Lyin' Ryan and Open Thread

"Liar" - Built to Spill

Paul Ryan's speech last night left me sputtering with rage and indignation.  I don't think I've ever heard so many lies in any major address in my lifetime. (I see Jonathan Cohn concurs.)  It was brazen, mind-boggling, Nixonian stuff. (I actually wrote this before I read Pierce's masterful -- and frightening -- take on the zombie-eyed granny starver.)

I couldn't even manage to write about it as it left me in a total funk -- especially as soon as I heard some of the television commentary extolling its effectiveness. 

I was gratified to see that my reaction was pretty much standard today among those not in thrall to ugly right wing politics.  Post after post after post hammered the essential mendacity of the Ryan speech.  The question in my mind though is to what degree this will be information disseminated to and absorbed by the low-information voters who likely form the small but decisive group of undecided voters. 

Michael Tomasky pretty much captures my impressions and concerns:

I don’t know how well Ryan came across in this speech with undecided voters, if they watched. My guess would be very well indeed with men, rather less well but still respectably with women. It was mostly a speech for the hall, the red-meaters, but that bit toward the end, about the faded Obama posters in the kids’ bedrooms, and where he looked right into the camera and said, “If you’re feeling left out or passed by, you have not failed, your leaders have failed you,” was aimed at swing voters and probably reached them. And I’m sure that to old people who don’t know any better, he looks like a nice young man.

Ryan is not a nice young man.  He's a vicious, mendacious, right wing prick.  The question is whether the media can actually fact check someone who is so willing to lie shamelessly, a characteristic he shares with the prick at the top of the ticket.

I suspect that the Obama campaign is going to have to do the media's job for it and launch sustained attacks on Ryan's veracity and destroy his undeserved reputation for "seriousness" among the Beltway elite.  It will be a difficult task, but one that I think must be undertaken with grim purpose.

Update:  Perhaps I am wrong -- it appears that even notoriously squishy members of the media like Wolf Blitzer and David Gregory have raised objections to Ryan's factually challenged presentation.  That's fairly astonishing and does not bode well for the Romney camp.

Alright, I am hanging around on jury duty and should be writing a brief instead of wasting time.  But the allure of the intertubes is great.

Let me know what you think and what other reactions to the speech have caught your eyes.

 

 

 

Comments

[kathy a.]

fox news sez: "...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."

somehow, i doubt that was the coverage they expected from le faux.

[kathy a.]

also, wapo's fact-check roundup is unkind. this is, IMO, not a fact-checking operation inclined to GOP-bashing.

[Sir Charles]

kathy,

I actually find both of those heartening, because they are unlikely sources for comfort.

I am curious whether the main television networks -- probably still the most influential source of news for the undecideds -- will be willing to do this sort of thing.

[Barbara]

"Ryan Accused Over Speech Errors" says the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

[oddjob]

"Sounds like Ryan last night gave the nation a taste of what Wisconsin has seen for years. He's got a very extraordinary talent at seeming amiable, approachable, reasonable ... even safe. People hear and see him speak and walk away thinking, "Well, he seems like a nice guy, very well-spoken and reasonable. I think he really wants to look out for everyone's best interests." And then they actually are shown his positions and either think "Holy shit, those are crazy!" or "Holy shit, why are they trying to smear this nice young man?!" It's what's won him elections here for years, because more people, bafflingly, think the second rather than first thing. And once that second "Holy shit..." statement is in their heads, there's no getting it out."
- a reader's observation posted on Sully's blog.

[oddjob]

"FACT CHECK: Ryan takes factual shortcuts in speech"

Associated Press article published early this morning. (Hat tip, The Plum Line.)

[Joe S]

I don't know what you all expected. This is the same stuff they've been peddling for years. I remember in 1993 reading in the Wall Street Journal about the Clintons importing cocaine through an airfield in Arkansas. This is just par for the course. Overall, I thought Ryan delivered the speech well. It didn't contain that many more lies than a typical Mitt Romney speech.

[oddjob]

"Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night could mark the launch of a great career – but it could also be the start of a long journey into the wilderness of extremism. It was less about Ryan’s own vaunted budget plan than an attack, in the needling voice of the House GOP majority, on President Obama’s economic stewardship.

As expected, the speech delighted the Republican base because it painted Obama as the entitlement-driven liberal that many GOP delegates have always believed him to be...

But Ryan’s bill of particulars against Obama strained credibility enough to damage his own, not-quite-earned reputation as a straight shooter. He attacked Obama for failing to keep open a General Motors plant in Wisconsin – a cheeky move for a vice-presidential nominee whose standard-bearer once wrote that the government should allow all of GM to go bankrupt.

...

By the time that Ryan was decrying a “government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us,” and warning about “the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners,” his gaze seemed to have left the room entirely and focused on some Tea Party rally in the heartland.

Will anguished Americans respond to his call? Some certainly will. He offered the reassurance of ideological certainty in the pure and reedy voice of an altar boy. But others, including many people who cheered his selection as vice presidential nominee in anticipation of an open, honest clash of economic visions, will be disappointed.

Ryan’s boyish manner hid an almost frightening sense of confidence. When he talked about his differences with Mitt Romney, but assured the crowd they mattered little, he seemed to be assuming the role of party leader for himself. Someday, perhaps soon, he will be – but only if he makes it out of this campaign without alienating everyone outside of his conservative cheering section."
- Peter Cannelos (former DC Bureau Chief of the Boston Globe, and typically a distinctly cautious commenter)

The rest is worth your reading. (Hat tip, The Plum Line.)

[oddjob]

(Peter Canellos, not Cannelos.)

[kathy a.]

brothers and sisters -- texas loses again, this time on its voter ID law. and go look at the decision (click the link to see the decision) -- texas was seeking a declaratory judgment that the law was AOK, taking the offensive. and they lost lost lost.

[oddjob]

When a Randian is speaking of a priority for the poor and weak, you know you have a world-class bullshitter.

[oddjob]

This is just par for the course.

What is not par for the course is the response of the media. Apparently Ryan didn't play the game according to the rules because a fair amount of the mainstream media has called him out for lying.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I think context is everything in this regard. You didn't have Bob Dole or Jack Kemp standing up in front of the 1996 Republican Convention and allege that Clinton was a murderous drug dealer.

Ryan not only told several whopping lies, they were whopping lies about subjects where he and Romney have clear positions and records -- Medicare, GM, the debt ceiling, and the Simpson-Bowles Commission -- that are clearly at odds with the positions Ryan took or implied last night. And he did it with the whole world watching, not at some out of the way stump speech in Pig Holler Iowa.

It struck me as a direct challenge to the media, who know these facts well enough that they had to wince at the audacity of it, the sort of "I dare you" spirit embodied in the whole thing.

[oddjob]

"...Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work."
- the conclusion of a scorching, scalding must read column by Jonathan Chait

Hat tip, James Fallows (The Atlantic).

[Joe S]

Sir C, Was this really any worse than going in front of the UN and saying that a bunch of aluminum tubes were the bases of a nuclear program ? That there were tons of biological weapons lying around Iraq ? I mean, how much worse is it than George Bush's lies that got us into war ? A few media people will bark for a little bit, and then it won't matter. The modern conservative movement understands that tribal politics can lead to an Orwellian communications strategy.

[Joe S]

And another thing, were Ryan's lies anything worse than Sarah Palin saying she opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" when there was video showing her talking to constituencies pushing for it ? Is it any worse than Cheney's lies during his debate with John Edwards in 2004 ? Really, none of this strikes me as anything worse than Bush II, Cheney, Palin, or Romney say or said at other important moments in Presidential cycles.

[kathy a.]

joe -- you probably are correct that these lies have their comparisons in previous situations and races.

but that was then; this is the race now. nobody really called colin powell and the bush administration on WMD, leading to our misadventure in iraq. it seems like good news that things are timely being called before this election happens. in my opinion.

also, guys -- texas is being slammed in the courts. ain't that something? redistricting plus voter ID. molly would be a happy woman.

[oddjob]

"...At a Christian Science Monitor breakfast roundtable on February 16 of this year, Ryan made two distinct but related appeals to the reporters in attendance. First, that campaigns shouldn’t engage in what are known as “Mediscare” tactics — misleading attacks meant to scare seniors out of voting for the other party. Second, that campaigns should build their campaigns around their boldest plans, so that victory results in a clear governing mandate.

He took the opposite approach on Wednesday...."

RE: Voter ID laws, based on this testimony I'm guessing South Carolina's probably going to get smacked around hard, too.

[kathy a.]

jeepers, oddjob. both links.

but south carolina? amazing link. that voter reg thing is going down -- which means it won't be implemented.

[kathy a.]

i forgot to add -- the obama DOJ has opposed these voter ID laws, and that put them in limbo. so, if you think the administration is asleep at the wheel, it isn't. the southern states are contesting the DOJ, and the southern states are going down.

[kathy a.]

guns! the GOP platform calls for broader gun rights, including unlimited clips. because fuck yeah, shoot-em-ups are american.

we have had a bundle of shoot-em-ups recently and in the memorable past. the latest was that shooting outside the empire state building, where trained cops were right there, and 9 people ended up shot by the cops. so, right. semi-automatics for all would have made that situation better....

[oddjob]

shoot-em-ups are american

I guess they're really unhappy they didn't get born in the Wild West in the mid-late 19th Century.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

I think you have to look at the lies in the Ryan speech in terms of quantity, audacity, and proximity. In other words, he lied 1) repeatedly 2) about things with which the mainstream media is intimately familiar and 3) about which he and Romney have well known, publicly held positions. It was an incredibly in your face display of mendacity -- from a campaign that has already blatantly asserted that it will not let fact-checkers get in the way of its best advertising attacks.

It is hard to shock the collective conscience of the cynical, horse-race oriented, beltway media, but these guys are actually starting to approach that point.

By contrast, Bush made an assertion in a context in which not many people from that same media group would have felt comfortable challenging. (Moreover, not to give Bush too much credit, but my guess is he did not believe he was lying -- I am guessing that he was told that there was some small chance that these tubes were for military purposes and was willing to run with it. Inexcusable in its way, but not quite the same.)

As for Palin, yeah the Bridge to Nowhere denial was pretty outrageous, but as Ezra points out in his piece on Ryan today, there was nothing else comparable in her speech in term of being just blatantly fact-challenged. Palin was also a completely unknown quantity, whereas Ryan has this long time reputation as a serious person.

kathy,

One of the other disturbing things last night was that the biggest applause line of the evening was Susan Martinez's reference to her .357 magnum. It was like a simultaneous orgasm hit the crowd.

[nancy]

This is good too: "Ezra Klein, Ready to Snap"

I found watching Ryan last night terrifying, in the same way watching Palin at the 2008 convention was terrifying. Look how long it has taken her star to fade. Both seem mean-spirited creations without scruple or character but whose physical appearances belie what they are up to. The contradiction is confusing and useful. Add family photos with urchins and -- good to go.

An earlier summing up at TNR from Leon Wieseltier. "His Grief and Ours: Paul Ryan's Nasty Ideal of Self-Reliance".

Might be a good idea to check in with places like Pajamas Media to see if they're doing the happy dance.

[oddjob]

I haven't yet read the entire Wieseltier piece, but that last page is just magnificent!

[nancy]

Sorry, thought the TNR link went to the thing in its entirety. I recommend reading it all. Glad it wasn't pay-walled.

My son pointed me in the direction of Matt Taibbi's feature at Rolling Stone about Mitt and Bain. It's rather a knots-in-the-gut read. On the Ryan pick:

By making debt the centerpiece of his campaign, Romney was making a calculated bluff of historic dimensions – placing a massive all-in bet on the rank incompetence of the American press corps. The result has been a brilliant comedy: A man makes a $250 million fortune loading up companies with debt and then extracting million-dollar fees from those same companies, in exchange for the generous service of telling them who needs to be fired in order to finance the debt payments he saddled them with in the first place. That same man then runs for president riding an image of children roasting on flames of debt, choosing as his running mate perhaps the only politician in America more pompous and self-righteous on the subject of the evils of borrowed money than the candidate himself. If Romney pulls off this whopper, you'll have to tip your hat to him: No one in history has ever successfully run for president riding this big of a lie. It's almost enough to make you think he really is qualified for the White House.

Ital. mine.

The rest: here.

[kathy a.]

and the RNC's secret weapon? clint eastwood. so, unless you want to see an entire convention venue feeling the rapture about weapons of mass destruction -- gaaaaggggghhhhhh -- tonight sounds like a good night for just about anything else.

[kathy a.]

so, what have we got so far?

-- the sanctity of tax reduction for the rich, including but not limited to dressage items;
-- the sanctity of fetal matter created by rape; the sanctity of yachts flying under the cayman flag;
-- the sanctity of all the guns you want, and all the ammo you can carry in a cart, or armored vehicle, your choice;
-- great jokes about colored people and how they need birth certificates;
-- all these great new laws meant to defeat voters (and those damned courts overturning them like a row of dominoes);
-- public pillorying of anyone getting any government benefits whatsoever, including salaries, except of course these particular candidates;
-- a health care policy consisting of "grandma and that sick kid should have chosen wealthier relatives"; and
-- magic wealth growth dust (only available to select supporters).

am i missing something? oh, yeah -- mccain wants us to have a few more wars while we are deficit-reducing.

[nancy]

You got it kathy. The executive summary.

But. Clint? No, no. No. From the man who gave us Gran Torino ? That is so wrong in so many ways. No. Mitt, Paul and Clint? Does not compute to me. Unless he's simply thinking about his Pebble Beach interest, in which case...

Last night my personal come-out-of-shoes moment was with Condi -- Civil War and lunch counters and segregation, little girl growing up to be named Secretary of State. In her world, she's living proof that the vote suppression efforts do not exist sorry.

[oddjob]

Others have noted how weird it was to trot out Condi Rice, who oversaw one of the most disastrous foreign policy teams in recent history, to criticize Obama for his foreign policy which was a damn sight better than Shrub's.

[kathy a.]

speaking of shrub, where is he?

the GOP is all about repackaging all things shrubian -- from tax cuts to more war, less regulation and more "wealth building," with New Improved religiosity to boot -- and the boy wonder is missing in action.

[nancy]

Out of Ohio comes a court ordered restoration of voting rights. It's September. Does this settle the matter for this November, y'all attorneys?

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

I am not sure what kind of expedited appeals that they might be allowed.

One thing is for sure -- the Republicans are getting their asses kicked in courts all over America.

[oddjob]

Unfortunately not yet in Pennsylvania.

[kathy a.]

nice news, nancy! this is so close to the election that i think -- this order will stand. yeah, the other side will argue for expedited briefing and a stay, but they just lost pretty badly on having not shown any compelling reason for their new system; and also, equal protection, baby. bush v. gore. (i cannot tell you how sweet it is to have that decision in the equal protection camp.)

[kathy a.]

more sweetness on ohio -- this is the second voting rights victory in that state, this week.