Media Calls Out Paul Ryan Acceptance Speech For Falsehoods

[Option D]

I saw that even Fox News called him out on his bullshit.


Why bother defending this weasley schmuck at this point?

Yeah, its  very funny at this point

[Fury]

It's almost like Obama doesn't constantly lie through his teeth.

LOL @ bitter butthurt "progs" who are getting a taste of Chicago politics.

[Soul Crusher]

Bump for Hugo 

Obama Camp Melts Down Over Ryan's Speech

By Guy Benson

8/30/2012


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/30/obama_camp_melts_down_over_ryans_speech




 The Obama campaign is lashing out at Paul Ryan, claiming that his fantastic convention speech last night was packed with falsehoods and lies.  Here's their hysterical response video:



To the surprise of no one, the ad's "rebuttals" are misleading and wrong themselves.  Point by point:
 
 
(1) They begin with video of CNN reporters discussing accusations of Ryan's "lies." This is proof that the Obama campaign sent out a lot of angry emails, and nothing else.
 
(2) Medicare - Sorry, guys, but it is 100 percent true that Obamacare raided $716 Billion from Medicare to pay for itself.  It does cut benefits to current seniors.  And Paul Ryan's plan took the president's Medicare "savings," and re-routed them back into Medicare to shore up the program.  Mitt Romney's plan would undo those cuts altogether.  Obama took those cuts and used them to pay for Obamacare.  He has admitted this on camera:
 
(3) The GM Plant - Part of the factory Ryan mentioned was shut down under Bush, despite the initial GM bailout (which Senator Obama supported).  The plant finally fully closed in April of 2009, during Obama's presidency, as this report clearly states.  Obama's problem is that he showed up and made empty promises to pander for votes.  Ryan never said Obama was personally responsible for the plant's closure, but he accurately stated that it closed down within a year of candidate Obama's hope-filled speech and remains closed today.  Obama goes on and on about "saving" the auto industry and his economic recovery.  That boarded-up Janesville plant tells a different story.
 
(4) The Stimulus - Pointing out that Paul Ryan asked that his district receive a slice of a giant, wasteful pie after it was passed -- and despite his opposition -- is at worst an instance of hypocrisy.  It does not disprove anything that Ryan said in his speech, and it does not change the empirical fact that Barack Obama's borrowed stimulus has utterly failed based on the metrics for success Obama himself set out for it.
 
(5) The debt commission - What Ryan said is absolutely correct.  The Obama ad quotes Chris Wallace, who notes that Ryan was on that commission and voted against it.  True.  He refused to abide the section maintaining Obamacare, and voted no on its final findings.  Still, he was intimately involved in the group's deliberations and proposed solutions.  Not fully happy with the final outcome, he went on to craft two budgets of his own, with numerous elements based on the Simpson-Bowles framework.  The commission's Democratic co-chairman (Bowles of Simpson-Bowles) has praised Ryan's proposals to the hilt.  Barack Obama, who convened the commission in the first place after deriding commissions on the campaign trail, completely ignored its recommendations and proceeded to propose to wildly reckless, debt-busting budgets that received a total of zero votes in either house of Congress.  Correctly asserting that Ryan opposed the final Simpson-Bowles recommendations is no way absolves Obama for his demonstrable abdication of leadership on these issues.  It's more smoke and mirrors -- and more petty Obama blame, another central theme of Ryan's address.
 
(6) Chris Matthews called the speech "nasty."  Stop the presses!
 

If this is all they've got, it's no wonder they're freaking out.  Paul Ryan told the truth about Barack Obama, and the president's campaign can't handle it.
 

UPDATE - More smoking-gun video, this time on the GM plant.  This aired in April 2009:
 
 



Guy Benson
 Guy Benson is Townhall.com's Political Editor. Follow him on Twitter @guypbenson.

[blacken700]

why do you post some right wing hack as truth 

[Fury]

why do you post some right wing hack as truth 

Funny coming from the guy who posts ThinkProgress articles without sourcing them because he knows how biased they are. 

[Soul Crusher]

why do you post some right wing hack as truth 

Forbes is right wingto you 

[blacken700]

Funny coming from the guy who posts ThinkProgress articles without sourcing them because he knows how biased they are. 

i like how you and your boyfriend stick up fpr one another it's nice   

[Soul Crusher]

BY GABRIEL MALOR



The Democrats' least effective spokesperson said today that Republicans should have further reduced their convention plans out of respect for the victims of Hurricane Isaac. Within minutes, I was bombarded by delighted emails, tweets, and texts most of which expressed some variation of "she's done it again!"

Look, there are things that -- as a person who simply does not have enough hours in the day -- I am not going to give serious consideration to no matter how much you want to talk about them: conspiracy theories, diet plans, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, atonal post-punk revival. You get the idea.

So instead of dwelling on President Obama's worst proxy of the day, I thought it would better to consider the President's best: media fact checkers.

Just after Rep. Paul Ryan's speech last night, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent an e-mail blast claiming that Ryan had "lied" about Medicare, the stimulus, the deficit and the General Motors plant closure in Ryan's home town. The media jumped like good little lapdogs, claiming that the cited parts of Ryan's speech were indeed false. This Associated Press "fact check" is typical. But every Ryan statement criticized is either absolutely true or not a fact at all, but a matter of opinion.

Townhall's Guy Benson blows up each of the AP's (and Messina's) objections. The bottom line is that the fact checker criticisms of Ryan's speech come in only one form: "Yes it's true, but here's some context that Democrats want to talk about." That's not fact checking; that's advocacy. And it's not persuasive, it's absurd.

If they stay on this course, media fact checkers, as a class, are going to be regarded as having as much credibility as Wasserman Schultz. This has already begun. In response to Republicans' continued riffs on the President's "you didn't build that" comment, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler yesterday pulled out the big guns, saying he was "compelled to increase the Pinocchio rating to Four." In response, I'm compelled to observe that this will not change Republicans' minds -- I give it four hallucinating Dumbos.

Human Events' Jon Cassidy took a hard look at another media fact checker, PolitiFact, which instead of the Washington Post's childish Pinocchios, rates political statements on a scale of "True" to "Pants on Fire." Cassidy found that in many cases PolitiFact writers investigated claims that are matters of opinion, rather than fact. That's not fact checking, either; that's punditry. And (ahem) pundits are a dime a dozen.

I get why media fact checking got so popular in the past four years. Assigning truth values to the silly things elected officials say is entertaining and, often, enlightening. But as fact-checking becomes less about checking facts and more about checking opinions, attention will fade. Wasserman Shultz is ineffective not because she fails to entertain, but because she's not credible. As readers come to realize that media fact checkers are merely writing op-eds by another name, they too will be dismissed as easily as Wasserman Schultz. 

(Photo: New York Daily News)


http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers