When it's best to let liars lie

Sometimes it's best to let liars talk. Let them dig themselves a hole they can't climb out of.

This entry isn't about last night's presidential debate being tarnished by Jim Lehrer's inability to properly moderate it and by its exclusion of third party candidates. No sirree! This piece goes straight to the heart of why President Obama won the evening hands-down.

I'm a registered Green, and I'll admit Obama is a bit too conservative. But he rose well above the spectacle Mitt Romney made of himself. Romney repeatedly argued with Lehrer, interrupted Obama, rambled at a frenetic pace, and sported bloodshot eyes and a reddened nose. Quite frankly, he appeared to be high. And he lied a lot. Think Progress counted 27 Romney lies in 38 minutes.

Obama, on the other hand, seemed above the fray. It seemed like he didn't even want to dignify Romney's bizarre performance. It reminds me of when Paul Patton generally ignored Peppy Martin in a debate after Martin made unsubstantiated claims against Patton. (It's not like Patton was so majestic himself, but that's another matter.)

It appeared as if Obama was just content to let Romney fib and flub so he could be checked by fact-checkers later and be exposed. Or maybe Obama simply thought spending too much time answering Romney's lies would give Romney too much power to control the debate. It's the same reason I don't write about every time somebody lies about the Occupy movement. If I did that, it would let Occupy's opponents define the issues.

Usually, it pays to fight back hard against lies. But sometimes the lies are so egregious that arguing with them just takes your eye off the ball. Plus, if you debunk a lie once, what's the point in continuing to do it? Encountering pathological liars is a strange experience, and you have to know when to rise above it.

If you think Romney won the debate because he lied so much, why even call it a debate? Debates are supposed to be about debating - not making up shit.