I thought the Washington Post described the speech perfectly today (in an article about fact-checking and the candidates):
the Republican vice presidential nominee repeatedly left out key facts, ignored context and was blind to his own hypocrisy.
I find the accusation "you lie" to be less damning and more easily dismissed than the more critical, and discerning, description offered by the Post.
I read pieces saying "Ryan lied about" that went on to describe a technically accurate Ryan line -- and thus not a "lie" to many, if not most -- without critically explaining the real misleading character of Ryan's statement.
I'm sure others disagree. The purported strength of the word "lie"
(and after all, don't we have lots of gentler, obfuscatory ways of accusing our mendacious friends of misstatements and falsehoods? With so many softenings, "lie" must be powerful. . .)
seduces a lot of writers. But the repeated exaggerations of all kinds of candidates and their surrogates has invited many observers to think that "they're all liers." The accusation seems easily dismissed, at least by me.
I thought blind to his own hypocrisy was a devastating, discerning observation (and criticism).
I probably won't be commenting much on this election (yeah; right). I'm thoroughly revolted by the campaigns of the two major parties, and find myself physically affected by them. I'm going to try not to get any of it on me.