yeah, but what does he gain from lying about it? I've said things about my past (or an event) that I was CONVINCED I was correct about but it turned out I wasn't. Does that mean I'm a habitual liar or a bad person or a bad VP candidate (well, in that case I would be a bad one)? No, it just means that 20 some years ago, he ran a marathon and probably didn't want to admit he was over 4 hours and picked a time that sounded reasonable. But not expecting someone to correct him, he picked a time that sounded good. If he was a better liar, which you need to be to be president, he would've picked like 3:15, that sounds plausible.
A small portion of the many comments at the bottom of the Runners World article that I cited. ------------------ really dumb and shady. I just looked up all my half times and sure enough, I have them recorded by the second. I too may not have been able to recall them in an interview, but I WOULD NEVER HAVE LIED ABOUT THE TIME. why didn't he just simply say, 'I have run one marathon but I can't remember the time b/c it was 20 years ago."??? Running a sub-3 marathon is admired by many. If Ryan had indeed run a sub-3, RW would have certainly requested an interview and ALL runners would have read the article (regardless of party affiliation). Sarah Palin is not a politician I respect, but as a RUNNER, I'm impressed with her perseverance. The same WOULD have applied to Ryan. I can assure you that anyone that has run a marathon, can recall their PRs from 5k - Marathon to within seconds. Ryan's inaccurate statement suggests 1 of 2 things...he either has poor memory or he lacks character. Neither are qualities I'm looking for in a candidate. There is a saying that you can learn how someone does business by playing golf with them. Would you do business with someone that lies or cheats on the course. I wouldn't. So what if his marathon time is exaggerated? Well, if it's part of a pattern of playing loose with the facts, then that becomes an issue of character for the one considered the intellectual center of the Republican Party. I know politicians are dishonest. I expect them to lie, embellish, and conceal the truth to their benefit. And I accept that. But lying about your PR... that is the lowest and most disgraceful act known to mankind equaled only to cheating at golf. Even if he single handedly creates ten million jobs, reverses global warming, and provides free healthcare to every living human being, he will always be "the guy who fudged his marathon PR". FUN GAME FOR MARATHON RUNNERS! WHAT'S YOUR "PAUL RYAN MARATHON TIME? "Paul ran a 4:01, but said he ran "2:50 something". Now you try it! Take your PR (mine's a 3:45). Knock off 1 hour and 10 minutes, and you'll have your PAUL RYAN MARATHON TIME!! Mine is 2:35! WHOA!!!!! AWESOME!!! What about the rest of you? What's your Paul Ryan Marathon time??? There is a difference between fudging a little, political posturing, puffing, etc and just plain lying. Many of us "round down, " embellish a little (I plead guilty!), and even aggrandize a bit....BUT, this is bad. He said marathons, as in plural, and then cut the time by over an hour on his ONLY marathon. I believe it is a symptom of a pathological problem. This is bad stuff, and dangerous politically. Of course, my wife thinks I am overreacting to this.....if you can't be honest about sports, what can you be honest about? A sub 3 hour marathon is quite impressive. Oh, and I placed third in the Olympics back in 2004......or was it third place in my age division at my local 10k? I honestly can say that I know no runner who would make such a bold misstatement of a racing time. Its kind of creepy actually. Any runner knows the difference betwwen a 4 hr marathon and a sub-three. It would be like you remembering a 21 minute 5k as a 15 minute 5k.
Ouch! A new Gallup poll shows that 38% of national adults rated Mitt Romney’s convention speech as either excellent or good -- that's the lowest percentage since Gallup began tracking this question in 1996. The other past convention speeches: 58% said Barack Obama’s ’08 speech was excellent or good 52% said the same of John Kerry’s ’04 speech 52% for Bob Dole’s ’96 speech 51% for Al Gore’s ’00 speech 51% for George W. Bush’s ’00 speech 49% for Bush’s ’04 speech 47% for John McCain’s 08 speech http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...romneys-convention-speech-gets-low-marks?lite
Obama was way outside the 5-point range because everyone was so sick of the worst president since at least the 19th century. Republicans now say, "Where is your hope and change for reversing the destruction we wrought upon the U.S.? Obama failed to do so. Therefore, it logically follows that you should put us back into office."
No bump for Romney following RNC pretty much unprecedented http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...lup-no-bounce-for-romney-post-gop-convention/ btw... Mitt is hanging out at one of his vacation homes at Lake Winnipesaukee New Hampshire taking some more time off from the campaign STOMP
The survey notes that Romney joins 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern and 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry as the only recent presidential nominees who did not benefit from a post-convention bump. (and Kerry was running against W).
Kerry was also running against Kerry. That guy was such a bland candidate, that he could've been on fire and he'd still make it boring.
my bad, I just couldn't recall such a lack of enthusiasm, but Kerry truly didn't fire up his base or the country either. Fine company that Mitt is running in eh? Good luck in your party's All-American voting suppression efforts STOMP
Republican is not my party. Democrat is not my party. I'm not a fan of authoritarian government and central planning.
That's the choice in a nutshell. Do I vote for the thief (Republicans) who robbed my home, or do I vote for the policeman (Democrats) who has (so far) failed to catch the thief but has recovered some of my money. Not that hard a choice.
I doubt but a few of us are completely on board with one side or the other. The daily Republican talking points you pass along in new threads and general participation seem to have you squarely in one corner despite their style of governing being exactly what you claim to be against. If you're no fan of authoritarian government, it would follow that you'd be appalled at the coordinated efforts of Republicans to suppress the vote of the people among other things. your one sided participation makes you seem like a Republican STOMP
my one sided participation? I'm no fan of Romney. Ryan at least talks about doing what I want - cut govt. (but by way more!). And being against the authoritarian big really govt. party doesn't make me a fan of the slightly smaller govt. party. And I think all voting should happen on the same day, like the constitution says it should. If they need to make the day a national holiday, so be it.
Firstly, the Republican party is the big governmment party, with Reagan and Baby Bush enlarging governmment more than any other Presidents in history. Secondly, why don't you move to Somalia since they are the most Libertarian country in the world? I hear it's a real Garden of Eden.
Again with the attacks. The economy for Clinton took off when he signed a tax CUT bill in 1997, which included a 28% down to 20% cut in capital gains tax rate, a $500 per child tax credit, increased the estate tax exemption from $600K to $1M, cut the AMT, etc. His tax hike to start his presidency stifled economic growth. Under LBJ revenue grew by 25%, but spending grew by 24%. Under Nixon revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 21%. Under Ford revenue grew by 11%, but spending grew by 22%. Under Carter revenue grew by 20%, but spending grew by 13%. Under Reagan revenue grew by 15%, but spending grew by 25%. Under Bush Sr. revenue grew by 17%, but spending grew by 18%. Under Clinton revenue grew by 35%, but spending grew by 9%. Under Bush Jr. revenue grew by 10%, but spending grew by 25%. Under Clinton and Bush Jr., we had republican house and senate, and congress is where spending is authorized.
Re: No bump for Romney following RNC Did you find it equally terrible when John Kerry went to Nantucket to vacation at one of the homes his wife bought during the Republican Convention? Here's what he was doing while the Republicans were at their convention: Seriously, who on earth cares that Mitt Romney is rich or that he's enjoying some downtime from the campaign? At least he made his own money.
