Tonight's Republican debate was heated.   Mitt Romney, the Taxachussetts flip-flopper, took some well-deserved criticism:

Within minutes, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) joined the fray, aiming his fire primarily at Romney as someone he said had repeatedly changed his own positions and was attempting to distort the records of his rivals.

"Governor Romney, you've been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record," he said. "I don't want you to start fooling them about mine. I stand on my record. I stand on my record of a conservative."

Romney was forced to defend positions he had taken in his 1994 Senate race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). In that race he supported abortion rights and said he would be a better choice for gay Americans than Kennedy.

Seems like a fair attack for a conservative Republican candidate to make.  How could someone who just over a decade ago said he would be more liberal on gay rights than the caricatured Ted Kennedy claim to be a true conservative today?

The answer?

"I was fighting against the liberal lion in perhaps the toughest state in America. And I'm pretty proud of what I was able to accomplish in that race, but nothing compares to the pride I have with the work that I was able to do as a governor," Romney said.

Translation: "Hey, those Massachussetts people are a bunch of stupid liberals, so I had to lie.  When I finally did get elected to the governor's office, despite my campaign lies, I was able to be a pretty good right-winger."

This seems like a perilous strategy for Romney.  If Romney is implicitly admitting that he lied to get elected, how will Republicans know that he is now telling the truth? And in any event, will Republicans feel comfortable with a candidate who openly admits to lying?