Truth vs. Gamble of Large Sum of Money

Both Greg Sargent and Steve Benen, I think, are correct about the lack of clarity by the media on Romney's $10,000 wager.

GS:

More broadly, political reporters and commentators are always tempted to seize on such moments as the $10,000 bet as defining of a candidate’s character. But this moment is ultimately almost as trivial as was John Edwards’ $400 haircut…. This broader pattern [of dishonesty] is what deserves the status of national narrative about Romney’s character, not some throwaway line about a bet.

SB:

So why does “10,000 bucks” get picked up far and wide, while “Romney has a problem telling the truth” doesn’t? If I had to guess, I’d say it probably has to do with the media’s comfort — or in some cases, its lack thereof — with various narratives. Establishment news outlets don’t mind saying Romney is an out-of-touch elitist, but they do mind saying he’s an uncontrollable liar.

It's hard to disagree with either of them about the media's lack of clarity.  But I think both Sargent and Benen, also fail to mention just exactly why Romney's inability to tell the truth is being overshadowed by his gamble.  In other words, what's more important than Romney making a wager during a presidential debate is that he's simply lying about the edits in his book.

The paperback version of his latest book No Apologies does indeed omit some sentences he penned in the hardback.  Those omitted sentences just so happen to be about how his health care plan in Massachusetts could be used as a model for all states.  That's plain as day.  And that's exactly what the media is neglecting.