ON Kilter: Mitt lost round one

OPINION – Mitt Romney lost the first Presidential debate of the 2012 election.

I assert this with little trepidation despite pundits from both sides of the political aisle declaring him a clear winner. He was declared the winner by default because he did not lose. Because he came into the debate with such low expectations of anything less than more gaffs, blunders, and refutable facts, that all he had to do was keep everyone’s eye on a more presentable ball while ignoring the limp, flat one in that is actually his campaign.

He lost because he did not do what he actually needed to do to win. He merely revamped his inconsistent and fact permeable rhetoric with a solid Gordon Gekko-like performance whereby we got a glimpse of what a CEO-president would look like. Arrogant, overbearing, and cocksure of himself despite being completely out of touch with two things he sorely needs to win this election: the truth, and the support of the American middle class.

The fact that the GOP has all but abandoned the middle class of this country notwithstanding, the main thrust of the assertion to Romney’s failure is his lack of ability to tell the truth in lieu of the fact that his self-proclaimed business prowess assures us he is all too aware.

He prefers, or so it seems, to pander to the ignorance of the majority of voters and in doing so either demonstrates a complete disregard for them, or simply does not know himself something he, as a business tycoon, should clearly know. Either way, he is disingenuous to a fault.

In the debate last week, he stated as evidence of President Obama’s failures, that fuel prices had doubled in the last four years and while actually true, evoked a smoke and mirror effect of pandering to the emotions of the American voter. This statement alone, despite there being many more like it, captures why Romney clearly lost this debate.

The fact is, the President has little to no influence on gasoline prices. Romney knows this. The prices are set by the financial exchanges all over the world. Much goes in to how they are determined including, but not limited to, the price and availability of crude oil worldwide, the financial markets, the subsidies provided by governments to the oil companies, and the ruling factor of all: supply and demand.

To insinuate that the sitting president has anything to do with the price of fuel is tacitly false and indicative of someone who is either ignorant themselves of how the world economy functions, or is banking on the ignorance of those who would vote for one who makes such audacious statements.

Furthermore, Romney touts the necessity of American energy independence and implies that drilling at home somehow facilitates this.

A high school level comprehension of energy economics would suffice for anyone to understand that all oil drilled in the world goes into a global pot that is traded on the global market. It is a bait and switch argument designed to appeal to the emotions of the voter.

What is laughable is that it is Mitt’s own people, the Wall Street tycoons that is, who play more of a role in our energy woes than any political figurehead can.

And, let’s not even get started on the subsidies provided for the likes of business types like Romney, large corporations, and oil companies.

It is doubtful however that he is unaware of these things hence the insult to the injury perpetrated upon the American people by his disingenuousness.

By pandering to the lowest common denominator of the voting public, the ignorant and ill-informed that is, he affirms without repudiation his willingness to metaphorically sell his own soul to get the job.

This is to say, he would rather pretend he is as ignorant as they are, then to speak in terminology demonstrating the competence that is becoming of a business man of his stature.

How anyone can reconcile dishonesty with winning a debate on matters of consequence is telling of what our collective definition of winning has become.

This is but a brief example of a growing list of misrepresentations by this candidate that will continue to plague him in his bid for the Oval Office.

A short and all-too-soon declared victory in an orchestrated debate hardly makes this man a winner of anything.

See you out there.

Dallas Hyland is an opinion columnist. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @dallashyland

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2012, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Billion October 8, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    You better continue to stalk libraries and lurk around bookstores looking for something good to read because your own writing does not qualify, sir.

  • DoubleTap October 8, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    There is that “byline” bug again. Pesky little thing…doesn’t sound like the Mori I’ve read before.

  • Murat October 8, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Why is there a “chick” with a horrifically botched tranny surgery in the graphic?

    • Dallas Hyland October 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm

      Alas Murat, something we agree on.

  • Murat October 8, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    You’re an armchair politico, Hyland. You don’t know anything about nitty gritty election tactics, because if you did, you’d have a job on a campaign. Also, your writing is atrocious–I don’t even know where to begin. And I’m having a hard time calming down from the hysterical laughter you induced when you claimed to be mentoring people in this field. Look, there are plenty of people out there who make a handsome living writing drivel. You can, too, but first you’ve got to learn how to write the right kind of drivel. I can give you some pointers on what you can work on free of charge, if you want.

    • Murat October 8, 2012 at 3:25 pm

      I demand that the above comment be published immediately. It is sincere and I can point out at length the problem’s with Hyland’s writing. You are outrageously unjustified in censoring it.

  • urbanboy October 8, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    Perfect, Dallas! So true, Mitt is such a LIAR! He so made himself look good and shine at one of the last chances he has for his image. While Obama didn’t have the oomph on the first debate, that’s just him playing it smart.
    Think about it, why would the pres. go big and blast Romney the first debate? He’s gonna save the big ticket items for last and have Romney hangin by the sack!

  • Doug Chambers October 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Oh boy, Dallas Hyland’s bio says he lives in St. George; however, it is ever so obvious that is misleading, he is actually living in Egypt, floating in denial.

  • Tyler October 8, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    God, why can’t the media and critics see this?! Very surprising and even scary, what the power of body language and good-sounding words can do to the masses, even after (romney) making a fool of himself more than once, just days prior to this debate. Goes to show just how dumb the average American really is.

  • Ron October 8, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Right on, Dallas, but Urbanboy notwithstanding, Obama should have nailed him on this stuff instead of looking at his socks.

  • Fact or Fiction October 8, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Just because you don’t like what is being said in the opinion piece does not make it incorrect. Oil prices are set by crude oil prices on the global market. Drilling in American will not make us energy independent and will not lower energy prices. Take Utah: we drill, refine, and process here and yet our prices continue to go up…hmmm.why is that? Now lets look at alternative energy which actually would help us become energy independent, but it is people like Romney and his conservative base that are fighting it. Drilling more oil and gas in the U.S. will not only degrade our environment, it will keep us dependent on oil. Furthermore, the market does not take into account external costs such as pollution and health effects from oil and gas drilling. Just look at the air and asthma rates in northern Utah for a real time example. Why is the President giving alternative energy subsidies? So it can compete with oil and gas, which it can’t compete with because oil and gas companies get subsidies. The best answer would be to get rid of subsidies all together, but then the price of gas would go up and everyone would be screaming about it. So if you are really interested in facts you need to stop taking the truth about Romney as a personal insult and fact check yourself. Of course that requires that you be open to the truth. In case you really don’t want to do any research, here is a cute little video that will make it very easy for you.

    • Daniel October 9, 2012 at 10:00 am

      Why doesn’t anyone ever point out the out of control increase of inflation to the dollar that has been affected by QE1,2, and now 3 (which is unlimited in the amount the Fed will print) and how that also an effect on gas prices? We can say that pursuing alternative energy sources will bring prices down, but if the dollar still isn’t worth anything the prices are just going to continue to go up as well. And let’s face it, the oil drilling that most Republican’s want is mainly (not entirely) based in ANWR in Alaska which is a barren uninhabitable arctic desert. When was the last time you or anyone else went to ANWR to enjoy the view? Why is it so wrong to drill there and get oil that we can use that will increase our supply?

  • B Robins October 8, 2012 at 5:25 pm


    You have a flaw in your logic regarding oil production and global trade.

    You said “A high school level comprehension of energy economics would suffice for anyone to understand that all oil drilled in the world goes into a global pot that is traded on the global market. It is a bait and switch argument designed to appeal to the emotions of the voter.”

    in reality, a high school level comprehension of economics would suffice for anyone to understand that if we export more than we import we wouldn’t have a trade deficit. This includes all products including oil. Ergo, if we produce more oil it doesn’t matter where it goes, the net result is a reduction in the trade deficit. You have an extremely flawed view of world trade……..among other things.

  • Brett October 8, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    Oh boy,

    Here we go again, another liberal pulling the IQ card. This is getting kind of old right? You know…the whole notion that if someone disagrees with you on politics that he or she must be an imbecile. Come on now, the basis for this post really reeks of cliche, don’t you think? Can we move past your liberal elitism for a moment and consider a few facts for a change?

    Your entire opinion post is based on the idea that because Romney exaggerated the presidents power to influence gasoline prices, that he lost the debate. That “smart” people like yourself can see past this ruse and only intellectual-challenged folks believe he won the debate as a result.

    So where have you been for the last 12-20 years or so as your Democratic, intellectually-superior heroes have used the exact same (in your own words) “disingenuousness” remarks?

    If you simply search for “15 Times Obama and Top Dems Blame Bush For Gas Prices” on Youtube you will get my point here.

    The only fool is you for holding some strange idea that politicians do not stretch the facts to appear better than the competition. Perhaps, you already know this simple fact, and perhaps you are the “disingenuousness” person.

  • Brown October 8, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    Question? Would increasing our supply of crude not reduce the price of fuel? I think it would. Unless they just sell the increase to china like everything else we cant use or produce for fear of destroying our enviroment.
    The alternitive energy we hear about is not a good alternative or it would have been persued 40 years ago. The green energy avaliable is not cost effective and is not a reliable source of energy. Unless you only like to use your lights during the day in the case of solar panels. Or only when the wind blows for the wind mills. Further more persuing these unreliable energy sources will only bankrupt anyone fool enough to pay for it. Like us unless we learn from other countries mistakes. Spain and many outher eruopean countries have barrowed all they can to purchase this so called green energy and are know on the verg of economic colapse. I fear we are not far behind them.

  • Curtis October 8, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    Romney won the debate. The purpose of the debate was to advance the participants campaign for the presidency. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong on the economics of energy. It has everything to do with appealing to the lowest common denominator of the electorate. Romney won because — if the polls are correct — the electorate believes he won and he is now more likely to win that he was before the debate.

  • william October 9, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Says another freelance writer, photographer, and documentary filmmaker, who has never had his own small business. Those who can do, those who can’t have their own radio shows.

    • just an observer October 9, 2012 at 2:49 pm

      The author is a U.S. Navy Veteran, former career firefighter, and was a general contractor in the commercial and residential sector for over 20 years.

      He also possess the courage of conviction to sign his full name to his articles and comments in the face of those who choose not to.

      • The Magic 8-ball October 10, 2012 at 6:55 pm

        Check and Mate I would say.

        While I have some disagreements with Mr. Hyland’s views, I respect his ability to make someone stop and consider his argument, that is, if they are willing to throw off their partisan beer-goggles first.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.