I’ll be back later with a wrap-up after Paul Ryan’s big speech tonight, and I’ll be live-tweeting it, too. I don’t suppose we’ll hear much about policy, which is fine, but I doubt there will be much talk about his career as a politician, either. What does that leave? I’m expecting lots of personal stories and family background that skip over what he’s done since college. And perhaps it will be attack dog time.
Meanwhile, plenty of good stuff:
1. An escalation from the White House on the question of truth and the Romney campaign: Barack Obama calls out the Romney campaign for saying that they didn’t care about what the fact checkers say.
2. Speaking of outright Romney lies: Pat Garofalo notes that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback isn’t backing Romney up on the welfare ads.
3. Ready for Ryan? Ezra Klein reminds us what’s really in Paul Ryan’s budget.
4. Noam Scheiber is still trying to figure out why Ryan was picked in the first place. I agree about Ryan’s potential weaknesses, but I think he shouldn’t rule out the possibility that it was based on a mistaken view of Ryan’s popularity derived from epistemic closure.
5. Looking back at the Republican Convention, Day One, a very good Jonathan Chait post on Mitt Romney, reality, and the George W. Bush presidency — and what it might mean for a Romney administration.
6. Continue with a good E.J. Dionne item on Chris Christie and the real meaning of courage.
7. Then go to an excellent E.J. Graff piece on what Ann Romney and Christie were really telling women last night.
8. And Steve Kornacki has a nice comparison of Christie and Mario Cuomo’s classic 1984 keynote.
9. Digby on CNN’s cowardice in the face of the nut-throwing episode, which she compares to Dan Rather at the 1968 convention. What will CNN do?
10. Ed Kilgore on Romney and abortion: “Anyway you slice it, though, Team Mitt is talking out of both sides of various mouths on the subject, and somebody, if not everybody, is getting zoomed.”
11. Interesting point from Jared Bernstein: the Romney tax reform plan can “work” — stay revenue neutral without raising middle-class taxes – if upper-income taxpayers are defined down low enough. Basically, if I follow him correctly, this means that those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 would get soaked to finance cuts for the rich without also soaking those below $100,000. Anyone think that Romney and the Republicans would really do that? I didn’t think so.
12. Adam Serwer on Ann Romney, “Modern Family,” and conservatives: “This is how culture wars are won.”
13. And Irin Carmon finds and interviews a black lesbian who might vote for Mitt Romney.