Most of Paul Ryan's new stump speech is rather boilerplate, but there was a line in his speech yesterday in North Canton, Ohio, that caused a bit of a stir.
"Free trade is a powerful tool for peace and prosperity, but our trading partners need to play by the rules. And this challenge focuses on China. They steal our intellectual property rights. They block access to their markets. They manipulate their currency. President Obama promised he would stop these practices. He said he'd go to the mat with China. Instead, they're treating him like a doormat."
The crowd certainly seemed to like this, but does it make any sense?
As a rule, when Paul Ryan pretends to know something about foreign policy, national security, international affairs, diplomacy, or the military, it's probably wise to remember that he, like his inexperienced running mate, is working from a position of ignorance.
But even putting Ryan's credibility-free arguments aside, does the argument have any merit? Actually, no. Rachel had a good segment on this in July, the last time Republicans used the "doormat" line.
"Despite the Obama administration being confrontational toward China in a way that no modern administration has ever been, Mitt Romney is calling him a doormat," Rachel explained.
Yep, and now he's equally-confused running mate is, too. They're both wrong.