Guess what? Romney Lost the First Debate

I don't think Mitt Romney "won" the first presidential debate.
Sorry, I guess that means I'm "nuts" or something, huh?  Everyone in the news media and on
talk shows has walked in lockstep, emphasizing how Romney so decisively defeated President Obama.  The discussion of the resulting media-driven "momentum" is changing the entire contest.
But, did Romney actually deserve all the praise?  Think about it.
Romney, in the debate, told several enormous lies about important positions he's held for nearly two years on important topics to the country.  Early on, he stunned Obama and the audience by suddenly denying that he even had a position in support of 20 percent cuts in income tax rates for the wealthy - which the President, like many others, had projected would cause a loss of about $5 trillion in revenue.
Obama repeatedly referred to Romney's position on tax cuts and Romney repeatedly denied having that position.
After the debate, I did my own verification by finding several instances (of MANY) when Romney, in fact, had publicly stated his support of the 20 percent tax cuts in during his long campaign.
In all the presidential debates I'd ever watched, I had never seen a party nominee flatly deny their own position with only a few weeks left before the Election.  It was outrageous. 
Then, when asked about his position on health care, Romney had the gall to say:  "No. 1," "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan..."  The facts, however, contradicted Romney's statement and his own campaign immediately tried to correct that statement after the debate.  Romney's statement had made it appear that far more people were covered under his plan than would be.  In fact, Romney's plan
requires that more qualifying conditions are met.
Further, Romney transformed his entire political outlook and political persona in the first debate for the first time in his long campaign.  Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist." It was the first time he seemed like he was acting like he did when he was governor of Massachusetts.  He talked like a pragmatic, approachable politician who was eager to work with Democrats to get things done.  Compared to his constant attempts earlier this year to appear just as right-wing as the extreme right-wing candidates he competed with in the primaries, Romney's recent debate emergence was as a "Super Chameleon" unlike any chameleon in the political universe.


To me, it makes no sense to separate the content of a debate from the theatrics, but, that's what the mainstream media now does in American politics.  The post-debate coverage stressed Romney being "more agggressive" and "Obama kept looking down at his notes" and, "Obama looked like he didn't want to be there."  Now, I freely admit that Romney "outperformed" Obama in several indicators pertaining to his demeanor, energy, outlook and "hunger" to promote himself.  Obama was far too passive all night.
But, shouldn't the mainstream media care more about who tells the truth more, who backs up their arguments and who is more authentic?  On those (my) "criteria," Romney failed in dramatic fashion.
In fact, I think he emerged as one of the most fraudulent presidential candidates I've ever seen.
Romney didn't just lie on long-held positions on important issues, but he put on a misleading act about his entire political outlook and persona.  Suddenly, after an entire campaign in which he pushed and promised for an array of right-wing positions, Romney acted like he was a "reasonable centrist." 

I'd argue that we've gotten to the very depressing point in media coverage of presidential campaigns that most people now accept that the substance simply won't be covered.  Yeah.  That's right.  So, if someone (like Romney) looks good and "aggressive" as he's telling huge lies and misleading millions of Americans, the media feels no qualms about telling us "Romney won big" and "Obama had a very bad night"

What does all this mean?  It means that because coverage of American politics is so extensively entertainment-driven now, that the "performance" of the candidates at the theatrics of the debate are often more important than the content of what the candidates say.

That's pretty scary, don't you think?