Fox News on Lyin’ Ryan

A Fox News contributor unloads on Paul Ryan’s mendacity

I don’t pay much attention to Fox News, so I don’t know anything about Sally Kohn. Maybe she’s Fox’s official in-house heretic. But the passage below is an astounding passage to appear anywhere about any national candidate, let alone in a Republican house organ about the Republican VP nominee. (As JFK said when the Wall Street Journal went after Nixon, “That like L’Osservatore Romano criticizing the Pope.”)

The headline is “Ryan’s Speech in Three Words.” Here’s the second of the three words:

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.

Maybe they can’t get away with this sh*t, after all.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

7 thoughts on “Fox News on Lyin’ Ryan”

  1. On the “Trending” section of their front page, it’s #1.
    Here’s her website:
    “Fox News asked me to write the liberal response to Paul Ryan’s GOP convention speech last night. So I did. I described it in three words: Dazzling, Deceiving and Distracting.”

    1. “Fox News asked me to write the liberal response”

      If King Rupert didn’t want it on his Noise Machine, it wouldn’t have run. Why on earth is Murdoch letting this run? Because these people are third-raters?!?

      1. I guess they’re trying to live up to that “fair and balanced” motto. We’ll have to see if this becomes a regular thing or gets seen as a mistake.

  2. That’s how she’s walking it back? You know, I didn’t see anything about “liberal response” when I clicked through. It looked to me like she was speaking in her own (probably soon to be strangled) voice. I don’t think this will satisfy Rush or Rupert so it could be that a brief moment of honesty could cost her a lifetime of wingnut welfare.

  3. Could it be that Murloch sees more money in having Barack Hussein Obama to rail against than the hollow cypher of Mitt Romney proving how hollow the ideas of the right really are. At least Bush believed in his horse sh*t and got peoples’ blood pumping. The only person who seems to be excited about Mitt is his wife.

Comments are closed.