ShareThis Page

The debate: A Romney knockout

| Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2012, 10:55 p.m.

The sophist in chief was in customary conniving form during the first of three presidential debates Wednesday night in Denver. But Republican nominee Mitt Romney mortally wounded every shibboleth that Barack Obama could throw at him.

Economic issues were at the forefront. And so thorough was the intellectual beating the former Massachusetts governor delivered to the Democrat incumbent that 20 minutes into the first segment, the president cried “Uncle!”

“Jim,” the president said to moderator Jim Lehrer, “you may want to move on to another topic.”

But it only got worse for Obama. And on every topic broached, Romney refused to allow Obama's boilerplate liberal rhetoric to get in the way of the facts.

The president repeatedly misrepresented the facts regarding the auto industry, education, entitlements, taxes, financial regulation and ObamaCare. He even coined a troubling new euphemism for top-down government — “economic patriotism.”

Seventeenth-century scholar John Selden once wrote that “Reason without logic is like a tree with leaves and blossoms, but no root.”

Mitt Romney not only exposed Barack Obama's presidency and policies as being rootless in Wednesday's debate, he exposed his leaves and blossoms to be plastic — and cheap plastic at that.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.