The Debate: Who Won, Who's Lying About It

Heading into last night's debate, much of the discussion in the media was about the "expectation game" and whether each candidate would meet or exceed expectations. In other words, most members of the media hedged their bets - meaning they didn't have the guts to tell you what they really thought.

The fact is, Mr. Romney's campaign set the bar so low, if he didn't make an outright ass of himself - as he did in many of the GOP primary debates - he was going to have exceeded the expectations of most Americans who expected the President to win the debate handily.

As you may have noted in our Wednesday edition, unlike much of the rest of the media, we didn't hedge our bets. We don't lie - and we won't start now. We thought the debate wouldn't live up to the media hype - and it didn't.

That didn't stop many of our ethically challenged colleagues in the wider media field, who began spinning the debate in favor of Mitt, the moment it ended, as though their careers depended on it. Chances are, their careers do depend on their lies making the presidential race appear closer than it actually is, so their corporate master's ratings, clicks, and copies stay at high levels. Funny how the threat of losing something important can focus one's ability to lie.

As we already noted, though - we don't lie. So here's what really happened at the debate last night.

At best, the debate was a tie. At worst, Mr. Romney lost.

The debate leaned heavily on the economy, with four of six sections devoted to the economy. The moderator, PBS' Jim Lehrer, was surprisingly weak, allowing for Obama to talk much longer than he should have, while allowing Mr. Romney to walk all over him. Multiple times, Romney bullied his way past Lehrer and attempted to take control of the debate, much as he did with Gov. Rick Perry in the GOP primary debates.

We'll agree that President Obama spoke a bit longer at times than he should have. That said, his answers were highly detailed and fact-filled. On questions of jobs, taxes, debt & deficit, education, and earned benefits (entitlements), President Obama patiently went through details of his plans, their positive effects, and what progress had been made the last four years. On Obamacare, Obama simply bearhugged Romney to death with the facts.

On the other side of the stage, Mr. Romney was aggressive and at times petulant, like a spoiled child. As we already noted, Romney interrupted, bullied, and pushed his way through much of the debate. Romney also had virtually no details on ANY of his plans.

When pushed by both President Obama and Mr. Lehrer, Romney deftly and repeatedly avoided direct requests for specifics. Romney could not explain how he would pay for his $5 trillion tax cut - a plan he consistently lied about, multiple times during the debate. Romney insisted he wasn't going to reduce taxes on the wealthy - but refused to say how he would pay for any of his promises. What's more, Romney insisted his plans wouldn't cut other programs in the goverment, even though fact checkers have proven his math doesn't add up. Romney also insisted he was going to eliminate any Federal government program he didn't really think was necessary, including budget allocations to PBS - which is a power that Congress has, not the Presidency.

The truth is, Mitt Romney couldn't stop lying in the debate. As Jon Lovett of The Atlantic magazine pointed out:

Romney claims he never said Romneycare should be a national model. He did.
Romney claims he never promised to cut taxes for wealthy. His plan did.
Romney claims he won't change Medicare for current seniors; repealing Obamacare will do exactly that.
Romney claims he covers pre-existing conditions - in every meaningful way, his plan does not.

In short, Mr. Romney lied about nearly everything important, while giving next to no details. He even lied about Massachusetts schools being number one. That designation belongs to Maryland, actually - and has for the last four years.

Overall, the debate wasn't very exciting.

President Obama was measured, head down, writing notes throughout the debate. He was the fact-filled, wonkish scholar President that America has come to know and trust over the last four years.

Mr. Romney was the plastic corporate executive with the fake laugh, who's ready to push snap judgments, even when he has no facts. Romney had no details about any of his plans, had more than a few toned-down zingers, and had enough lies to keep the fact-checkers going until the next debate.

In a nutshell, Mitt Romney needed the debate performance of his life. He didn't give it - which means this debate wasn't a win for Romney - no matter how hard anyone tries to spin it.

Face Off

If you believe all the hype most of the American media has been pushing, tonight is supposed to be the 2012 presidential campaign event to end all campaign events. Forget the fact that the actual election isn't for another five weeks, forget the fact that - historically - political scientists say presidential debates don't usually matter much. Forget the fact that no one really knows which version of Mitt Romney will actually show up at Denver University tonight - as more than one pundit has mentioned.

The fact is, debates do matter, if in no other way than as an emotional rallying point for the supporters of each candidate, as we saw with the debates in Nebraska, Virginia, and Massachusetts on Monday night.

Of the three congressional debates, the most well-covered debate in the media on Tuesday was the Warren-Brown debate in Massachusetts. In short, Sen. Scott Brown acted like a coward and a bully, running from his associations with both 'Multiple Choice Mitt' and the Republican Party, while desperately trying to convince everyone he was independent.

Brown tried to smear Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren with attacks on her Native American heritage again, and was extremely condescending to Warren when the two candidates talked over one another at one point. Brown made a major mistake though, when asked to pick who his favorite Supreme Court justice was, by naming the most extremist Justice on the most extreme Supreme Court in history - current Justice Antonin Scalia.

Meanwhile, in Richmond, Virginia, retired Army colonel and Democratic House candidate Wayne Powell went into political battle with current Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. This was Cantor's first debate in a decade, having ducked out on his previous challengers - and it was obvious why Cantor had previously chosen the cowardly cop-out.

Powell nailed Cantor for abdicating his responsibility to Congress, to Virginians, and to the American people by refusing to even try to compromise with House Democrats. Cantor even tried to position a gutless one year extension of current tax policies as a positive position on tax reform. Powell blasted Cantor for that shirking of responsibility too.

Meanwhile, in the Nebraska Senate debate, former U.S. Senator and Governor Bob Kerrey got into details on multiple topics, including energy, campaign financing, taxes and spending. In contrast, Republican state senator Deb Fischer gave virtually no serious details - especially on taxes and budgets - while spouting slogans, platitudes, and what were obviously pre-scripted responses. Frankly, we wondered if extremist conservative anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist was hiding behind Fischer's podium the whole time.

In summary, all three debates had a massive amount of hype - and very little substance. While the Democratic candidates in all three debates seemed far better suited for higher office, we highly doubt any of these debates really changed the minds of serious voters.

That, in fact, is exactly what we expect from the presidential debate tonight: that the event simply won't live up to the hype. As we noted to start today's commentary, political scientists say presidential debates don't usually shift presidential campaign outcomes heavily one way or the other - and we tend not to argue with proven facts.

What might shift the effects of the debate more than anything President Obama or Mr. Romney might say is the post-debate spin. Frankly, no matter which Mitt Romney shows up tomorrow night, we highly doubt the overall spin will end up in his favor.

Surprised? Not Hardly.

Please pardon us today if we don't recap all the Congressional debates that went on last night. Not only was the third Senate debate between Bob Kerrey and Deb Fischer going on in Nebraska. In Massachusetts, the second Senate debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown was also happening. In Virginia, it was the first - and only - debate between retired Army colonel Wayne Powell and Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

Tomorrow, we'll give a quick break down of each of those debates from Monday night, along with a  preview of the Presidential debate Wednesday night. Suffice it to say we were not surprised by the performances of Ms. Fischer, Sen. Brown or Rep. Cantor. To say the Republicans in these debates were without details while cowardly ducking questions would be a severe understatement, especially in the case of Ms. Fischer.

No matter how clear the performances of most candidates in most debates are, as well-known Democratic strategist Donna Brazile recently noted, debates don't always make a difference.

Or, as Paul has said many times over the years, some kinds of people would vote for a pelican for office, as long as it had an "R" behind its name - especially in the western two-thirds of Nebraska. We're more than willing to admit there are other places in the U.S. where there are those who just as blindly vote for any name with a "D" behind it.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we think both kinds of people are incredibly stupid. In our collective opinion, those Americans who are blind to new facts and details are far more harmful to the continued stability and strength of America than most of the hyper-partisan leaders in either major party.

Those kinds of blind fools are the same idiots Steve Benen pointed out that have been desperately attempting - for almost four years now - to fit their hatred of President Obama and his administration into a "Watergate" frame that simply doesn't apply. Six times now, right wingers have attempted to claim something is "Obama's Watergate" - and six times they've failed.

We guarantee some of those on the right are already thinking the miscommunication of information regarding the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans is yet another chance to revive the "Obama's Watergate" meme.

Those who've been blinded by their own hatred can't even see when crimes they've accused others of have been committed by people they support. The perfect example of this is the bogus voter fraud campaign that right-wing extremists waged against community organizing group ACORN in 2009 and 2010. After right-wing extremists effectively destroyed the organization with fraudulent lies and videos, ACORN was found to be not guilty of any voter fraud.

However, as the current exploding voter registration fraud scandal has proven, the Republican Party has been involved with their own kind of voter fraud since at least 2004 - with major issues from California to Florida.

While this kind of hypocrisy and stupidity does boil our blood, the fact is, it shouldn't.

Just as the pelican-loving idiot voters will most likely never change, there will always be those in any political system, from every ideological background, who simply can't follow the rules. The difference between us and the pelican-lovers?

We're not blind to the fact that each situation and candidate should be looked at individually and evaluated on its own merit.

We hope you choose not to be a bird-brained fool either.