TPM Video: ‘On The Edge of Truth’

Ryan busted

HuffPo: Paul Ryan’s Convention Speech Ignites Media War Over Facts

TPM: On The Edge of Truth Last night, cable news personalities could not bring themselves to say Paul Ryan lied in his RNC speech.

“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,” said CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer. “I’m sure they will.” Oh, those irrepressible fact-checkers, always caring about the difference between true and false – unlike the oh-so-serious journalists on CNN.

WaPo’s James Downie: “With tonight’s speech, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have doubled down on their twin bets of 2012 — that journalists will sit back and name winners and losers without regard to who is telling the truth, and that voters are too ignorant to care about the truth. Do not let them be right.”

More info: Departure From Usual: Traditional Media Call Out Ryan For Factually Dubious Speech


Paul Ryan Obscures His Koch-Backed Agenda With a Pack of Lies in Convention Speech

The gamble the Romney campaign has made throughout this campaign, and most obviously in this year’s Republican National Convention, is that the truth no longer matters, and that facts are irrelevant to the voting process. There’s probably less risk to that gamble than one might think.

UPDATE: Jon Walker on FDL: Paul Ryan Blames Obama for Things Paul Ryan Did

UPDATE: Ryan was only a warm-up act for tonight’s festival of lies. Think Progress notes: Romney has led a post-truth campaign. A top adviser even admitted earlier this week, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.

  1. #1 by cav on August 30, 2012 - 7:40 pm

    When all the press has to say is He’s a Liar, it’s easy to call it what it is – V. P. roll-out FAIL.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2012 - 9:10 pm

    Willard rollout FAIL. His speech was so full of lies I lost count. Most of them already fact-checked as certified lies.

  3. #3 by brewski on August 30, 2012 - 9:37 pm

    I fact checked your fact checkers and your fact checkers are all wrong. So they need to change their name to two-bit partisan hack spinners, not fact checkers. What a joke.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2012 - 9:47 pm

    Clint Eastwood Delivers Bizarre, Rambling Speech To Empty Chair

    But the most bizarre moment was Romney threatening to attack Iran and start a new Cold War with Russia. Most Republicans are against that, let alone the rest of the country.

  5. #5 by cav on August 30, 2012 - 9:51 pm

    John Huntsman Jr. on Colbert, talking about how Super-pacs are a world-class abomination.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2012 - 9:54 pm

    Fact check- America is better off than four years ago.

    Four years ago our economy was on the verge of collapse, thanks to the Bush administration’s malfeasance. Four years ago the bulk of our ground forces were tied down trying unsuccessfully to occupy Iraq. Four years ago America’s international reputation was in the dumpster.

  7. #7 by Larry Bergan on August 30, 2012 - 10:00 pm

    If I could use one word to describe the strategy of this convention, it would be “folksy”.

    On with the folksy war with Iran!

  8. #8 by cav on August 30, 2012 - 10:01 pm

    I don’t think we’re any better off than we were fourteen years ago.

    Now, let’s see…wonder why that could be?

  9. #9 by Richard Warnick on August 30, 2012 - 10:01 pm

    Former Romney adviser Alex Castellanos on CNN: “He didn’t answer the question that is on everybody’s mind, which is he didn’t offer anything new. He just wanted to go back to Bush.”

    For brewski: Think Progress did a real-time fact-check of Romney. It’s easy because the lies were recycled from his stump speech.

  10. #10 by cav on August 30, 2012 - 10:14 pm

    Still, I remain devoted to Moroni! And hiding my taxes.

    Of course we’ll win. In fact, as of the conclusion of my ‘best speech evah’, and that magnificent balloon drop, I’d say we’ve got it dicked.

  11. #11 by cav on August 30, 2012 - 10:50 pm

    No way the dems are gonna top this. CANNOT BE DONE!!!!!

  12. #12 by Ronald D. Hunt on August 31, 2012 - 12:43 am

    Even fox news is calling him out!!!!

    I would also like to submit this image,

    This is the auto plant Ryan claims Obama closed, Please note the date on the sign is December 23 2008, where as Obama was sworn into office in 2009!!!!

  13. #13 by brewski on August 31, 2012 - 7:53 am

    Think Progress? Really?

    I checked all the fact checkers. They are wrong. You are a sucker for drinking that Kool Aid.

  14. #14 by brewski on August 31, 2012 - 7:56 am

    Sally Kohn is a far left professional activist. The fact that she works for Fox News only shows that Fox News has a high amount of diversity of opinion, while MSNBC does not.

  15. #15 by brewski on August 31, 2012 - 7:58 am

    Re: Janesville GM plant
    Can none of you people read? You are embarrassing yourself saying that Ryan lied. Read it again and get back to me when you finally understand.

  16. #16 by cav on August 31, 2012 - 8:23 am

    What is it you’d have us read brew? Is it written somewhere the plant was actually sabotaged by a massive effort on Obama’s part?

    Perhaps the embarrassment you see…is in the mirror.

  17. #17 by brewski on August 31, 2012 - 8:37 am

    What did Obama say, and what did Ryan say?

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on August 31, 2012 - 8:48 am

    GM Halted SUV-Making in Ryan’s Hometown Before Obama Took Office

    While Obama’s auto task force was working on the automaker’s prepackaged bankruptcy, Ryan called Rattner, who headed the team, to lobby on behalf of the Janesville plant, Rattner said yesterday in a telephone interview.

    “We don’t get involved in those decisions,” Rattner said. “There was no desire to go punish the people of Wisconsin or Janesville. It was simply: Plants were closed all over the country and Janesville was one of them.”

    In other words, for political reasons Rep. Ryan wanted the federal government to intervene in a GM business decision.

  19. #19 by brewski on August 31, 2012 - 8:50 am

    Again, What did Obama say, and what did Ryan say?

  20. #20 by cav on August 31, 2012 - 9:05 am

    ‘If the government cared…’

    Well, I thought we’d resolved that some time back – back even as far into the distant past as the Bush administration.

  21. #21 by Richard Warnick on August 31, 2012 - 9:05 am

    brewski believes his opinions are as good anybody else’s facts.

  22. #22 by cav on August 31, 2012 - 9:07 am

    And as for what rAyn said, that too has been established as at best, only semi truthful.

  23. #23 by brewski on August 31, 2012 - 3:12 pm

    Apparently you can’t read.

  24. #24 by Richard Warnick on August 31, 2012 - 5:35 pm

    I can read very well. Rep. Ryan is sore because the government didn’t intervene to keep an SUV factory from being idled in his district.

    Ryan also requested ARRA funds, one of 128 House Republicans who voted against the stimulus and then turned around and requested money for their districts.

  25. #25 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 7:12 am

    I feel very strongly that this statement from a fact checker really needs to be fact-checked.

    An outside group supporting Mr. Obama ran an advertisement giving the unfair impression that Mr. Romney was responsible for the death of the wife of a steelworker who lost his job and his health insurance when Mr. Romney’s old company, Bain Capital, closed down the plant where he worked.

    You see here’s my problem.

    IF the man lost his job and not only his health insurance but his very ability to pay the premiums on a replacement policy due to Bain Capital loading his company with debt and then selling off whatever they could before leaving the pension plans bankrupt: why isn’t it the director of Bain Capital’s Fault?

    I believe strongly that when you precipitate an action such a closing a plant and devastating people’s lives then you have to “Man up” and take responsibility for what happens to the people whom you deprived of jobs and insurance.

    What they did was perfectly legal if morally unjustifiable.

    But you cannot say that the advertisement is not true for it surely is.

  26. #26 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 7:40 am

    The Chair recognizes the Gentleman from Hawaii, who, will be addressing an empty factory in Wisconsin.

  27. #27 by Larry Bergan on September 1, 2012 - 8:24 am

    Empty chairs are no longer an issue!

    Learn it! Know it! Live it!

    Got it!??

  28. #28 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 11:04 am

    Unless it’s Mitt sitting in it. Then you have a solid sort of emptiness.

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on September 1, 2012 - 11:55 am


    You’ve gone too far.

    Please come back.

  30. #30 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 3:12 pm

    Larry, If I beat y’a’ll down the drain, that matters how exactly?

  31. #31 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 3:34 pm

    These people and their hate. I know things were bad in 2008 but it just feels like they’ve had 4 years to get madder and go crazier. I find their neediness exhausting, And the Dems have allowed themselves to be pulled right-ward with their ‘bipartisan’ ‘I’ll be your baby tonite’ victimisation crap.

    I didn’t leave the party – they left me!

  32. #32 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 4:42 pm

    This year is like that place you come to in the middle of Kansas when you are driving cross country. One fork in the road leads to a super highway into Missouri. The other fork is a bumpy fresh cut road into Missouri. Looks fine anyway you go until you get over the border into Missouri and the super highway you found takes a sharp turn south and dumps everyone into the waters off the Cayman Islands without a paddle. While the other fork ambles towards Canada.

    Watch the signposts up ahead for the Twilight Zone Dude.

  33. #33 by cav on September 1, 2012 - 8:18 pm

  34. #34 by Larry Bergan on September 1, 2012 - 11:07 pm

    Rove’s getting hit from all sides lately. Good to see! REAL GOOD!

  35. #35 by brewski on September 3, 2012 - 8:51 pm

    Every word Ryan said is true. You need to try reading what he actually said and not what you think he said.

  36. #36 by cav on September 3, 2012 - 9:09 pm

    Every word?

    Ya think he really ran a marathon in less than three hours?

  37. #37 by brewski on September 3, 2012 - 9:30 pm

    That wasn’t in his speech was it? I was referring to the convention speech.

  38. #38 by cav on September 3, 2012 - 9:37 pm

  39. #39 by brewski on September 3, 2012 - 9:58 pm

    If that is the standard then we should be calling into question everything Obama has or will say. He is the liar in chief.

    The first link is mildly funny, ha ha.

    The second is full of spin without anything of substance. Not convincing at all.

  40. #40 by cav on September 4, 2012 - 8:43 am

    Are we now at the place in this ridiculous script where we are adopting ‘objective’ lies?

  41. #41 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 9:49 am

    There are verifiable objective facts and therefore verifiable lies. Then there are opinions and spin. Your second link was opinion and spin.

  42. #42 by cav on September 4, 2012 - 10:36 am

    I guess my point is that all of these accusations of deceit are not born in any sanitized, purely objective truthiness. There is at the heart of all the spin – Objective fact! And that there are so many calling Ryan on his ‘brush with the truth’, it may very possibly be that the kernal of truth in all this spin is directed at calling out the socipathic for what it is.

    Did he, or did he not claim to have run a marathon in under three hours? Yes or no. Was the factory in question closed during the Bush administration? Yes or no.

    This, despite any suggestion that President Obama may himself be somewhat truth-impaired is the question regarding Paul Ryan.

    And if you scratch Mitt Romney, you’ll find hes not one whit better.

  43. #43 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 10:48 am

    There are two questions:

    (1) When are Obama-Biden lying?

    (2) When are Romney-Ryan NOT lying?

  44. #44 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 11:02 am

    He never said that that the factory closed under Obama. He never blamed Obama for the factory closing. So there was no lie.

    What the point of that part of the speech was that Obama is an idiot for promising that the plant wouldn’t close. As a candidate Obama said that if the auto bailout went through, then the plant wouldn’t be closed. The bailout did go through and it was closed anyway. The plant was also making cars through April 2009. Also, when the government did take over GM the Janesville plant was on standby status and could have started producing again, as other plants on standby status did.

  45. #45 by cav on September 4, 2012 - 11:04 am

    (1) ?

    (2) When they’re asleep – but only with the qualification that even then, their proxies have their shoulders to the wheel.

    Is my ‘partisanship’ showing?

  46. #46 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 11:05 am

    1. Where their lips are moving.
    2. A lot less than 1.

  47. #47 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 11:06 am

    “General Motors will end medium-duty truck production in Janesville on April 23, four months to the day after the plant stopped building full-size sport utility vehicles.”

  48. #48 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 11:07 am


    Was Rep. Ryan an “idiot” for begging the U.S. government to re-open the auto plant in his district? How about when he requested ARRA funds – after voting against economic recovery?

  49. #50 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 11:09 am

    You just got caught in a big lie. Admit it. You’re worse of a liar than Obama, Biden and Maddow.

  50. #51 by cav on September 4, 2012 - 11:09 am

    In response to brewski:

    I believe, President Obama’s bit about the factory was tempered with the ‘If your government really cared…’ phraseology. Not that that makes a heck of a lot of difference, mind you.

    And the U. S. Government is not to be confused with the Administration of the General Motors Corporation.

    “GM said last June it would end local production…”

  51. #52 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 11:18 am

    Candidate Obama spoke at the Janesville plant in February 2008. Ryan’s claim:

    “Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you, this plant will be here for another hundred years,’ That’s what he said in 2008,” Ryan said at the Republican National Convention last week. “Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.”

    The plant stopped production on Dec. 23, 2008, according to an Associated Press report. The report noted that “about 50” workers remained at the plant until May or June 2009 to complete outstanding orders.

    So, if we’re going to get all Clintonian with what was said:
    (1) In 2008 candidate Obama stated a belief, without promising anything.
    (2) Rep. Ryan might or might not be wrong about how long the plant lasted, depending on what date you use for the closing.

    The part I find interesting is where right-wing Republicans criticize President Obama for not being sufficiently socialist in his policies. Rep. Ryan begged the government to re-open the plant. Does that make sense to anyone?

  52. #53 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 11:29 am

    GM was owned 100% by the government. Obama was in effect the CEO of GM.

    The plant was closed in April 2012. It went on standby and could have been reopened by its owner, the US government, at any time.

  53. #54 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 11:34 am

    Except that the market for SUVs was such that re-opening the plant would have been a mistake, according to GM management. You and Ryan are saying that the U.S. government ought to have gone against the market, a losing proposition that might have hampered GM’s comeback.

    Look, Ryan can’t have it both ways no matter how much he wants to.

  54. #55 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 12:11 pm

    If re-opening the plant would have been a mistake, then why did Obama say it could stay open for 100 years?

  55. #56 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 12:12 pm

    No, Ryan and I are saying that Obama is an idiot for telling people that their plant would stay open for 100 years even though YOU said it should close.

  56. #57 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 12:29 pm

    GM decided to close the plant in December 2008, following an economic collapse and near-depression brought about by Republican policy blunders (that Rep. Ryan voted for). The plant was already experiencing layoffs in February 2008, when Obama said it could be kept open with government support, but its troubles were relatively minor at that point. Ryan actually requested government help to re-open the plant in the middle of a recession.

    So, who is the bigger socialist?

  57. #58 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 12:39 pm

    So Obama made a statement about the economy for 100 years in the future, and he couldn’t get a few months right. So who is the idiot?

  58. #59 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 12:43 pm

    “(Reuters) – Manufacturing in the United States shrank at its sharpest clip in more than three years last month, a survey showed on Tuesday,”
    September 4, 2012

    Blame Bush!

  59. #60 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 1:01 pm

  60. #61 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 2:11 pm

    In context, candidate Obama said that the Janesville, Wisconsin plant could re-tool for “a clean energy economy” with government help… “and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your president.”

    But in 2012 the Democratic Party has given up on clean energy and adopted the Republican “drill baby drill” policy.

  61. #62 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 4:50 pm

    Tonight starts the Liars Convention:
    “For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights,”
    Except for slavery, segregation, and anti-equality, this would be true.

  62. #63 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 4:55 pm

    The GOP doesn’t really want to go there. Not after the unconstitutional “papers please” laws and the unconstitutional voter suppression laws.

  63. #64 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 4:59 pm

    Why do you insist on lying ever after I caught you in other bald faced lies? Nothing you say is ever true. I always prove you to be verifiably wrong. You just did it again.

  64. #65 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 5:16 pm

    The Supreme Court decision on “papers please” did not make it constitutional. The Court dodged the issue, waiting to see how the law is enforced.

    “The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of [Section] 2(B),” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, noting that the law has not yet gone into effect. Because “[t]here is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” the majority chose to allow the law to go forward, but made clear that “[t]his opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

    Voter ID has been ruled unconstitutional in Wisconsin and Texas. The judge in Pennsylvania used strained logic in order to claim their law was OK by the Constitution. It’s not.

    Of all the textually guaranteed rights in the Constitution, “the right to vote” is mentioned most often — indeed, beginning in 1868, it has been reaffirmed no fewer than five times, in § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment, the Nineteenth Amendment, § 1 of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and § 1 of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment.

    It’s true that none of these provisions says, “Every citizen has a fundamental right to vote, and we ain’t playing with you when we say that.” Instead, they protect against specific grounds of abridgment. But no other right in the Constitution is spelled out that way either. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the “right to keep and bear arms” — these rights are also, in the same kind of language, assumed to exist and protected against state abridgment.

  65. #66 by brewski on September 4, 2012 - 6:02 pm

    There is nothing about asking people to prove that they are who they say there are in any way infringes on their right to vote. Why does it work in Germany but can’t work here?

  66. #67 by Richard Warnick on September 4, 2012 - 6:57 pm

    Oh, great. “It works in Germany.” Listen to yourself. That is not an argument in favor of “papers please.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: