I can only imagine how much attention this story would be getting if it was a Democrat telling this easily disprovable lie, but given all of the other lies Ryan has been telling, it seems not only to be a pattern that Paul Ryan will lie about just about anything, but that the media will allow him to get away with it for the most part and either shrug their shoulders, or actually try to defend the lies.
Martin Bashir took Ryan to task for the latest, where Ryan got caught lying about having run a marathon in under three hours, and then later coming back and said he'd gotten his time mixed up with his brother's time. Which of course no one believes because the explanation is as ridiculous as the original lie. I was glad to see this story start getting some traction and more voices pointing out the obvious, that this is part of a larger pattern with Ryan. As Bashir noted in the clip above, Republicans were hoping to get a much more "serious" candidate in Ryan than they did with Palin, but even she wasn't just telling outright, bald-faced lies like we're getting from Ryan.
Here's more from Steve Benen: Ryan plays 'fast' and loose with the facts:
One of the more unexpected political controversies of the weekend involved Paul Ryan and, of all things, a marathon.
Pressed for an explanation, Ryan said through a spokesperson he mixed up his brother's time with his own.
Now, I couldn't care less about Ryan's athletic abilities, and the fact that he got caught lying about his marathon time is trivial when compared to the lies he told in his convention speech last week.
But therein lies the point: a pattern is emerging and it's an important one. When Paul Ryan talks about public policy, he says things that aren't true. When Paul Ryan talks about President Obama's record, he says things that aren't true. And when Paul Ryan talks about himself, he says things that aren't true.
I realize much of the political establishment resists this, because so many are invested in the notion that Ryan is a bold truth-teller with unimpeachable credibility. David Brooks defended the candidate's convention falsehoods by blaming Romney speechwriters for forcing poor Ryan to say things that aren't true.
But given the pattern, isn't it time to reevaluate those old assumptions? Isn't it possible that the establishment that celebrated Ryan's alleged honesty simply fell for a con?