>>...and now Ryan is a liar too.<<
Yes, but not just now. The initial attack on Ryan was to portray him as a liar. This happened almost immediately after Romney picked him, and that portrayal has been spread to all Dems and many Independents, especially in swing states, via commercials, and the equivalent of Dem commercials, MSNBC et al.
Serious question: In a debate, how do you counter the viewer’s opinion going in that you are a liar, that what you say can’t be trusted? I don’t have a good answer to that.
Romney had been portrayed as an ogre, wife-killer, aloof, etc., and all he had to do is show up and be reasonable and, as I believe it was Krauthammer said, poof $150 million in negative ads went up in smoke.
But showing up won’t overcome the liar portrayal, and I’m not sure what will. Yet it’s important to overcome it effectively since, as you pointed out, that’s what they’re trying to hang on Romney now too.
Ironically, it’s the Dems who are usually caught doing the out and out lying, as with the recent Libyan fiasco, but you don’t lose the liar label just by calling the other guy a liar instead.
So, thoughts on how Ryan should address this problem?
Don’t know for sure. I’d be inclined to quote things that can easily be looked up, and challenge claims of lying by showing sources later.
The problem is that Romney and Ryan are speaking a different reality from the one many liberals live in, so it will be easy to morph that into claims of untruthfulness.