Is Mitt Romney a pathological liar?

[Simfan34]

Substantively, I agree with you, Simfan. The ordinary voter is ignorant, mostly disinterested, and occasionally prejudiced. But this doesn't make him or her an idiot. Romney's problem is that he acts like that's what the average voter is to him.

Well if the Democratic organization or the media is able to pack that into a marketable message- Romney's condecension- then he is in trouble. But if they don't the common man shan't know the better of the whole thing.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Meh, I don't think that campaigns or candidates matter much in the general, which is why I've posted only infrequently on the 2012 board since the primaries wrapped up. With that caveat, I think it's plain to anyone who listens to Romney that the man is dripping with condescension, prole or no.

Fortunately for Romney, everyone has their partisan goggles on for the general. Democrats don't like him anyway, but now at least Republicans will view him favorably until November.

[Simfan34]

To be honest I find something sympathetic, endearing, even, in Romney's failure to connect. Perhaps it is due to my (somewhat self-exaggerated) social ineptness, but the fact he has difficulty connecting with those outside his normal types of people seems more indicative of actual humanity than any kind of folksiness, whether false or authentic.

Surely we all have had some trouble relating with people outside our comfort zone? Dealing with groups all around the country is perhaps a hundred times more difficult. It requires all sorts of contortions, and Romney, despite his riches and despite his degrees, just seems unable to do that... like most of us would.

It's silly, yes, but it's something that I've thought of several times. 

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

It's not silly; it's a good point. But I'm still discomforted by the idea of a President who doesn't have a solid understanding of what life is like for most people; that's an understanding that should inform every decision that he or she makes.

(It's possible that Romney's problem is merely that he can't show this understanding. For Christ's sake, there are plenty of politicians who can show it without understanding it. But there's nothing in his platform or background to demonstrate that he does.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's not silly; it's a good point. But I'm still discomforted by the idea of a President who doesn't have a solid understanding of what life is like for most people; that's an understanding that should inform every decision that he or she makes.

(It's possible that Romney's problem is merely that he can't show this understanding. For Christ's sake, there are plenty of politicians who can show it without understanding it. But there's nothing in his platform or background to demonstrate that he does.)

It's clear to me that Romney sees someone's value as whom they know. He constantly mentions how he's friends with some well-connected elites. In Mitt Romney world, you get the job based on whom you know, not actual merit.

[Simfan34]

But is that not an actual principle- "it's not what you know, it's whom you know"? Romney is hardly alone in that aspect. But I think his name-dropping is again a poorly-fleshed-out attempt at relating. I'm not particularly concerned about a lack of "sharing in the struggle" but rather a lack of a major personal crucible. JFK, McCain, and Bush I all grew up in privileged backgrounds but all underwent great struggle in their youth and later. Romney did not.

I'm not sure if FDR did, so maybe the point is moot, but it doesn't have to necessarily have to be a struggle of the common man, but one to begin with- because that is ultimately what "what life is like for most people"- a struggle. For the wealthy it is one of privilege and ease- we define it by its lack of a struggle.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But is that not an actual principle- "it's not what you know, it's whom you know"? Romney is hardly alone in that aspect. But I think his name-dropping is again a poorly-fleshed-out attempt at relating. I'm not particularly concerned about a lack of "sharing in the struggle" but rather a lack of a major personal crucible. JFK, McCain, and Bush I all grew up in privileged backgrounds but all underwent great struggle in their youth and later. Romney did not.

I'm not sure if FDR did, so maybe the point is moot, but it doesn't have to necessarily have to be a struggle of the common man, but one to begin with- because that is ultimately what "what life is like for most people"- a struggle. For the wealthy it is one of privilege and ease- we define it by its lack of a struggle.

Well obviously this country would still be definitely not a meritocracy even if the Romney family stopped existing, but it's obvious that he's making it worse. Being a CEO turned governor turned Presidential candidate is a lot easier if your daddy did the same exact thing.  

We've had some Presidents with humble roots (Clinton for one), and others (like FDR) who still helped average Americans despite their own privileged upbringing, but it's pretty clear that Romney is definitely neither of those.

[Simfan34]

Perhaps, but even GW Bush grew up in such a background and at the least tried quite sincerely to help the poor in Africa- a group he had no chance of relating to.

[Runeghost]

I voted no. While he seems so disconnected from real human experience that I occasionally wonder half-seriously if he might not be a clinical psychopath, I don't think he has any driving compulsion to lie; he just appears willing to say whatever he thinks potential voters want to hear.

[A-Bob]

Yes but so is Obama