Corn: Romney used a Monty Python ("It does not!") defense. Axelrod: Romney played "a shell game."

I agree with both of them. But President Obama HAS to make this point as well, and in the next two debates he has to do a better job defending his own ideas and nailing Romney for his lies.

First, David Corn's comments, from Mother Jones -- and despite the date and time on this article (11 AM PDT, October 3) this is a new article from Corn, which he tweeted about just half an hour ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/romney-obama-debate-october-3

The president was also placed at a disadvantage when Romney adopted what might be called the Monty Python defense. Obama repeatedly accused the former Massachusetts governor of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut that would likely increase the deficit, force massive cuts in government spending on education, health care, research, environmental programs, and the like, and lead to higher tax bills for the middle class. In response, Romney essentially said, "It does not."

Obama referred to studies that supported this conclusion. Romney said that there are other studies that say it does not. When Obama insisted he was accurately describing Romney's plan, Romney said, no you're not, and claimed that he would not pass any tax plan that added more to the deficit. Obama said that there was no way Romney could lower tax rates and remain revenue neutral without removing deductions that would hike the tax bill for middle-income families. Nope, Romney said, not so: "I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan."

Romney was throwing his tax proposal under the bus. But Obama didn't appear to have a good response to this reality-defying tactic. He wasn't able to nail Romney squarely for his long-running evasions regarding the deductions he would eliminate to make up for the revenue lost due to lowered tax rates. Romney seemed to be engaged in magical thinking concerning his economic plan—and perhaps discerning viewers picked up on this—but Obama couldn't quite rattle him.

This was the overall dynamic of the night. Romney stuck to his overall point—Obama has failed to fully resurrect the economy—and he bobbed and weaved in response to Obama's assault on his assorted positions. When the president asserted that Romney's budget plan would lead to large cuts in education, Medicaid, and other programs—as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found—Romney merely denied it. On Medicare, Romney stuck with his campaign's false charge and partially neutralized Obama's assault on the Romney-Ryan plan that would weaken (and perhaps end) the Medicare guarantee. Romney also fibbed his way through the discussion of Obamacare, especially concerning preexisting conditions. Still, Obama did not score obvious points on that front.

Axelrod's more succinct comments, as quoted in TPM this morning:

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/axelrod-romney-played-shell-game-in-debate

Obama campaign senior adviser David Axelrod said this morning on MSNBC that Mitt Romney essentially played a "shell game" during the first presidential debate. Axelrod said Romney was not honest about his proposals. "I give him an "F" for being honest with the American people," the Obama adviser said.

Romney lied his way through the debate.

That was painfully, outrageously obvious throughout. And the fact he was so stunningly dishonest probably had a lot to do with President Obama's often pained expression.

But now that everyone knows that Romney will lie, this outrageously and this forcefully, President Obama HAS to be more prepared to nail him for it.

And he has to be ready to nail those lies forcefully and succinctly. There's no time in a debate for frequent pauses and careful, roundabout explanations.

I'm aware that he doesn't like debating. We've heard that constantly.

But since he HAS to debate his opponent, it really isn't a good enough excuse for a poor performance.

I don't think he was prepared for the enormity of Romney's lies last night. But even though the avalanche of lies caught him flatfooted at the beginning, the President should have been ready to call him out, bluntly, for playing a shell game after the first few responses. And he should have been more specific when he did so. Don't just say there's a study that shows something -- NAME that study. If Romney tries to discredit it by saying there are studies that disagree with it, be ready to point out, quickly, why one study is more credible than the others.

I think the dismay we heard last night, and saw on Twitter, from so many people who are staunch supporters of President Obama, came from their KNOWING that Romney's lies could be refuted, and their exasperation that they weren't there to respond themselves when the President wasn't hitting back, often enough and hard enough.