeah, I’d like to emulate them.” or even really make them want to listen, despite the frantic media coverage attempting to frame the OWS folks as heroes and the TEA Party crowd as villains.

      They didn’t make anything – they squatted and ruined, and were totally dependent on handouts from others. People could see that, and didn’t want it.

      Now, I think the ‘serfs’ are about to revolt – but they’re nowhere near as uninformed as the serfs were back in the first years of the 20th Century, and I think they’re going to go in a direction that Obama will not like in a few months… to the ballot box, to vote him out of office.