The Romney Campagn is counting on the media's inability to call a liar a liar and how hard it is to do so while appearing to be non-partisan, but Ryan may have gone to far. TPM Editor’s Blog Will the Liar Thing Break Through? Paul Ryan Josh Marshall- August 30, 2012, 9:56 AM 17855Two things were unquestionably true about Paul Ryan’s speech last night: One, it was unquestionably a well-written and well-presented speech and Two, it was filled with a lot of out and out lies or things that were so hypocritically or comically misleading as almost to amount to the same. In itself, that’s not a huge surprise. What’s notable is how many pundits and news reporters couldn’t help noting right off the bat that well … he sure lied a lot. Now, very few felt able to quite come out and say that, though interestingly some did. But in most cases it was reporters basically straining at the bounds of euphemism that reporters feel allowed to use. Last night I already mentioned Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett came at it on CNN right after Ryan concluded his speech … Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked at least seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will. The fact-checkers will have some opportunities! Anyway, he wasn’t the only one. It’s come up again and again overnight in follow-up questions and editorials. I’d even go so far as to say there are two big discussion points coming out of Ryan’s speech — 1) how good it was and how much it charged up Republican convention-goers and 2) man, he sure said a few whoppers. So did Ryan and the convention handlers tempt fate? Go too far for even the most establishment and timid reporters to feel either obligated or entitled to start focusing on this fairly indisputable fact? The real question to watch over the next 24 hours is whether that lying thing breaks through into its own issue, as something reporters who are afraid of getting smacked around by campaigns are actually willing or feel they need to discuss. We’ll know more tomorrow morning and what we find out then will have a big effect on how the next two months play out. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/will_the_liar_thing_break_through.php?ref=fpblg
Interestingly enough, Fox News pointed this out http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/ Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words 1. Dazzling At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably. So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that’s what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign. To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket. 2. Deceiving On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold. The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated. Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing. Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period. Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan. Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many. 3. Distracting And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about. Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters. Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street. Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president. Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit. These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance. At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, “"Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution." Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
Are you kidding? I've seen at least a half-dozen articles on CNN.com and Yahoo! News alone. The media has been all over the speeches doing fact checks.
Huffington Post, MSNBC, Yahoo!News, CBS, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN..are these mainstream enough? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/paul-ryan-fact-checking-media_n_1844085.html http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/48848738/#48848738 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57503683/fact-checking-6-claims-in-paul-ryans-convention-speech/ http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ryan-takes-factual-shortcuts-speech-070905927.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...6bb62d8-f24f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-paul-ryan-speech-fact-check-20120830,0,7050347.story http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-30/...1_bowles-simpson-paul-ryan-bowles-and-simpson
This is an editorial so it doesn't really count, but Chris Wallace did point out that there were factual problems with the speech.
The problem is, even knowing about the outright lies does not influence voting. It's expected, even promoted as an means to an end. "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers"
I agree to an extent - but if the reputation takes hold, it affects the brand. For example, Kerry flip-flopping. Paul Ryan's "brand" right now is straight talking, honest hard-truths guy. If he gets the reputation of not being honest, that changes how people view him, and potentially how they vote (to the limited extent that VPs affect voting). It also changes the way he's covered in the media. Since his announcement, the media has been repeating this idea that now we can have a "serious" campaign based on the real issues, etc. That idea takes a hit if he's viewed as a typical politician distorting everything.
Why does Ryan get a pass for being “a straight shooting, serious” guy? He believes in exactly the same things Sarah Palin does. So why is she a crazy tea party embarrassment to the party and Ryan is a "serious” guy?
I've seen some coverage of this, so it's not really a media blackout. I think the more important question is: Will it even matter?
Because Ryan doesn't talk about how he can see Russia from his house, or get confused when asked about what newspapers he reads. Say what you want about his views, Ryan is a smart guy. He's not remotely incompetent in the way that Palin was.
Come on man, lol. I know you are a diehard liberal so all conservatives sound like idiots to you, but even you should be able to see the difference between Palin and Ryan. Palin can give a great speech and fire people up, but she really struggles, even today, to have a substantive conversation about issues. She flubs through generalities and gets help from her interviewer to lead her through questions. Paul Ryan is highly intelligent and substantive even if he IS a liar. Edit: What Major said
I can already imagine adverts slamming Ryan, and the thing is they don't even need to take quotes out of context, they are already wrong, which would tarnish his image amongst undecided voters. I would love to see a competitive race, but bearing in mind these factual errors, plus Ryan's proposed budget (which was punched full of holes by the CBO), I'm not sure how long Ryan's image as 'the guy with numbers and hard truths' will stand. That is a crucial part of the Republican message, that they have the Executive as Prez and the Visionary as VP. Romney isn't a strong enough personality to carry the ticket, that's what Ryan is there for, and if enough people don't believe them, then the R/R ticket is finished.
Fact checkers. God I hate that term. They do nothing that hasn't been done by every news person ever. They try to get their facts right and sometimes miss (in the case of Ryan's speech most missed very badly). They are not some arbiter of truth.
Not saying that Palin isn't an idiot, but if by Palin, you mean Tina Fey said this, then you are correct.
Fine - she used the fact that you could see Russia from Alaska to bolster her foreign policy "credentials", but she didn't say it from her house. Same effect - it came across as ridiculous.
Ryan may be a better package, but they essentially believe the same things. That is the point. Why is he the serious one and Palin is crazy?
She's a multitime JUCO dropout who wasn't even able to complete a term in governor, and is prone to appear in public babbling incoherently. He's none of those things and has been a Beltway insider for about a decade. He might be a liar and peddling silly Randian fantasies and passing them off as real plans, but I doubt Palin could even regurgitate the failed policies of the Austrian economists without mentioning Crocodile Dundee and Outback steakhouse. One is obviously ridiculous, one takes a lot more understanding to peel back the onion to figure out why it's ridiculous. Is it surprising to you to figure out why one is treated differently?
Stolen reference, basso? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/POWP29E4SIM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
