Paul Ryan

[Ian]

The Washington Post today called out Ryan for "telling flat-out lies". Rather harsh from a major newspaper, but also totally accurate. After his speech, I'm convinced that the man has not a shred of integrity.

EDIT: Looking around the internet, a LOT of newspapers and other organizations have been slapping around Ryan for being a liar. Well done, media!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Washington Post today called out Ryan for "telling flat-out lies". Rather harsh from a major newspaper, but also totally accurate. After his speech, I'm convinced that the man has not a shred of integrity.

Faux News did the same thing, and they should know lies when they write hear them.

[Coito ergo sum]

Errr... the downgrade in credit rating was "caused by the Republicans threatening not to raise the debt ceiling?" The downgrade to AA+ occurred four days after the 112th United States Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling of the federal government by means of the Budget Control Act of 2011 on August 2, 2011. So, they downgraded AFTER the debt ceiling was raised.

Quoting Standard & Poors as to why they downgraded -- "Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures..." and "In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability." http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet ... lue3=UTF-8

The downgrade came, in large part, because the Democrats won't agree to reform entitlements and won't reduce spending.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Reducto ad absurdum.

[Gerald McGrew]

The Washington Post today called out Ryan for "telling flat-out lies". Rather harsh from a major newspaper, but also totally accurate. After his speech, I'm convinced that the man has not a shred of integrity.

Today's GOP is so fundamentally disconnected from reality on so many topics, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to even consider voting for anyone associated with that party (I typically vote a split ticket). GOP Platforms from several states include things like:

1) Global warming denial (coupled with conspiracy theories);

2) Evolution denial (coupled with advocacy of creationism);

3) Calls for schools to no longer teach critical thinking;

4) U.N. conspiracy theories (i.e. Agenda 21);

5) Tax cuts for billionaires = economic growth;

6) Environmental deregulation (including eliminating the EPA);

7) Support for institutionalized bigotry against gays...

...and a host of other nutty, hateful positions that I simply cannot be a part of. Maybe one day the tea baggin' crazies will once again be marginalized or purged from the GOP (as the John Birch Society was previously) and the party will return to a more sane, responsible state. Until then however....

[Ian]

Gerald - I have a theory which contends that the 2012 election is the mirror image of 1972 - for a variety of reasons, but mostly having to do with the party no longer in the White House becoming dominated by its more radical elements over the past few years. If there's any truth to it, then after a big Obama win in 2012 the saner Republicans will start to take back control of their party and put the Tea Party (and dare I hope evangelical) types in their place over the next few years, and they'll end up nominating a much more moderate ticket in 2016.

[Kristie]

Gerald - I have a theory which contends that the 2012 election is the mirror image of 1972 - for a variety of reasons, but mostly having to do with the party no longer in the White House becoming dominated by its more radical elements over the past few years. If there's any truth to it, then after a big Obama win in 2012 the saner Republicans will start to take back control of their party and put the Tea Party (and dare I hope evangelical) types in their place over the next few years, and they'll end up nominating a much more moderate ticket in 2016.

Sounds like a plan to me!

[Coito ergo sum]

C'mon, Kristie! Isn't Ryan dreamier than Obama?

He wants your vote, Kristie. He wants it bad!

[Kristie]

C'mon, Kristie! Isn't Ryan dreamier than Obama?

He wants your vote, Kristie. He wants it bad!

There are some personal traits that physical appearance can't compensate for! And, while he looks decent with no shirt, I don't find his face attractive.

[Randydeluxe]

The Washington Post today called out Ryan for "telling flat-out lies". Rather harsh from a major newspaper, but also totally accurate. After his speech, I'm convinced that the man has not a shred of integrity.

Today's GOP is so fundamentally disconnected from reality on so many topics, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to even consider voting for anyone associated with that party (I typically vote a split ticket). GOP Platforms from several states include things like:

1) Global warming denial (coupled with conspiracy theories);

2) Evolution denial (coupled with advocacy of creationism);

3) Calls for schools to no longer teach critical thinking;

4) U.N. conspiracy theories (i.e. Agenda 21);

5) Tax cuts for billionaires = economic growth;

6) Environmental deregulation (including eliminating the EPA);

7) Support for institutionalized bigotry against gays...

...and a host of other nutty, hateful positions that I simply cannot be a part of. Maybe one day the tea baggin' crazies will once again be marginalized or purged from the GOP (as the John Birch Society was previously) and the party will return to a more sane, responsible state. Until then however....

Since Reagan, the GOP has settled on a sort of "big three" positions. They are:

-Expansion of military. Having the #1 military that is the size of the next dozen countries' armed forces... combined... is not enough.

-Women and homosexuals are to be prevented from having sex for pleasure, and disadvantaged if they do.

-Wealth and opportunity are not the provenance of luck and a deterministic universe. If you are successful, it is because God thinks you deserve it. Likewise, if you're unlucky, it means God hates you.

[Gerald McGrew]

Gerald - I have a theory which contends that the 2012 election is the mirror image of 1972 - for a variety of reasons, but mostly having to do with the party no longer in the White House becoming dominated by its more radical elements over the past few years. If there's any truth to it, then after a big Obama win in 2012 the saner Republicans will start to take back control of their party and put the Tea Party (and dare I hope evangelical) types in their place over the next few years, and they'll end up nominating a much more moderate ticket in 2016.

I figured that might happen...but then the GOP nominated Romney.

After the 2008 debacle (for Republicans), the chatter among the GOP talking heads was that they weren't conservative enough. Then we had the 2010 elections where the tea baggers dominated the narrative and the DNC base largely stayed home (way to go guys). That further cemented the theory that 2008 was a failure of insufficient conservatism.

So when Romney essentially locked up the nomination, my fear was that if he were to lose, the call would be for the GOP to go even further to the right. Now, IMO the only remaining room to the right for them to move into is full-on, in your face racism, xenophobia, and hatred. Those things exist now, but could become more prominent.

However, with the Ryan pick I'm not so sure. He represents everything the tea baggers/crazies in the GOP stand for. If they lose (especially to a president who by any other measure should be on the ropes), that may indeed be a signal for the sane Republicans to stand up and take over. Of course if they win, we're all fucked and none of this will matter anyways.

[Warren Dew]

Gerald - I have a theory which contends that the 2012 election is the mirror image of 1972 - for a variety of reasons, but mostly having to do with the party no longer in the White House becoming dominated by its more radical elements over the past few years.

I've noticed parallels too, though the main parallel I've noticed is how both presidents in question seemed willing to ignore the law and the constitution and do and say anything in order to stay in power.

[Warren Dew]

Ryan's speech for those who are interested:



I'm curious about reactions by decade of birth. I suspect the only people who will relate to it are Gen X.

[Svartalf]

Romney is being set up for a giant crushing defeat... I9 mean, he even has karl rove on his staff

[Coito ergo sum]

Fact Checking the Fact Checkers ---

The Media's 'Fact Check' Smokescreen

Posted 08/30/2012 06:58 PM ET
Email Print License Comment

inShare

Journalism: If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?

Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."

What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.

Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.

An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."

CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... rc=HPLNews

Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.

But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?

In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."

The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?