Is Mitt Romney a pathological liar?

[Simfan34]

No, but he is convinced that the average voter is an ignorant moron with the attention span of a goldfish.

And he, by and large, would be correct. Realize we here, or in the "blogosphere", or whatever the online politics community is called this year, are all far more informed and attentive than the average voter. All he shall ever hear is the Democratic refrain of "Romney is a flip-flopper".

[Simfan34]

Oh, Simfan. Ever the shameless elitist, aren't we?

While "ignorant moron with the attention span of a goldfish" might be an order of magnitude or two too unkind, it is true the average voter simply doesn't pay much attention to politics, or much of anything. They are far too absorbed in their own lives (largely justifiably). We live in a bubble- we cannot forget that.

What about Obama and NAFTA, or his complete turn on gay marriage, which may I point out was completely absurd and far less believable then anything Romney has changed positions on? Is Obama a pathological liar?

A decidely left-wing bubble, mind you.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.