Presidential Debate Reactions - No. 1: Romney Lied Shamelessly

The reactions to last nights presidential debates are all over the place although a majority consensus seems to be that Barack Obama won.  What was perfectly clear for anyone who has followed the campaign daily for its duration is that Mitt Romney again showed himself to be a complete shape shifter with a bad case of "romnesia."  The other issue that again was clear is that Romney's budget/tax plan doesn't add up in any fashion and that he'd make the budget deficit explode if elected.  The ultimate critical question, of course, will be whether voters who have only recently begun to pay attention will realize that Romney's now 180 degrees from where he was on many issues not that many weeks ago.  Perhaps Romney's indulging in "Lying for the Lord" as suggested by Brigham Young's great great granddaughter as noted in a prior post.  Here are a few reactions via Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Fallows thought "Obama did very well this evening, and Romney put up his worst showing":

As a matter of substance, it was depressing in principle that this was the level of presidential-campaign discussion on China, India (nothing, or close to it), climate change and the environment (nothing I heard), energy (next to nothing), Europe (ditto). But it was more striking as a matter of substance that on virtually no issue did Romney make an actual criticism, of any sort, of Obama's policy or record. Instead it was, "I agree, but you could have done it better."

Ambinder sees Romney's eagerness to agree with Obama as a possible mistake:

Romney was betting that he did not need to take risks, and stands a better shot at winning the election the more people associate him with the economy.  Deciding to let Obama once again be the aggressor carries real risks, because of the large audience, and because the contrasts in tone between the two candidates could be large enough that some voters who initially thought Romney crossed the credibility threshold might have second thoughts.

Richard Adams gives the win to Romney:

I'd say Romney won it because he just lashed away at Obama without regard to subject or logic, showed that he knew enough about what passes for foreign policy that he's not going to fart in front of the Queen or whatever. And Obama did what he did in the first debate: lay out Romney's multiple positions and expect that would be enough. Well it wasn't then and it wasn't now.

Kevin Drum disagrees:

Romney's main goal tonight was pretty transparent: not to sound like a warmonger. He probably succeeded in that, but at the price of turning every attack into mush and validating nearly everything Obama said. It just didn't seem like a good night for him. I'd give him a C+ and Obama an A-.

Matt Taibbi's final thoughts:

Just going by the reactions from Carville and Fleischer on CNN (I've switched back because that's where you go to find out the conventional wisdom) it's already clear what the talking points will be. Fleischer talking about how this debate doesn't matter because the public is focused on the economy, that's a clear signal that he knew Romney fucked the dog tonight. This should be the death-blow to Romney, but I've said that before and been wrong.

Ezra Klein digs up Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed:

You can read it here. Note that Romney calls for post-bankruptcy guarantees, not pre-bankruptcy guarantees. That’s the rub: The credit markets were frozen, and most experts thought Detroit couldn’t find the private financing to survive a masnaged bankruptcy. That’s where federal money came in. Glenn Kessler fact-checked the exchange and gave the edge to Obama.