The American Spectator : Paul Ryan's Homer Capehart Problem

Print Email

Text Size

Political Hay

Paul Ryan’s Homer Capehart Problem

By Jeffrey Lord on 4.5.11 @ 6:09AM

Talk radio and Fox absent in 1962 battle over whether there were missiles in Cuba.

Can Paul Ryan avoid becoming the next Homer Capehart? And if so, how?

Homer Capehart, after all, was right.

Early.

The issue was in fact just as real as he said it was and every bit as dangerous.

He stood up when few were willing and said why it was dangerous — over and over again. He called the President of the United States to task for not paying attention. There would be extremely serious consequences for ignoring the problem, he insisted. He spoke, he pleaded, he demanded. He did everything up to and including begging for something to be done. He even presented two different ways to deal with this problem. And still, he was brushed off. Dismissed by the so-called sophisticates of the day — in the White House, the Congress and certainly in the dominant liberal media of the day — the latter more than effectively the only media of the day.

Who was Homer Capehart? He was, in the summer of 1962, the conservative Republican who was serving as the senior Senator from Indiana. What was he so concerned about?

The Soviet Union, he insisted, was in the process of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba. Intermediate range nuclear missiles that could reach anywhere on the American East Coast. America, Capehart insisted, was on the verge of opening itself to nuclear blackmail. The U.S. government and John F. Kennedy’s administration, he warned, should bring an immediate halt by either blockading the island — or invading it.

And no one — no one of any consequence — listened. The President, assuredly not a hard left-winger as so many Democrats are today, was nonetheless scornful of Capehart. He rejected Capehart’s demands, and made a point in a campaign speech in Indiana where Capehart was running for re-election to deride the Senator as one of “those self-appointed generals and admirals who want to send someone else’s son to war.”

Cuba had been a thorn in the Kennedy administration’s side from the moment the new President had taken office. An inexperienced Kennedy White House had thoroughly botched the Bay of Pigs invasion, in which armed Cuban exiles were prepared to storm the imprisoned island and depose Castro. Instead of either vetoing the project outright or getting it done, the very-green president did the worst thing possible: he wavered, half-in (a covert promise of air support) and half-out (refusing the air support when the invasion actually launched). The incident sent a signal to Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev that Kennedy was weak — an impression reinforced at a summit meeting shortly thereafter between the two men. In Vienna, now face-to-face, the Russian legendarily played the unchallenged bully, something Kennedy himself realized at the time. The Berlin Wall went up shortly thereafter in August of 1961 — and again Kennedy gave the impression of weakness, allowing the Wall to stand.

Capehart was convinced there was more to come.

By the summer of 1962, Capehart, a successful entrepreneur who had made a fortune in the jukebox industry, had used his time in the Senate to focus on Latin American affairs. He was alarmed at the information he was receiving. Not a shy man — but alas in the day when everyone was worshipping the youth and style of the young president and his administration — Capehart was a decidedly old-fashioned, style-less and older man from rural Indiana. Homer Capehart was worse than informed — he was out of style. Mocked by the so-called “best and the brightest” on Kennedy’s team as “the Indiana Neanderthal.” So instead of being listened to, Homer Capehart was derided. Administration officials, ruefully recalled Kennedy’s White House Counsel and close aide Theodore Sorensen, responded to Capehart and “flatly asserted that no offensive weapons were in Cuba.” Period, end of story.

Months went by — and then — reality hit. And it hit hard. Frighteningly hard.

Air Force reconnaissance flights were authorized — finally. And the results shocked Kennedy. The photos revealed in vivid detail that everything Homer Capehart had been saying for months was absolutely, positively true. In a blink, the Cuban Missile Crisis burst onto the public consciousness, precisely as Capehart said would happen. For thirteen dramatic days in October of 1962 America and the world would teeter on the brink of all-out nuclear war. To this day the episode is the subject of books and movies depicting the calm young president and his brother Bobby tensely working to defuse the crisis and save the world. Repeatedly downplayed when not ignored altogether (Kennedy aide and hagiographer, the late Arthur Schlesinger Jr., mentions Capehart but once in his massive Camelot memoir A Thousand Days — in reference to the fact that Capehart served on the Senate Labor Committee. That was it.) The more forthright Sorensen noted that a shocked Robert Kennedy confessed his brother’s stubborn refusal in not paying attention to Homer Capehart could mean “sixty million Americans killed and as many Russians or more.”

The Kennedys rallied and saved the day — by taking Capehart’s exact suggestion of a blockade and re-making it into a clever piece of iconography for RFK. Bobby Kennedy opposed an invasion of Cuba, Capehart’s other suggestion, and in adapting the blockade as his own less aggressive alternative to invasion Bobby was portrayed by an all-too-unquestioning media of the day as the young “wise man” who saved the world from nuclear war. Much later historical quibbles developed about secret pledges to remove American missiles in Turkey and a promise never to invade Cuba. But in the day and time the Kennedy White House, caught asleep at the switch again in Cuba, hastily did exactly what Capehart had long demanded — a naval blockade of Cuba. And took credit for it. And got away with it.

What frequently gets lost in the Kennedy-crazed media of today is the role of Homer Capehart — then 65 and in the last year of his third term. Described by Time magazine in the day as a “codger,” Capehart’s alarms were dismissed as so much right-wing grandstanding.

Page: 1 2 3 >

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (103) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Dee See| 4.5.11 @ 6:51AM

The usual '70's Show' agenda seems to be
giving way to the '60's Show' as one and all
lock-step back from covering the massively
unfolding Fukishima disaster ---this on the
heels of the other unprecedented 2005
Tsunami on MAO's Birthday.

----UH, for the non-hypnotized, non-CON-job
serving right it really is kind of an issue ---esp.
with California rain and tap water radiation
hitting 181X (18000% increase) and suppressed
by the NYT.

Seems Globalists like GE's Jeff I-Melt-down don't
even rate a Q&A moment.

BTW ----those HUAC meets NUREMBERG
t-shirts are coming along nicely.

Very nicely indeed.

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.5.11 @ 1:04PM

God bless Jeffrey Lord, Paul Ryan, Homer Capehart, and Winston Churchill who are unselfish truth tellers. Most Democrats in power today hate truth because it reveals their plans to make themselves the rulers of an omnipotent state by usurping our individual freedoms for their benefit. Democrats want their spending to destroy the dollar and to destroy our economy. Democrats hate America and want to seize permanent control of America. Why? They know how to live our lives better than we do. They regard America as an evil bully in the world. Democrats do not believe that America is a nation under God, nor do they believe in the pursuit of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Democrats deeds demonstrate and prove their agenda. "By their fruits you shall know them."

Those who quest to make the state supreme and scorn the individual can erode our resolve because of their seeming invincibility. Can we Americans today, who believe in truth, justice, and our God given individual freedom, think that we are worse off than General George Washington at Valley Forge? Visualize that portrait of Washington kneeling in the snow in prayer for God's help. Does anyone doubt that if enough of us pray to God to save America that God will not help us to triumph over evil within and without our nation?

I believe that General Washington's prayers were answered because he was unselfish. Do you think that if we as individuals imitated Washington's courage, unselfishness, and prayerfulness that our prayers will be answered?

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 3:22PM

Fact #1
Medicare Trust Fund is at present running a surplus. This means that since Medicare inception Medicare has taken in more money through the Medicare payroll tax than it has paid out in Medicare benefits. The same is true of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Fact #2
The nation has accumulated a $14 trillion debt.

Given these two facts; the only reasonable conclusion is that the $14 trillion debt is the result of either or both excessive spending elsewhere in the budget or insufficient tax collections.

Drunken Sailor| 4.5.11 @ 3:39PM

Medicare is only running a surplus using the Trust fund accounting. Using a cash accounting framework it is in a deep deficit
http://www.concordcoalition.or.....re-surplus

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 3:45PM

I don’t disagree but that’s not the point!

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 4:13PM

It's hopeless, they only care about their peoples positions and perks, Vtwin. They hate the state so much they run for office all the time; they hate the state so much they want the state to give their families funds.
Good thing they hate the state so much or we might be in debt or something!

Drunken Sailor| 4.5.11 @ 4:28PM

That is a large part of our goverment spending. And if it is in a deficit we obviously are generating enough to pay it. So we need to re-write how Medicare pays it's bill. Or we could do like you want and raise the taxes on the rich. But wait, even if the goverment raises their taxes to 100% that won't fix the problem. Democrats want to raise everyone's rates but never want to cut spending. Why is that? I'll concede some taxes most likely will have to increase. But not without major cuts in spending. We have tried that before and all the goverment has done is spend us right back in the hole.

And Alan, your a idiot.

Forrest Shepherd | 4.5.11 @ 4:12PM

I agree with Enough Rope except for the main motive he ascribes to the Democrats. I grant that they believe they know better than we how to live our lives, but their main motive arises from the question, Who is God? They hate the God of the Bible and are desperate to substitute government in His place. Thanks, Enough Rope, for a well-written reply to an excellent article, but let us all be as clear as possible in how we think about these things. The Democrats worship an idol, a false god, and like their idol, they have no moral or ethical limits regarding what they will do in pursuit of power. They must be stopped, but to do it we must be as committed to the service of our God as they are to theirs.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 4:09PM

There were photos of missiles long before even then, but as you know JFK sat on them until it was too late. The Soviets planned before JFK took office to install them in Camaguey. None other than David Ferrie wnt on a mission to Camaguey to take electronic pulse recordings of the sites as proof so as to pressure JFK by the 'Company'.

Alan Brooks| 4.5.11 @ 4:15PM

...pulse train, Ferrie took pulse train recordings of the Soviet nuke facilities in Cuba.

wayne long| 4.5.11 @ 7:24AM

Thanks, great information and article.

bill glass| 4.5.11 @ 9:59AM

Yes, 110% agree...historical tethering is important, ever so more important in today's debate climate...funny, cause I was just talking about the Bay of Pigs a day or two ago ( re Libya), and Obama's approach there.

JimP| 4.5.11 @ 7:32AM

It's fortunate that we have conservative talk radio. Fox news as an effective source for accurate info on any topic is questionable. Fox manages to trivialize most important issues with their 'fair and balanced' arguing-heads on every topic schtick. If Hitler were alive, Fox would have him on to argue with Netanyahu about whether the Holocaust actually occurred. Throw in the "bubble-headed bleach blondes" they hire to fill out their All Blonde news reader lineup and Fox ends up undercutting their credibility.

Stormzeye| 4.5.11 @ 9:09AM

I agree. It's been frustrating for me to watch beautiful women take the opposite sides of issues then trivialize them while flashing their eyes and legs. Soft porn and events of the day don't mix well. As for O'Reilly...how did someone as arrogantly simple-minded as he get so popular? I miss Bill Buckley going at it with Gore Vidal.
By the way, great article. Thanks for bringing Homer Capehart out of the shadow of obfuscation that the "mainstream" media is best at casting.

JimP| 4.5.11 @ 9:32AM

LOL I wonder, was BOR blonde when he was young? IMHO, BOR's show is a circus with BOR acting as both ringmaster and lead act rolled into a tabloid 'news-analysis' format. Thus, high ratings. No one bullies, browbeats, bloviates, bombasts or buffoons better than BOR. The guy is truly 'talented' in that regard.

As for the "bubble headed bleach blondes", they ARE pleasant to look at. The 40-ish ones are credible. The younger ones, not. One in particular that appears on Hannity frequently epitomizes bubbleheadedness and is representative, IMO. She presented a segment on a religious cult that was allegedly abusing children within the cult's compound. She asked the local sheriff why he didn't go in and investigate. He informed her that he needed probable cause to take action and he didn't have it. Her response was 'yes, but children might be being abused in there'. To which he reiterated that he needed probable cause. This exchange was repeated about 4 times. This young woman was obviously hired for her looks and not her ..... uh journalistic ability(?). She sure is pretty though! LOL

LJM| 4.5.11 @ 10:02AM

In general, you guys are right about O'Reilly and Fox News . It has been continually shifting left and has lost much of its credibility. O'Reilly, in particular, has become virtually unwatchable, and I used to watch him on average about four nights a week. Fox Business channel is now a much better option. Though there are many "blondes" now on Fox who don't measure up in the brains category, Megyn Fox is not one of them. She combines beauty with a high intellect.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 11:16AM

I agree with many of the posters here - O'Reilly is an execrable, insufferable buffoon. I cannot believe he is the ratings king. It really says something about our society when the supposedly "conservative" cable news channel has as its flagship O'Reilly and his nightly liberal idiocy. The man is an obnoxious, inflated, vainglorious moron.

Even when he has interesting people on, it is to no avail. Indeed, if I were invited on the show, my prep would consist of practicing the phrase, "Well, Bill. . . . " I wouldn't need to prepare further, because that's pretty much all his guests are allowed to say.

I also agree about the bubble-headed bleached blondes on Fox- of course, news departments have long since figured out that the way to get out of the red and into the black is to flash a lot of T&A along with the blood and guts.

As for this article, alas, the analogy falls down: We are past the point of no return. Ryan will be ostracized, Republicans will cave to pressure from the mainstream media and the Washington elite and we will continue our headlong plunge over the cliff.

For all of his naivete, Kennedy managed to avert the obliteration of America.

Thanks to liberals like Chris van Hollen and useless, feckless republicans, our obliteration is a fait accompli.

Fred| 4.5.11 @ 4:01PM

Don't blame the Republicans for the inevitable rejection of Ryan's proposal. If you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror. We Americans are greedy, stupid, and short-sighted. We think with our stomachs and can't see past our noses. Ask the tea party morons going on about spending cuts what specific spending they want to cut. They'll tell you all the unpopular things government spends money on, paying minorities to have babies, paying farmers not to grow stuff, foreign aid that ends up in some dictator's Swiss bank account, etc. The problem is, if you eliminate every penny of that spending tomorrow, you don't scratch the surface of the deficit. The deficit is driven by defense and entitlements. The moron's (not just the Tea Partiers, but the American public generally) rallying cry is "CUT THE BUDGET!!! (but don't touch MY gubbmint goodies)." In short, we are doomed, and we deserve to be.

JimP| 4.5.11 @ 4:52PM

I recall a BOR segment from a few years ago where he introed by stating he knew nothing about whatever the subject was, so he had brought in two experts on the subject to inform him and us folks. He allowed each to speak for about 10 seconds before cutting them off. He then said, "Here's where you are both wrong...." and proceded to lambast them in his best BOR style rant. It wasn't actually funny, but recalling it now makes me laugh. He starts out admitting his own ignorance, brings in two experts to 'splain', then cuts both off before they get a chance to 'splain' and tells them they are wrong, after he admitted he knew nothing on the subject. ROTFL. That's chutzpah! It's also kind of insane, if you ask me.

John Navratil| 4.5.11 @ 12:50PM

LJM,

I've never been able to stand O'Reilly, but the real news show is Brett Baier's Special Report. I don't think you can call it left. It's half-an-hour of national and international news following by a half-an-hour analysis program. It's the only daily news program worth watching.

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 1:04PM

John, It's only really because Krauthammer is on the panel, otherwise it is nothing exceptional.

LJM| 4.5.11 @ 3:22PM

Steve A, I also don't consider Dr. K a consistent conservative, after all he worked for Carter and Mondale.

JWE| 4.27.11 @ 3:41PM

That was a long time ago. People change. Remember, Ronald Reagan voted for FDR four times.

John Navratil| 4.5.11 @ 4:35PM

Steve A,

I know it wasn't the point you were trying to make, but I don't need exceptional. I'd just like good coverage.

Krauthammer I like, but Steve Hayes is the better conservative if you ask me.

LJM| 4.5.11 @ 3:21PM

John, as happens when one generalizes, good stuff gets left out. I agree that it's generally a very good show. Though at times Dr. K can be an insufferable elitist. Other times, he's spot on.

John Navratil| 4.5.11 @ 4:33PM

LJM,

I have to agree that Krauthammer has clay feet, but even when he isn't "spot on" he is thought provoking. I'd rather listen to him on a bad day than Juan Williams.

Alert1201| 4.5.11 @ 7:32AM

Let us hope!

Great article!!

mames| 4.5.11 @ 12:34PM

In Kennedy's case we know who was funding and driving him, daddy Joe. In our case today who in the hell is funding and driving this ghost we have in office. Where did he come from, who funded his education, where id he really go to school, where was he really born?

I believe Ryan will have a better shot with his cry. If not the only choice left is armed rebellion and a recapturing of our Republic.

Alert1201| 4.5.11 @ 7:35AM

Just read Homer Capehart's entry in Wikipedia. Not a reference to Kennedy or the CMC.

RT| 4.5.11 @ 7:49AM

Well write one in. It's Wikipedia; anyone can write anything about anyone else.

Tom Osterman| 4.5.11 @ 7:50AM

I first thought that Capeheart's sin was being right when the powers-that-were at the time were wrong. Then I realized that his real sin was talking about something that the powers-that-were knew but didn't want to talk about, much less do something about.

Ryan is in a similar position. Everyone knows that we're about go over a cliff with current spending levels, but real spending cuts are too hot to contemplate. The Democrats, the party of tax-and-spend, will see the country go bankrupt first, possibly on the theory that they'll be in charge when the smoke clears. The GOP leadership is too afraid to face the Dems' thug tactics to argue the case, and the RINOs just want to "work with" the Dems by "reaching across the aisle." The sad fact is that the current bunch got where they were by "kicking the can down the road." Can we really expect them to do anything else.

Pat Touchton| 4.5.11 @ 10:02AM

This is what Obama has wanted all along. Collapse of the dollar. I'd say he's right on track.

Bob K.| 4.5.11 @ 7:59AM

In retrospect, it is getting more and more difficult to find anything to say about the Kennedy family's "adventure" into politics that has been beneficial to our Republic. And that begins with Old Joe's adventures as ambassador to Britain.

As the saying goes: "Rats don't have mice!"

WeMustResist| 4.5.11 @ 8:38AM

The huge extravagant spending of the US Government is a threat to the survival of the republic. We are very lucky that Paul Ryan has come up with a viable alternative to Obama's disaster. Next issue is the Mexican border - Jihadists strolling across as if they own the land. That is also a threat to parts of the republic. Then there is the issue of POTUS who uses the US Government as a tool for Islamists to advance their cause.

Pat Touchton| 4.5.11 @ 10:04AM

All part of Obama's "open borders" vision of one world government with him, of course, as king.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.5.11 @ 9:16AM

Mr. Lord,
again, thank you.

Rep. Ryan has done the gut-work in his road-map.

I just hope and pray his colleagues are courageous enough to raise hell and back it. We are right now in the "lull before the storm...s".
Please contact me at sales@texassaidno.com
I would like to send you a review copy of "America Alone Said NO!"
The book should be released in a day or two, but I would never ask you to put your name on a review... Too damned dangerous.
Nevertheless, it is a must read for someone of your insight.

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 9:44AM

***** Prediction Alert *****

Paul Rayan’s plan to “cut the budget” by denying healthcare to the elderly and poor won’t even pass the Republican controlled House.

***** Prediction Alert *****

Mimi| 4.5.11 @ 9:52AM

YOU WANNA BET ???

Mimi| 4.5.11 @ 9:52AM

YOU WANNA BET ???

Dustoff| 4.5.11 @ 9:57AM

America goes broke thanks to O-bummer.
elderly & poor can no longer be helped.

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 10:10AM

****Prediction Alert*****

vtwin & other progressives will claim that Conservatives want to kill old people because they are unable to debate on the merits of their opinion.

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 10:33AM

Well, what does Steve A. think will happen to “old people” should one acquire a fatal but treatable illness when they can’t afford to paid for the treatment?

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 10:55AM

I suppose they should do what Obama suggests: "give grandma a pain pill."

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 11:12AM

Ah, so Steve A believes societies obligation to the less fortunate among us who might be dying from an illness for which one can’t afford the life saving treatment is limited to providing pain reliving narcotics?

Drunken Sailor| 4.5.11 @ 11:22AM

Ummm, No. That was Obama's take on it. Steve was just tossing it back to you. And you forgot the old "Republicans will have our seniors eating canned dog/cat food" line. I was a young teen during the Carter years and I still remember that crap.

MacDaddy| 4.5.11 @ 12:02PM

No, v...I believe what Steve A was inferring was that that is what Obama believes. How you lefties go in curious circles.....you propose death panels in the health care bill and accuse US of wanting the elderly to die early?

Pre.
Posterous.

skip| 4.5.11 @ 12:33PM

vtwin vtwin vtwin

Society's obligation is to provide a government which is conducted such that every individual's liberty is protected.

"Old people", in the course of becoming old, could take advantage of the protection of their liberties and the length of their lifetimes to exercise the personal accountability necessary to provide for themselves including future expenses.

What self-respecting individual would allow himself to become an obligation upon society?

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 1:10PM

They have provided “personal accountability” buy paying into the Medicare Trust Fund, which by the way is running a surplus, during their working years to help pay for their medical expenses during their retirement years. And now trash like Paul Rayan wants to rob the elderly of the Medical benefits which they already paid for to pay for the tax-cuts on the wealthiest American which are the REAL source of our current nation debt.

skip| 4.5.11 @ 2:29PM

vtwin vtwin vtwin

* a male who turned 65 in 2000 on average will receive $71,000 more in benefits than he paid into the system

* a female who turned 65 in 2000 on average will receive $163,000 more in benefits than she paid into the system

* a male who turned 20 in 2000 on average will receive $312,000 less in benefits than he will pay into the system

* a female who turned 20 in 2000 on average will receive $92,000 less in benefits than she will pay into the system

Bernie Madoff is in jail for life for doing the exact same thing our government is doing.

These numbers reflect variables determined in 2000. As the economy performs worse now than anticipated then, these numbers will in reality be worse than calculated, and worsen exponentially.

The personal accountability you refer to includes knowingly stealing from future generations.

Name a more despicable behavior by humans.

Excluding abortion.

Where is the liberal outrage over the blatant sexist inequality in this system?

And tell me again about the surplus this system has.

Liberals: destroying the United States of America with stupid lies.

Humphry Dumfries | 4.5.11 @ 3:08PM

Source?
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew.....Future.htm

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 3:25PM

Sorry for the double post i meant this a response to skip.

Fact #1
Medicare Trust Fund is at present running a surplus. This mean that since Medicare inception Medicare has taken in more money through the Medicare payroll tax than it has paid out in Medicare benefits. The same is true of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Fact #2
The nation has accumulated a $14 trillion debt.

Given these two facts; the only reasonable conclusion is that the $14 trillion debt is the result of either or both excessive spending elsewhere in the budget or insufficient tax collections.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 3:31PM

Hey, rapist - why don't you bend over and take it instead of insisting others do so?

PAY ME WHAT YOU OWE ME.

skip| 4.5.11 @ 4:02PM

vtwin vtwin vtwin

There is no social security trust fund. Even if it could be proven that a social security trust fund does actually exist, it would contain exactly no wealth, capital, or assets of any economic worth in it. That is a fact.

One of us is obviously lacking in intelligence and lacking in honesty, or to put it plainly, a stupid liar.

skip| 4.5.11 @ 3:54PM

The source is a black man, who communicates with exceptional skill, a message of hope and change, that would transform this nation to exist according to the Constitution, of which he has exceptional understanding, and who would be messianic in that everyone's liberties would be protected, while everyone's life would be improved, to such a degree I would be willing to consider anointing him; and I'm surprised you ask since the numbers and dates from the link you provided match perfectly with the numbers and dates I used from recollection off the top of my head.

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 12:41PM

I'm quoting YOUR hero, verbatim. This is not what I believe. Maybe you were too dense to pick up on that. I shall SPELL IT OUT a bit more in the future.

buckeyeman| 4.5.11 @ 11:09AM

Well, what does vtwin think will happen to "all of us" when the entire economic structure of the world collapses and there is massive starvation and likely war. The fantasy world of providing every imaginable benefit to every human on the face of the earth is unraveling before our very eyes but the left continues to posit the same old tired soliloquies about "old people" or "the children". Don't you get it???? The fantasy world you have forced upon us is unsustainable. Please, vtwin, share with us how you think this will all work out. Confiscate all our earnings, and then all our assets(and you can only do that ONCE) and it still won't be enough. Then what happens?

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 11:35AM

I’m sorry but I can’t address all you apocalyptic delusions accept to suggest watching less Glen Beck.

George True| 4.5.11 @ 11:53AM

In other words, you have no answer.

MacDaddy| 4.5.11 @ 11:57AM

Yes...and the reason you can't address us seems to be that you lack not only facts and logic in your argument, but also appear to lack the wit, gravitas and vocabulary needed to coherently speak on the same level as adults. You may now return to your XBox in the basement. But turn down the volume, son, the noise of the faux explosions emanating from your Halo game is giving us a headache.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 12:53PM

Hey, Vtwin the rapist speaks!

How many times did you have to type "apocalyptic" before your spell check let it go through? That's a big word for such a small mind.

Just out of curiousity, how many taxpayers do you think it's sufficient to rape in order to have your utopia (since you are a liberal, that question assumes that you exempt yourself from the rules you would force others to live by, of course; that is, after all, the sina qua non of liberalism).

Or are you on the take yourself, living large off the backs of people who actually work for a living?

I know, I know, unlike everyone else, YOU deserve your money!

Then again, maybe you're just a blind ideologue; I get confused among which of you trolls are the fools, which are the crooks and which are the pawns.

But one thing's for sure: serial rapists never get enough.

Right, Vtwin?

buckyeman| 4.5.11 @ 12:53PM

"I’m sorry but I can’t address all you apocalyptic delusions accept to suggest watching less Glen Beck."

We all make typos but substituting "accept" for "except" does not speak well for you're goverment ejucation.

Seriously, vtwin, you're nothing if not willing to spar with folks over a host of inane back and forth twitter. My challenge to you was serious. Obama's budgetary plans, such as one can decipher them, call for deficits in excess of a trillion dollars per year almost indefinitely. The Fed is monetizing the debt. Prices for fuel, food, clothing, copper and gold are increasing. I believe that these are demonstrable facts, but if they are "delusions" then I would be happy to have you point out where I have erred.

I readily plead guilty to having an "apocalyptic" foreboding regarding where our economy and society is heading. That's why I posed the (serious) question to you about the sustainability of massive deficit spending to further your social causes. Michael Moore has publicly suggested that we simply confiscate the assets of the weathy. Is that what you agree should be done?

A recent internet "analysis" suggested that if ALL the income and ALL the assets of the rich were taken by the government, there would still be insufficient funds to cover the federal budget. Moreover, such confiscation could only be done once. After that, there would be no more assets to seize and likely very little income since there would be no point in the rich generating such income. The soviets learned this on an agricultural level with the Kulaks.

So, vtwin, what would you propose as an economic model to sustain your social goals? Simply advocating the goals won't make them happen. Brush off the question as the result of "apocalyptic delusion" if you want, but it would be more instructive if you could try to cobble together an actual response.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 2:14PM

Facts? Facts? Liberals don' need no stinkin' facts. They've got "the narrative." And their greed. And their moral vanity.

That's why, when Democrats are in power, Social Security is flush with cash and the economy is experiencing a recovery (remember all those green shoots that no one mentions anymore?).

But when a Republican is in office, it's "the worst economy since Hoover."

No matter; like the cockroaches they are, vermin like Vtwit the rapist will probably survive the apocalypse; after all, these insects think nothing of taking what is not theirs. Plunder and me-firstism are the twin credos by which they live (just as long as they pay lip service to compassion and "fairness," they have carte blanche to ransack other people's property).

Vtwit will not address reality; but he will get back to you as soon as he gets his next talking points from The Huffington Post.

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 1:14PM

hey vtwin, Medicare is Government run correct?? This is what you want, correct?? Everything is covered under Medicare correct?? Medicare would never tell an "old person", "sorry, not covered," correct?? Ooops. Medicare denies more claims than private insurance. Look it up.

Your precious government run health care system, for old people, WANTS TO KILL OLD PEOPLE!!!

Now I realize this idiocy is not the case, it is a matter of financial reality, but I am rational & would not actually accuse Medicare & those who support it of wanting to kill old people, but you on the other hand, are a partisan fearmonger who uses thae same old tired scare tactics that get us where we are today.

Ray| 4.5.11 @ 12:54PM

I don;t know what Steve A. thinks, but I think that tre poor and elderly will do much as they have for the last 100 years. That is: they'll go to one of the tends thousands of charity hospitals and clinics (you know, those non-government funded hospitals and clinics that offer their services for free to those who need it, like The Children's Hospital, The Catholic Charity Hospitals, etc.) that are available all across America.

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 1:27PM

Ray, You are absolutely correct, sir.

We do not have a flawless system, but it is the best on Earth. Nobody is dying outside the ER doors for lack of health insurance.

There are free mkt. changes we could make to improve including an assigned risk pool for pre-existing conditions, state to state, tort reform, tax reform on charitable gifts.

Mandating coverage, mandating pre existing condition pay out, mandating preventative care comp, mandating age coverage for 26 yo "kids" is a disaster in the making.

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 3:42PM

The Federal Government alone spent in 2010:
On Medicare $444 Billion
On Medicaid $293 billion
On Veterans healthcare $43 Billion

But Ray thinks the solution for poor and elderly healthcare costs is as it has been “for the last 100 years” the “tends thousands of charity hospitals and clinics.”

http://www.nytimes.com/interac.....udget.html

skip| 4.5.11 @ 4:16PM

vtwin vtwin vtwin

True or false?:
You cite a source of the proposed budget for fiscal 2011 while simultaneously stating the same budget is fiscal 2010 spending.

True or false?:
Whether you use the fiscal 2010 or the fiscal 2011 budget, spending exceeds revenue by more than fifty thousand dollars for each and every second of each and every minute of each and every hour of each and every day of each and every week of each and every month of that year.

Ken in Tyler| 4.5.11 @ 9:52AM

There's another significant difference between 2011 and 1962. In 1962- which I am old enough to remember quite clearly- far, far fewer Americans were on the dole, the average citizen actually received some appreciation for his form of government even in government sponsored schools, and the "War on Poverty" hadn't even been invented. We were the largest creditor nation in the world rather than the largest debtor and no nation could influence our foreign policy by threatening to sell our Treasuries. Finally, my parents' generation was still around. They had lived through the Depression, knew of its hardships and would have rejected much of what passes today as normal politics.
Today, despite the advent of the information age, the same majority which placed the current administration in power remains as uninformed and short-sighted as they were in 2008.
For a glimpse of the reaction to significant reductions in spending we need look no further than Wisconson and activist political hacks in black robes.
Crucial point; "2011 is not 1962". Neither the country nor its population is the same.

Tom Osterman| 4.5.11 @ 10:49AM

Just one thing: Kennedy's successor was Lyndon Johnson, who gave us Medicare, Medicaid and the War on Poverty. And who won the election in 1964 by a landslide, courtesy of The Greatest Generation, running on the theme of The Great Society. Johnson was a Big Government liberal Democrat and everybody knew it.

It's true that the Boomers have a lot to answer for, but they didn't start the country down this road.

Ken in Tyler| 4.5.11 @ 12:25PM

Johnson won against Goldwater in '64 and the focus was Goldwater's hawkish stance which the public did not support due to the overriding fear of nuclear war. But that's just an old man's failing recollection.

LJM| 4.5.11 @ 10:09AM

An excellent and informative article, Mr. Lord. We must fight back against the left and make sure that Ryan's views and proposals are well known to the American public. England and the world paid a heavy price for not listening to Churchill during his "wilderness years". We dodged a bullet in 1962, but we will not dodge this one if we don't take responsible action.

Occam's Tool| 4.5.11 @ 10:25AM

Yes, there is usually pay back for being right and good. Themistocles and exile after saving Western Civilization; Churchill being voted out right after WWII; Lincoln and the assassin's bullet; Homer Capehart.

cowgirl| 4.5.11 @ 10:43AM

And the difference between Capehard and McCarthy is? Unfortunately for the left, there is no difference. Both were right.

buckeyeman| 4.5.11 @ 11:32AM

The news this morning is that the republican plan to "save" our nation provides for a four trillion dollar reduction in deficits over ten years. That averages out to four billion per year which would reduce the deficit to only 1.2 trillion per year. Wow, you could knock me over with a feather.

The blue-eyed darling geek/wonk has labored mightily and brought forth......... not much. To be fair, it's not all Ryan's fault. The underlying problem is that the patient simply will not take the medicine. Vast armies of Americans fancy themselves as conservatives but will not countenance the truth that they cannot eat the seed corn of present and future generations of workers while producing nothing themselves.

We are long past being broke and tinkering with the numbers around the edges will not suffice. At least the marxist-leninists like vtwin admit to their vile collectivist philosophy. How much more dangerous are the false conservatives standing in line to pick up their government checks. Of course itt really doesn't matter since the point of no return has been passed. Our economy simply cannot withstand trillion dollar yearly deficits and the creation of false currency needed to sustain them and the mega inflation building in the bowels of the economy like a bad case of vibrio cholerae- except that vtwin is about to reveal to us all how this really will work out OK because of the magic pixie dust that will make the "productive class" want to work for nothing.

glenny| 4.5.11 @ 4:43PM

Buckeyeman, a small correction if I may. $4 trillion reduction over 10 years is $400 billion/year. However, your "...only $1.2 trillion..." annual budget deficit is still correct. glenny ; )

ENOUGH ROPE| 4.5.11 @ 1:02PM

Padoux| 4.5.11 @ 1:40PM

Being 65 now, I recall as a young person being infuriated at the media as I knew it was liberally biased on all aspects of news. There was no Fox or talk radio, as you point out. I wonder if there had been would some things had turned out differently. Anyway, thank the high heavens now there IS a Fox Network, and a vigorous talk show outlet that shows there are two sides to an issue. This is why Fox et al are hated, despised, and vilified by the rest of the media and entertainment business. They no longer have a monopoly on the news. Live with it you smug elitist fops.

Steve A| 4.5.11 @ 1:56PM

There are really 3 Fox News personalities worth watching who tell me something I did not know every time I listen: Charles Krauthammer; Megyn Kelly; Dick Morris. Just my take on it.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 3:49PM

Krauthammer was extremely wobbly about Obama early on; like Peggy Noonan, he sprained his intellect severely trying to disassociate Obama's daily idiotic acts, puerile pronouncements and flabbergasting ignorance with his putative brilliance.

Krauthammer still reflexively genuflects on occasion before Obama's thus-far unseen intellect, although I think maybe the Libyan situation has finally taken the scales from Krauthammer's eyes.

Let's hope so.

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 3:51PM

Megyn Kelly, sure we all SEE the appeal!

vtwin| 4.5.11 @ 3:57PM

Except Anthony, he prefers tattooed muscular bikers wearing leather.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 4:13PM

Vtwit, you are a rapist, and your lip service to "social justice" does not make you any less a criminal.

Put your own money where your mouth is and PAY ME. NOW. I'm a victim too.

I need, I need, I need, I need.

PAY ME, rapist.

John K| 4.5.11 @ 2:27PM

The comments about Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs are way off beam. Kennedy inherited this plan from the Eisenhower administration, and reluctantly allowed it to go ahead, with the clear instruction that the US would not gets its own troops involved. The CIA knew this, and knew the Bay of Pigs plan was doomed to fail; they went ahead with it because they thought they could bounce the president into invading Cuba when the plan failed, but instead he did exactly what he said he would do. He did not trick the CIA, the CIA tried to trick him. That is why he fired Allen Dulles as DCI, and vowed to rein in the CIA's worst excesses. I believe that that is where the seeds of his assassination lie. In the early 60s the CIA was a violent organisation which had murdered and deposed many heads of state, another assassination was no big deal to them.

Grzmlyk| 4.5.11 @ 3:41PM

Oh, brother. Where's the butterfly net?

JimP| 4.5.11 @ 4:24PM

"In the early 60s the CIA was a violent organisation which had murdered and deposed many heads of state..."

Ah, if only they still were. Imagine if all the bad actors in the ME had been knocked off in a timely fashion. We might have seen "peace in our time" in the ME. And wouldn't the world be a better place without Hugo Chavez? All sarcasm aside, one of my uncles was part of 'Air Cuba' slated to support the Cuban exiles when they landed. JFK lost his nerve and canceled the air support. Partly because he didn't want obvious U.S. fingerprints on the invasion. That didn't work out so well. Everyone knew and saw through the claim we had nothing to do with it anyway. In retrospect, JFK should have used the air assets and supported the Cuban freedom fighters to take out Castro.

Jeffrey Lord| 4.5.11 @ 3:17PM

John K....

Presidents do not "reluctantly" allow a military operation of any kind to go ahead. Either they are all in...or all out. JFK inherited a plan from Eisenhower...that's all. It was JFK who said yes...sort of...maybe. That was the mistake...which you seem to acknowledge. JFK was under no obligation whatever to follow Ike's plan. He had the authority to cancel it the moment he heard of it - he chose not to do so.

Timely Renewed | 4.5.11 @ 4:57PM

The GOP budget is a good start, but ultimately it is a retail solution to a wholesale problem. We also need to redress the underlying distortions of the Constitution which have allowed the federal government to expand far beyond its original constitutional powers. This can be accomplished by amending the Constitution to restore the original constitutional structure which limited the federal government's ability to expand to such a ridiculous size and power.

However, this is difficult to achieve when Congress holds a monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments. The solution is to start with an "amendment amendment" which gives the States the ability to initiate constitutional amendments without a convention. In this way, grassroots constitutionalists on the state level could enact amendments carefully drafted to achieve the restoration of the original constitutional structure without having to go through Washington. Only this will permanently constrain future federal overreach of the sort rejected by the people last November. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

Doctor Sam | 4.5.11 @ 5:57PM

I sure hope u are right...because there is no one coming behind Ryan to pick up the pieces, there will be no pieces big enough left

Faithful| 4.5.11 @ 6:14PM

Occam's Tool said:

"Yes, there is usually pay back for being right and good. Themistocles and exile after saving Western Civilization; Churchill being voted out right after WWII; Lincoln and the assassin's bullet; Homer Capehart."

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you." Jn. 15:16.

Mike Gabel| 4.5.11 @ 6:52PM

I am one American, ready to stand with Paul Ryan; ready to face Obama's bricks.

Stacey Shoemaker| 4.5.11 @ 7:01PM

most of the commentors here get it, but some obviously don't, these blue-blooded Bill Buckley\David Brooks types will never "get it" they are too ensconced in their priviliged bubble to ever get it. If you pine for the days of Bill Buckley ask yourself this question: What did Bill Buckley change?........... the answer is NOTHING, he changed nothing, he accomplished nothing! Under Billy Boy's watch we have become the progressive utopia that Buckley claimed to hate. Bill Buckley and his ilk can burn in hell for all I care. Can we cut military spending - yes - and we will, we have to, but it's the entitlements that are ruining us, destroying us but Grandma and Grandpa are convinced that they have paid for their S.S. and Medicaid/Medicare, facts and logic are useless, they just ignore them, we are doomed and then there will be a big war, because epic fiscal disasters are always followed by big wars, it's just how things work.

bluecollarbytes| 4.5.11 @ 9:25PM

What a great bit of 'unknown' Homer E. Capehart history.

This guy also opposed what amounted to the creation of a permanent taxpayer-financed welfare underclass.

Angel Artiste | 4.5.11 @ 11:55PM

Ryan 2016

Angel Artiste | 4.5.11 @ 11:57PM

Ryan 2012?

John K| 4.6.11 @ 11:57AM

JimP:

Can you find any proof that JFK cancelled the planned air support to the Cubans? He had always been firm that no US military forces would be involved, that was built into the plan. But the private A26 bombers were ready to take off from Central America when their mission was cancelled. Who gave that order? It was not JFK. It is my belief that the CIA knew that the Bay of Pigs plan was doomed to fail, and that faced with that the president would be bounced into an invasion of Cuba. It did fail, but he did not let them bounce him into an invasion, instead he sacked the Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles. And when he was dead, who did LBJ appoint to the Warren Commission? Allen Dulles. It's almost as if they didn't want to find the truth. Perish the thought.

JimP| 4.6.11 @ 1:23PM

I haven't bothered with FOIA requests and I cannot produce proof that would satisfy you. Feel free to stick to your version of events if you like. I know my uncle had no reason to lie, but I'm sure you could conjure up a multitude of possible motives for him to make up the story. As I was growing up through the 60's and 70's it was accepted as common knowledge that JFK lost his nerve to use air support. You do realize that it was never part of the plan to use U.S. marked, state of the art active duty military planes don't you? The CIA gathered old WWII era aircraft and WWII combat pilots to operate the aircraft. My uncle flew combat in WWII. It was very much like Air America in SE Asia. That's why I called it "Air Cuba".

John K| 4.6.11 @ 1:58PM

JimP:

I'm afraid that "common knowledge" does not count as a historical proof!

I know the CIA had assembled a force of A26s in Central America. It was not used. Your uncle wasn't lying, but how would he know where the order came from? It did not come from the President. He had signed up for the Bay of Pigs plan, and the use of deniable air support was part of it. Why would he sabotage the plan? The people who stood to gain were the CIA who wanted to make sure the Bay of Pigs failed and needed direct US military support, the thing JFK had told them would not happen. They didn't believe him, and thought they could force his hand, but they were wrong.

JimP| 4.6.11 @ 5:15PM

John K:

Hey, that's fine. I don't know why this is such a big issue for you. I was only trying to be helpful. Just as friendly advice, keep in mind you have no evidence to prove your theory. If you wish to believe it, that is fine with me.

Best regards,

John K| 4.7.11 @ 11:33AM

JimP:

My issue is that it has become "common knowledge" that JFK cancelled the CIA airstrike on Cuba, when there is just no proof he did. He was persuaded to sign up for the plan, and allowed it to go ahead. It failed, but he did not sabotage it. Why would he? The people who controlled the CIA secret air force were the CIA, and the people who wanted a US military invasion of Cuba were the CIA. They were not stupid, and knew that 1000 rebels landing in the Bay of Pigs were never going to dislodge Castro. The purpose of the Bay of Pigs operation was to act as a catalyst for a US invasion, which JFK had told them from the outset was not going to happen. They did not believe him, and felt that, faced with the failure of the Bay of Pigs, he would back down. He did not, and instead sacked the Director of Central Intelligence. Since then the disinformation has been that JFK lost his nerve and cancelled the air strikes. In fact he kept his nerve and refused to be bounced into a war by his officals. Quite a good policy for any president, I would have thought.

Occam's Tool| 4.7.11 @ 7:08PM

Vtwin,

I actually have been a Senior medical consultant in an NHS based on Britain's. Let's talk about pain management. In NZ, it required a neurology evaluation by a neurologist (fewer than 300 practicing PSYCHIATRISTS in a country of 4 million, even fewer neurologists) in order to get the non-addictive, generic by that time Neurontin available for reduction of neuropathic pain. Thanks to my influence in Parliament (I was good friends with some politically powerful Maori, but I couldn't get them interested in smoking cessation, damn.), I was able to get this changed so that I was able to prescribe this drug in patients who were in pain AND depressed. But prescribing meds outside of the indications allowed could be considered fraud by PHARMAC and could get an MD jailed.

In short, it was extremely restrictive practice of medicine there much worse than the worst Managed care here. If you wish, we can next discuss NICE anytime you wish (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, used by Britain to screen out newer treatments in Orwellian fashion; slavishly followed by New Zealand).

Wait time in New Zealand for "elective" back surgery---2 years.

Rev Trask| 4.19.11 @ 9:33PM

Paul Ryan`s real problem -- aside from the fact that he must go to the same hairdresser that serviced Count Dracula -- is that he believes in fairy tales, like the discredited supply-side fantasy economic theories. And so his budget is designed to suck the lifeblood out of the middle-class.

Rev Trask| 4.21.11 @ 9:37PM

Capehart was a Joe McCarthy echo chamber. Not wise for Republicans to bring up his memories.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 10:48PM

is good

Latest Headlines

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|69 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|37 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|50 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|76 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|26 comments

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|18 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 3:45PM

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 3:21PM

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 3:14PM

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 12:36PM

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 11:03AM

Stein on IRS Scandal

Patrick Ryan | 10:29AM

The Restricted Engine

Yogi Love | 6:00AM

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online