Pot to kettle

Mitt Romney has some concerns about the upcoming debate with President Obama.

"I think the challenge that I'll have in the debate is that the president tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren't true," Romney said.

This from the candidate who is "not going to let [his] campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."

Considering how Mittens and Paul Ryan were lambasted for lying their asses off in their convention speeches, I would expect they would be a little more careful when taking liberties with facts. But after Romney accused the president of the United States of sympathizing with the scum who attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya, he clearly will say anything to win, regardless of the truth, regardless of decency.

I suspect that Mittens' real concern about the upcoming debate is his campaign's -- and, by extension, his -- total lack of substance. But that's just a guess. A guess based on paying attention, listening to the candidates and reading the news, but still just a guess.

UPDATE: So who, how shall I say it, said things that aren't true in the debate?

“No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.

Wow, did Romney's own campaign really admit that he lied during the debate, and admit it immediately after the debate? Yes, it did.

After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance.

The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back.

“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.

Pressed by TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, Fehrnstrom said those who currently lack coverage because they have pre-existing conditions would need their states to implement their own laws — like Romney’s own Massachusetts health care law — that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people.

So what exactly does Mittens propose regarding people with pre-existing medical conditions?

What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job). Did I mention that the number of jobs that come with health insurance has been steadily declining over the past decade?

In other words, nothing.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are lying their asses off, on the campaign trail and, as we will soon see from Ryan, in the debates. That's because they can't very well come out and say, "We are going to return this country to the failed policies of George W. Bush," which is exactly what they intend to do, and expect to win the election. For all the agreement that George Bush was the worst president in history, and for all the Republicans' efforts to pretend he never existed, the fact is that Bush wasn't a terrible president because he rejected conservative dogma and failed horribly as a result. He was a terrible president because he embraced conservative dogma and failed horribly as a result. And I would like even one Republican, even one conservative, to explain to me how Mitt Romney differs from George W. Bush. Explain to me how a Romney administration would be any different than the stain on world history that was the Bush administration.

But that's not going to happen. Because Republicans would first have to acknowledge that Bush even existed, which also isn't going to happen.