I am constantly mystified at how Republicans, who lie so adroitly, seem to be able to control the responses of reporters, in fact, they control how they formulate their questions. When lies are so blatant, it takes them aback, and all they can think of is to refute the lie, not the layers of the lie. Take for example, Paul Ryan's speech at the Convention. He has already been shown to be a liar on the subject of the Janesville GM Plant closure when he falsely accused Obama of being responsible for the closure in 2009, when in fact the plant closed in December of 2008. So tonight, when Ryan repeated the lie, or appeared to, they attacked again, but they got it wrong, and I'll show you why, and how they could have won the debate, instead of just throwing their hands up in frustration.

Ryan said this...
"A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: “I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.” That’s what he said in 2008.Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight."

On previous occassions, Ryan claimed the plant closed in 2009, a claim that was given a pants on fire rating for truthfullness....or lack of it as the case may be. But, if you look at the statement above, he does not mention 2009, he carefully words the speech to give the impression that it happened in 2009, without actually saying it...in fact, it is crafted to give an out to him when he is asked about it later. 

Look at where he says....That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, the plant didn't last another year"

Did you catch it?

Obama made the statement in 2008, and the plant didn't last another year. So, Obama could have said it in february, the plant closed in December of 2008, and that means that Ryan told the truth when he said the plant didn't last another year. Previously he claimed the plant closed in 2009, and he was caught in that lie, so this time he adjusted the way he said it so that he could get the same desired result, but be technically bulletproof. By saying it didn't last another year, he can claim he meant it closed in 2008.

But here is where Rachael Maddow made her mistake in asking Scott Walker about it. She was working off the premise that she had to point out that it was not Obama's responsibility, as he wasn't even the President at the time. Logical, but the wrong approach. Unfotunately, as smart as Rachael Maddow is, she is not an experienced liar, so she is at a distinct disadvantage as far as experience goes when it comes to that. When it comes to lies, Republicans are masters of the game.

The question she should have asked is this....if you are criticizing the President's Auto Bailout by claiming it could have prevented the closure of the plant if he had just done what Mitt Romney said, which was to let them go through a bankruptcy, and we know that the plant actually closed during the Bush administration, why didn't Bush follow Romney's advice, and prevent the closure like Obama did when the need presented itself to save the plants that had not yet closed? Mr. Walker, do you think it is because your party had already stated that they had no intention of bailing out the auto companies? In fact, didn't all of you vote no on the Presidents Bailout? Had it been left to your party to decide, wouldn't the entire industry be out of business, including the plant in Janesville?

It has been said on many occassions that Mitt Romney wrote an op ed recommending the Auto Companies be allowed to go through bankruptcy, and so Mitt Romney will take credit thank you very much for Obama taking his advice, and that's why we should thank Mitt Romney for saving the Auto Industry. 

As with most Republican lies, they are multilayered, and this lie is no exception. It is true that Mitt Romney wrote the piece, and it is true that he said let them go bankrupt...what is not true is that he recommended they do that bankruptcy to save the industry. He plainly stated in the same piece he wrote that no monies should be given to them or loaned to them, as it would be a waste of funds, good money after bad...in fact he said no matter what they did to save the auto industry, the industry would fail,perhaps not right away, but rest assured, Romney said, failure was a certainty. 

So, Mitt gets the best of both worlds. Had Obama not done the loans and the structured bankruptcy, the Auto Industry would go under, and Republicans would blame him for killing the Auto Industry. If he does give them the money, and they fail, Romney can say "I told you so, I warned you it wouldn't work" and Romney wins again...If it succeeds, Romney can claim he was for it all along, good thing you took my advice, Win win win for Romney.

The fact of the matter is clear. Not only did the Janesville plant close during the Bush Administration, it closed because Republicans were unwilling to help them, and had it been left to Republicans, GM and Chrysler would be out of business today because the Auto Bailout would never have happened. Those are the facts, and that had better be the way Democrats present it to the American People during their convention.