Romney selecting Paul Ryan as is running mate

[boutons_deux]

worth repeating:

10 Reasons Romney's Choice of Paul Ryan for Veep Is Smarter Than You Think

1. Romney was in danger of losing badly, so a gamble was worth the risk.

The polls and trends were going in the wrong direction as Obama was ahead by 9 percent among all voters and 11 percent among independents. As Michael Goodwin writes in the New York Post [4]:

Romney was on course to lose the election...perhaps by a landslide...Independents, despite being unhappy with Obama, were even more unhappy with Romney. And too many Republicans remain unenthusiastic about their party's nominee.

So Romney had to do something to energize the campaign, or he was dead in the water. Pick Ryan.

2. Romney is now seen as bold. By picking a controversial choice, a young, mediagenic, so-called brainy numbers guy, and one loved by the conservative base, Romney passed up the gaggle of more boring white guys who populated the pundits' predictions, to pick the radical one. But here, in fact, Romney has it both ways. Ryan is not a Palin or a Rubio -- a wild card -- but rather a well-positioned Republican with major mainstream and corporate credibility, whom the media often has gone ga-ga over. And Ryan is an insider -- Erskine Bowles (the co-chair of the Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission, and rumored to be the next Secretary of the Treasury), has lavished lots of praise on to Ryan, who served on the commission, as have many others.

3. Did I mention Ryan is Catholic? We hear how the conservative Catholic bishops are trying to push Catholic voters to Romney, who has obviously come late to his anti-abortion stance. And among Catholic voters, Romney's Mormonism isn't exactly a plus. Still any anti-abortion politician is better than Obama in the bishops' minds. For the bishops, their task became easier with Ryan (even if they have a problem or two with his budget proposal), who is as conservative as they come, being against abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Those Catholics who are inclined to vote conservative are now very excited. And, in fact, it's not just far-right Catholics to whom Ryan appeals. A lot of voters in this country, for some reason, really like candidates who stick to rigid principles, even if those principles contradict their own. Ryan will get some of those voters.

4. Romney now has even more money. Romney has been doing fine, raising hundreds of millions from investment bankers and other pots of big wealth from the 1/10th of the top 1 percent. Still the Ryan choice is a huge motivator to the group of rabid right-wing billionaires around Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who fund and raise money for right-wing candidates, and an array of right-wing groups. Ryan has been a Koch favorite for years, supported and featured in myriad ways. The Kochs have promised, with Karl Rove, to raise $400 million for the so-called "independent superPACs". Now, with all those billionaires jazzed over Ryan, the sky may be the limit. There is talk of the superPACs and the Romney campaign raising and spending $1.2 billion -- and now maybe even more.

5. Romney gets the full Koch election infrastructure. Solidifying the alliance with the Kochs is even more about infrastructure than campaign dollars, which will be plentiful. As my colleague Adele Stan, who covers the Kochs and conservative election field operations, explains:

The Kochs, via Americans for Prosperity and Faith and Freedom Coalition, own the infrastructure for the ground game in the swing states. They've been building it for years. That's not something any amount of money can build in the three months leading up to the election. Romney really, really needs Koch buy-in.

6. Ryan seals the deal for a base-motivating campaign in the worst tradition of the Republicans. Republicans win when they run to their base, and play the "us versus them" card for their anxious cons uencies. Voter suppression tactics of all sorts are in play, especially in Florida and Pennsylvania. Taken together, Ryan's earnest demeanor and brutal budgets act as an a elixir for grassroots conservatives; the base will now be super-motivated.

Bush won two terms without winning the majority of the popular vote because the GOP wanted the win more than the Democrats -- and Republicans cheat more. As Thomas Schaller writes at Salon [5]:

By picking [Ryan], Romney provides a powerful signal that he is willing to counter Obama's failed attempt to unite America with an unapologetic attempt to win via econo-demographic divide and conquer politics.

7. The Romney campaign will now be the most brutal, race-tinged, fact-absent, expensive, technologically sophisticated campaign ever run. This presidential race is increasingly polarized. Polling shows that Obama has lost most of the non-college-educated white male voters he was able to capture in 2008. As Charles Blow points out [6] in the New York Times:

A staggering 90 percent of Romney supporters are white. Only 4 percent are Hispanic, less than 1 percent are black and another 4 percent are another race.

And of uncommitted "swing" voters, Blow writes:

Nearly three out of four are white. The rest are roughly 8 percent blacks Hispanics and another race.

Schaller adds: "Don't be surprised in the Romney-Ryan ticket engages in the sort of racially tinged, generationally loaded en lement politics practiced by the Tea Party..."

8. While the VP pick isn't going to change the mind of many independent or hard-core party voters, it is a move to bring all elements of the party in sync. Progressive pundits, just a few days ago, were saying: Oh, the VP pick doesn't make much difference...maybe, at best, a 2 percent swing. Today is apparently a new day, and progressives are pouncing on this choice as being a huge plus for Obama. Well, ya can't have it both ways. Republican wins are always about turning out the base to the polls. Ryan probably won't make that much difference on the large scale, but he becomes the thunderbolt to rouse the base, which appears to love him, even if he is a media-created fraud. In fact, Ryan may be the most effective political phony in America.

9. Repeat: Paul Ryan is the most effective phony in American politics today. When Romney picked Ryan, he was grabbing one of the great teflon politicians of all time. Ryan has a tremendous ability to appear earnest while lying through his teeth, as he did recently when he repeated Romney's lie about Obama and welfare work requirements. Ryan represents what Salon's Joan Walsh calls [7]the "fakery at the heart of the Republican project today." She adds:

[Ryan,] the man who who wants to make the world safe for swashbuckling, risk-taking capitalists, hasn't spent a day at economic risk in his life.

Guys like Ryan "somehow become the political face of the white working class when they never spent a day in that class in their life," writes Walsh. He has, she says, a "remarkable ability to tap into the economic anxiety of working class whites and steer it toward paranoia that their troubles are the fault of other people -- the slackers and the moochers, Ayn Rand;'s famous 'parasites' ..."

10. The Conservative tribe is now ready to fight all of its enemies. The conservatives and Republicans know what team they are on -- and that tribal iden y is more important to them than any idea of hegemonic cultural iden y could possibly be to liberals. For one, the conservative team is almost totally white, and far more genous, while more than 43 percent of Obama's supporters are people of color. Add in that conservative brand of resentment -- the "makers versus the takers" -- and it becomes clear who represents the conservative notion of a "maker." With Ryan as the standard-bearer for the self-described "makers," the team has its galvanizer.


http://www.alternet.org/print/electi...rter-you-think

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan's Faux Populism

On Friday, Paul Ryan, the presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee, made the most populist speech of this campaign season.

"It's the people who are politically connected, it's the people who have access to Washington that get the breaks," he told an enthusiastic crowd of over 2,000 at a high school gym in Virginia.

"Well, no more. We don't want to pick winners and losers in Washington... . Hardworking taxpayers should be treated fairly and it should be based on whether they're good, whether they work hard and not who they know in Washington. That's entrepreneurialism. That's free enterprise."

Sounds good, but earlier this week - three days after being picked as Romney's running-mate - Ryan went to Las Vegas to pay homage to Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire who is the poster boy for using money to become "politically connected" in Washington, and getting the "breaks" that come with it. Adelson has promised to donate up to $100 million to make sure Romney and Ryan are in the White House next year.

Much of Adelson's fortune comes from his casino in Macau, in China, via his money-greased access to Washington.

When China's pitch for the 2008 Olympics was endangered by a House resolution opposing the bid because of China's "abominable human rights record," Adelson phoned Tom DeLay, then House majority whip and recipient of Adelson's political generosity - urging him to block the resolution, which DeLay promptly did. The next day, according to the New York Times, a Chinese vice premier promised Mr. Adelson an endless line of gamblers to the Macau casino.

The money Adelson has committed to putting Romney and Ryan into the White House is a business investment. Adelson has a lot riding on the 2012 election.

Last year, his Las Vegas Sands Corporation came under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - bribing Chinese officials to help expand its casino in Macau.

The U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles, meanwhile, is investigating whether the Sands Corporation violated federal money-laundering laws by accepting more than $100 million from high-rolling gamblers accused of drug trafficking and embezzlement, rather than reporting the su ious funds to the government.

Ryan has also been a major recipient of contributions from billionaire energy moguls Charles and David Koch. Koch Industries PAC has donated more than $100,000 to Ryan's campaigns and his leadership PAC - more than any other corporate PAC, according to a NY Times analysis of campaign records.

You see, Koch industries spans a variety of oil and gas investments - whose value would be compromised if Congress and the White House got serious about climate change.

Small wonder Paul Ryan has emerged as one of Congress's most outspoken skeptics of climate change. He has also repeatedly voted against energy efficiency standards, including a House vote to prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Several months ago, when I debated Paul Ryan on ABC-TV's This Week, he said we need to shrink the size of government because big corporations and wealthy individuals otherwise use government to their advantage.

"If the power and money are going to be here in Washington, that's where the influence is going to go ... that's where the powerful are going to go to influence it," he said.

It's an odd argument coming from Ryan because his proposed budget doesn't shrink government by cutting benefits and payments to big business and the rich. He increases military payments to defense contractors, for example, slashes Wall Street regulations, and gives giant tax benefits to the rich.

His budget shrinks government mainly by cutting benefits and payments to the poor and lower-income Americans. Over 60 percent of his spending cuts target programs for Americans in the bottom third of the income ladder.

Ryan is correct when he says "it's the people who are politically connected, it's the people who have access to Washington that get the breaks."

But his faux populism obscures the main point. A much smaller government still dominated by money would continue to do the bidding of billionaires like casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, energy moguls like the Koch bothers, military contractors, and other high rollers now actively trying to put Ryan and Romney into the White House.

It just wouldn't do anything for the rest of us.

http://readersupportednews.org/opini...-faux-populism

[boutons_deux]

More on the FRAUD Ryan, subsidizing carbon companies he and his family are financed by

Paul Ryan’s Big Oil budget halts energy innovation

House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2012 budget resolution is a backward-looking plan that would benefit big oil companies at the expense of middle-class Americans. It retains $40 billion in Big Oil tax loopholes while completely eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future that are essential for long-term economic growth.

This budget would lock Americans into paying high, volatile energy prices. It would ensure that millions of clean energy jobs are created oversees-not here in the United States. It is a path backward to Bush-Cheney Big Oil energy policies that cost jobs and harm American compe iveness. In short, the Ryan plan ensures that we lose the high-stakes compe ion for the $2 trillion worldwide clean tech market.

Ryan claims in an April 4 Wall Street Journal op-ed that his plan “rolls back expensive handouts for uncompe ive sources of energy, calling instead for a free and open marketplace for energy development, innovation and exploration.” This is false. Ryan’s proposal actually violates his assertion in two ways. It maintains wasteful subsidies for Big Oil, while cutting valuable investments in the clean energy technologies of the future.

Let’s consider each of these in turn. First, Ryan’s plan would continue “welfare” for big oil companies. Ryan was asked several times in a recent interview whether his plan would “eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil,” but he refused to answer. Evading an uncomfortable question was his acknowledgment that his budget hatchet leaves Big Oil tax breaks untouched . This is consistent with his recent vote to keep Big Oil tax loopholes as part of the FY 2011 spending bill, while cutting education, medical research, and clean-tech investments.

In addition to receiving $40 billion of unnecessary tax breaks, Big Oil does not pay its fair share of royalties for oil and gas produced from publicly owned waters. The Government Accountability Office estimates that a loophole in a 1990s oil-and-gas law could deprive the treasury of $53 billion in lost royalties. In February, the House Republicans overwhelmingly voted against recovering these royalties. Although Ryan’s budget claims that it “stops spending money the government doesn’t have,” it does nothing to recoup these forgone funds. This is another gift for Big Oil, paid for by middle-class taxpayers who must suffer the consequences of other steep spending cuts.

The proposed budget resolution doesn’t just contain billions of dollars of welfare for Big Oil. It would also slash investments in the research, development, and deployment of the clean energy technologies of the future. It would cut clean energy investments [1] by more than half for FY 2011, by two-thirds for FY 2013, and by 90 percent in 2014 to just $1 billion. This will take us back to the miserly clean energy budgets of President Bush.

The proposed budget would weaken the economy and increase the deficit by disinvesting in long-term economic growth the clean-tech sector fosters. For instance, the electric vehicles of the future will require advanced batteries, and the American economy will benefit if those batteries are made here. The federal government invested seed money beginning in 2009 to launch such an industry here. Former Governor Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) observed that “Just as a result of federal policy on batteries alone…have attracted 17 [battery] companies who are projected to create 63,000 jobs.”

But Ryan’s budget will nearly eliminate funding for this and other R&D programs that can lead to advances to battery technology. It also eliminates loan guarantees that can help manufacturing plants get built in the United States, and ignores investments to build a battery-charging infrastructure essential to expand the market for electric vehicles and reduce oil use.

Much of DOE’s spending on clean energy programs leverages significant private investment. This varies by program, of course, and is roughly linked to the product development cycle.

For example, the Advanced Research Project Administration-Energy, or ARPA-E, program gives relatively small grants to companies doing early research into advanced technologies. This leverages a small amount of private investment in the short term, but sets the companies up to attract larger private investments later on. ARPA-E tries to link companies that have received grants with private venture capital investors. Yet funding for this program was eliminated by the House passed budget for the remainder of FY 2011, and will likely be excluded by the Ryan budget as well.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Department of Energy loan guarantee program leverages significant private investment. It provides financing to help companies grow new technologies to commercial scale. Since borrowers are very likely to pay back loans, this generates significant private investment from both banks and equity investors. The amount varies by project, but on average, $1 in government spending yields $13 in private investment , which helps generate economic growth. The House-passed spending bill eliminated this vital program for the remainder of FY 2011, and it will likely be eliminated when the details of Ryan’s proposal are made public. Only in a Big Oil budget would spending $1 to generate $13 more in economic activity be called an “expensive handout.”

These investments spark economic growth, including more jobs and local development. The Boston Globe reported that Massachusetts clean-tech companies received $20 million in federal funds that “raised nearly five times as much””$95 million””from private investors. The money has helped create several dozen jobs, expand offices, and lay the groundwork for new manufacturing as the companies begin testing technologies on ever-larger scales.”

Rep. Ryan’s proposed budget also disregards the economic benefits of a clean energy future to middle-class families. In addition to creating new industries and jobs, clean energy sources that rely on homegrown wind, solar, geothermal energy, or efficiency will insulate Americans from rising and volatile energy prices.

An innovation-based economy requires government support for scientific research, development, and deployment. Such investments create domestic manufacturing jobs producing new clean-tech products. Without federal investments in innovation and clean-tech start up companies, it is very difficult to create a supply chain of related jobs that provide essential goods and services for these new technologies. Meanwhile our compe ors invest heavily in the development of their clean-tech industries. China, for instance, invests $12 billion monthly in its wind, solar, and other renewable clean energy projects. The Ryan budget’s cutbacks in innovation investments condemn Americans to a future where new job creation happens overseas rather than at home.

The Ryan budget undermines our economy in another way. It goes backward by continuing to allow harmful, costly pollution. Its attacks on “environmental regulations” ignore their economic benefit. The Environmental Protection Agency, for instance, determined that the Clean Air Act has generated $20 in benefits for every $1 in cleanup costs””a return on investment that would make Warren Buffet proud.

Paul Ryan’s proposed budget resolution would keep Big Oil fat and happy while condemning the rest of us to high energy prices, job losses to other nations, and air pollution. Rather than foster innovation and economic growth like President Obama’s proposed budget, it is a path to perdition.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...budget-energy/

[Winehole23]

This Is Not the Ryan Effect You Are Looking For

By Daniel Larison • August 21, 2012, 5:28 PM

• 
• 
• 

Pew’s new survey includes some bad news for Ryanmaniacs:

The report notes that Ryan’s numbers are slightly worse than some comparable Democratic running mates from previous elections:

Views of the Ryan vice presidential selection are somewhat less positive than those for John Edwards in 2004 and Al Gore in 1992.

There doesn’t seem to be much support here for the idea that there is a Ryan-inspired “movement” taking off across the country. Even among Republicans, there is not as much strong approval for the choice as one would have expected. When 20% of your own partisans are underwhelmed by the choice, and another 20% don’t know what to think about it, that suggests that choosing a relatively obscure Congressman who has spent his entire career in Washington may not have been the clever political maneuver that many movement conservatives believe it to be. The reaction among independents is more of a problem. Considering how poorly-known Ryan still is to most voters, it doesn’t bode well that 42% of independents already give the choice a fair or poor rating.
Another detail that should give Ryan fans pause is that the vast majority of Americans has no idea that Ryan is the one responsible for his Medicare reform proposal:

At this point, most Americans do not associate Ryan with the proposal to change Medicare. Just 23% of those who have heard about the idea of shifting Medicare to a system of credits to buy private insurance identify it as Ryan’s [bold mine-DL]. Nearly as many (17%) say Barack Obama proposed this, while 44% do not know who proposed it.

If most Americans don’t link Ryan with a proposal half of them reject, that could mean that approval of the Ryan choice is artificially high. What happens to those numbers when voters discover that this proposal came from Ryan? Nothing good for the Republican ticket, I’ll wager.
Update: A new WSJ/NBC News poll finds that Ryan’s selection has so far had no meaningful impact on the race:

Some 22% of those polled said Mr. Romney’s pick of Mr. Ryan as his running mate made them more likely to back the Republican ticket, while an almost equal share, 23%, said it made them less likely to do so. Some 54% said it made no difference.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...e-looking-for/

[Winehole23]

Wisconsin went from leans Obama to toss up. Otherwise, the Ryan bounce is pretty hard to detect.

[boutons_deux]

"Ryan-inspired “movement” taking off across the country."

That's another LIE from the Fox Repug Propanda network, etc, pimping bounce that's not there, beyond more enthusiasm, and rally screaming from the base that had little for Gecko.

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan's Top 10 Falsehoods and Outrages... from Just His First Week on the Campaign Trail

1. Ryan’s position opposing abortion even in cases of rape, and his attempts to define cytoblasts as legal ‘persons’ (which would outlaw all termination of pregnancies and some forms of birth control) came under scrutiny when Republican Todd Akin, running for the Senate in Missouri, provoked a furor. [3] Akin said he opposed abortion even in cases of rape because in ‘legitimate rape’ the woman’s body rejects fertilization. Akin’s insensitivity to a situation that affects a third of a million American women every decade, plus his ignorance of Biology 101, drew widespread condemnation. Mitt Romney put out a statement that both he and Ryan believed abortion was permitted in case of rape. Problem: Ryan has repeatedly opposed that position and appears to agree [4] with Akin more than with his running mate.

2. Ryan keeps attacking Prsident Obama’s stimulus program now [5]. But in 2002 when then President George W. Bush proposed stimulus spending, Ryan supported it. “What we’re trying to accomplish today with the passage of this third stimulus package is to create jobs and help the unemployed,” Ryan told MSNBC in 2002.

3. Even more embarrassing, in 2010, Ryan asked for $20 million in stimulus money from Obama for companies in his district, then repeatedly denied requesting stimulus funds. [6] He finally admitted he had done so, but continues to slam the stimulus program as a failure (even though the economy pulled out of a Depression as a result of it).

4. Ryan slammed President Obama for the closure of an auto plant [7] that closed in late 2008 under George W. Bush. Ryan’s running mate, Mitt Romney, opposed Obama’s actual auto bailout, which was a great success and returned Detroit to profitability.

5. When Ryan was challenged on his lack of foreign policy credentials, he replied that he had ‘voted to send men to war.’ [8]That is, he is boasting that his support of the illegal and disastrous Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq qualifies him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. The Iraq War left over 4,000 US service personnel dead, over 30,000 seriously wounded, and likely hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead; failed to uncover any weapons of mass destruction, contributed to the US debt, and led to the takeover of Iraq by Shiite elements close to Iran, who are now helping Iran get around US sanctions. Does Ryan really want to run on that record of foreign policy ‘success’?

6. Paul Ryan charges that Barack Obama has ‘stolen’ $700 billion from medicare for his Obamacare. In fact, these expense reductions do not cut Medicare benefits, and, moreover, Romney and Ryan supported these reductions! [9] The difference is that they would give the savings to the affluent, whereas Obama uses them to cover the presently uninsured.

7. Ryan, seeking the youth vote, was foolish enough to list “Rage against the Machine” as one of his favorite bands. Band leader Tom Morello lambasted him, saying Ryan is the embodiment of the machine [10] against which they are raging. Face it, Ryan, you are stuck with Megadeath and Ted Nugent.

8. It became clear that under Ryan’s tax plan, Gov. Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in annual federal taxes, highlighting Romney’s already low rate compared to ordinary Americans (slightly lower than Ryan’s own!) and putting the spotlight back where Ryan’s appointment was supposed to misdirect it.

9. It turns out Ryan and his wife own shares in oil and gas companies that indirectly benefit from tax breaks for Big Oil [11] that he wants to keep in the federal budget.

10. Ryan continues to push his longstanding plans for a steal-from-the-elderly-and-give-to-the-rich medicare plan, which President Obama warned would cost ordinary recipients over $6000 a year extra. Politifact checked and rated Obama’s charge as correct, though they noted [12] that the figures referred to CBO analyses of Ryan’s last plan, not his ‘new’ one, which hasn’t been subjected to similar analysis. Ryan certainly recently put forward a plan that would cost ordinary people that much extra.

http://www.alternet.org/election-201...campaign-trail

[Winehole23]

a bit of movement detected on the fiercely partisan TPM:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archive....php?ref=fpblg

[AFBlue]

Wisconsin went from leans Obama to toss up. Otherwise, the Ryan bounce is pretty hard to detect.

It's early. Ryan will get introduced to the larger population at the convention, and will probably seal his impact at the debate...unless he flubs every interview and destroys his credibility to irrecoverable levels in the interim.

[boutons_deux]

"destroys his credibility to irrecoverable levels"

for people who really know his record, he's already irrecovderably known as an unserious budgeteer and fraud. He has a long trail he hasn't bothered to hide the way Gecko has destroyed/secreted his records.

But it would be typical of shallow, ignorant Americans, a majority?, to ignore his record, to ignore the many trashings of his record and budget, and suckeredly buy his VEEP candidate bull only.

[boutons_deux]

Still Praising Ryan as ‘Fiscal Hawk’

The U.S. news media continues to hail Rep. Paul Ryan as a “fiscal hawk” despite the ocean of red ink in his budget plan. The latest to misrepresent Ryan’s record is the New York Times’ Katharine Q. Seelye, who famously distorted Al Gore’s words in Campaign 2000

it’s important to “look at what [Ryan’s] budget (pdf) actually proposes (as opposed to vaguely promises) in its first decade. First, there are a set of tax cuts for higher income brackets and corporations. The Tax Policy Center (pdf) estimates the cost of these tax cuts, relative to current policy, at $4.3 trillion.

“Second, there are spending cuts. Of these, approximately $800 billion comes from converting Medicaid into a block grant that grows only with population and overall inflation – a big cut compared with projections that take into account rising health-care costs and an aging population (since the elderly and disabled account for most Medicaid expenses).

“Another $130 billion comes from doing something similar to food stamps. Then there are odds and ends – Pell grants, job training. Be generous and call all of this $1 trillion in specified cuts.

“On top of this we should add the $700 billion in Medicare cuts that Ryan denounces in Obamacare but nonetheless incorporates into his own plan. So if we look at the actual policy proposals, they look like this: Spending cuts: $1.7 trillion; Tax cuts: $4.3 trillion. This is, then, a plan that would increase the deficit by around $2.6 trillion.

“How, then, does Ryan get to call himself a fiscal hawk? By asserting that he will keep his tax cuts revenue-neutral by broadening the base in ways he refuses to specify, and that he will make further large cuts in spending, in ways he refuses to specify. And this is what passes inside the Beltway for serious thinking and a serious commitment to deficit reduction.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/08/22...s-fiscal-hawk/

[boutons_deux]

Paul Ryan Even Can't Tell the Truth About His Marathon Time

Paul Ryan cannot even be honest about how fast he can run. To be more accurate, Paul Ryan lied about how fast he could run twenty years ago. In fact, his own brother called him out on his lie and mocked him relentlessly. Ryan had claimed that he once ran a 26 mile marathon in under three hours.

“The race was more than 20 years ago, but my brother Tobin—who ran Boston last year—reminds me that he is the owner of the fastest marathon in the family and has never himself ran a sub-three. If I were to do any rounding, it would certainly be to four hours, not three. He gave me a good ribbing over this at dinner tonight.”

The safe thing to do when dealing with Paul Ryan and math is to assume massive rounding errors on pretty much every number he gives you. The man is the biggest liar we have ever seen on a presidential or vice-presidential level. He is a bigger liar than Sarah Palin, Nixon, or Spiro Agnew. If he's moving his lips, he's telling a lie.

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-vie...tter703229&t=3

the sicko sociopath is also a pathological liar.

[mavs>spurs]

he pays more taxes than you though

[boutons_deux]

he pays more taxes than you though

He's lying sack of that his money won't wash away.

[boutons_deux]

Ryan Calls Nomination Greatest Triumph Since Winning Tour de France

Fresh from the 2012 Republican National Convention, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) today called being nominated for Vice President his greatest personal triumph “since I won the Tour de France, in 2006.”

“That feeling of adrenaline when I was onstage with Mitt,” he told reporters on the campaign trail. “It felt exactly like that when I crossed the finish line in Marseille.”

When a reporter pointed out that the Tour de France ends in Paris, not Marseille, Mr. Ryan said, “My bad. I’m always mixing them up, ever since I won the Open 13 tennis tournament in Marseille.”

Mr. Ryan said he would bring an athlete’s focus to winning the White House in November: “Every little boy dreams of winning a World Series or a Heisman Trophy or getting to the White House. I’m already two out of three.”

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz25GLJkGRn