As you all may remember from the news programs there are people out there who dissect political speeches the second that politicians finish talking. Most recent victim was the Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan and his speech to the GOP Convention. I watch to the speech and thought that it was a great speech that was geared to make Ryan out to be the Vice-President attack dog that many said he should be.
The question is why would you put some false information in a speech like that? How hard would it have been to find more credible attacks on President Obama's record? There are a multitude of different arguments that can be made to boost the GOP but Ryan and his speech writes chose to risk it has been the focus of a lot of media.
I feel that the media jumped on him a too hard because of some of the stuff he said in his speech. He did not lie at any point he told his side of the story and some of it may have been a little stretched.
I want to hear your opinion on this speech and the over all message that the GOP took to their convention and how effective you think it might have been. Will the coverage of the Democrats be as hard as it was on the GOP?
To better check the facts that are spread in this campaign I recommend Politifact.com.
One more Question:
ReplyDeleteDo you feel that the media is staying unbiased? In the last election we heard multiple accounts of the media going easy on Candidate Obama at the time. Do you feel that as the Democratic National Convention gets into full swing that the Media will FACT CHECK these speeches as hard as they did Ryan????