The media can say whatever it wants - and it pretty much does these days, inventing whatever stories it finds most suitable to its purposes regardless of reality. The fact that Republicans are even taken seriously as political candidates is part of this general descent into tabloidism. But when "liberals" act like what these people say has some foundation in or upon reality is just irresponsible: If you are even remotely part of a reality-based community, you know damn well that a debate cannot be "won" by lying. When your claims not only deviate from established fact and your own documented record but enter a completely separate universe, you lose - those are the rules of a "debate." The whole concept is distinct from merely two or more people making differing statements - there has to be logic and evidence to what they say. Passionately asserting that 2 + 2 = 5 while your opponent fails to smash you with any withering ripostes is not a "victory."
I know some of us had unpleasant flashbacks to the days when Democrats refused to call out Republicans on their depravity and madness, but listening to some of the reactions to the recent presidential debate, I've had some unpleasant flashbacks myself: To the days when we allowed pundits to decide what is and is not the case rather than our own morality and reason. I'm so sorry you weren't treated to gladiatorial combat and shoe-banging "J'accuse!" speeches against some worthless, entitled shitbird with no ideas and no conscience - so sorry the President of the United States wasn't the entertaining zing-factory one must surely associate with Constitutional office. And, boy, I sure am glad we aren't as degenerate and media-mindfucked as our opponents. Right? RIGHT???
But see, here's the thing: In this country - in this society where we choose to lead rather than just being whiny victims of douchebags - you can't win a debate by lying and treating people like idiots with amnesia. It is simply not in the definition of debate, and doing it is mere forfeiture. "Oh, but Obama didn't forcefully condemn it! He didn't call it out! He didn't whip out his dick and demand measuring tape from the moderator! However will people know the difference between up and down if Barack Obama doesn't draw them a map?"
Lookie here, Einstein - when you're the one who's talking, it's your judgment that matters, not some abstract 6th-person prognostication of what someone else might or might not think about it. If it's your judgment that Romney lied through his teeth and contradicted himself while Obama was consistent with the facts - which seems to be the consensus despite all the hand-wringing - then that is the outcome of the debate. And if you actually believe that Obama lost the debate because you didn't find his style as compelling as it often is, then...well...you're a victim who doesn't perceive themselves to be a full participant in these proceedings. and your deliberate embracing of that status makes me sick to my stomach.
Tell me you believe that Mitt Romney made any kind of case, and I'll treat your opinion like the puzzling enigma out of another cosmos it is, but tell me the debate was "lost" because you just don't think Obama won the hearts and minds of undecideds and I'll know you live on Planet Pundit. Citizens put weight in their own views even as they consider others' - they don't act like being intelligent makes their conclusions less objective, or like the outcome of elections inherently hinges on the vague perceptions of ignorant assholes. Those are media fantasies that only come to pass through the complacency and surrender of the citizenry, and I don't play along with that crap. If someone can win a debate in your world by engaging in what you know to be bald-faced lies, then you are already far removed from anything resembling citizenship, and guilty of far worse than a lackluster response to those lies. You're at best a theater critic, and all due respect to that profession, I'm not interested.