• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On August - 9 - 2012

There’s an old saying, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” When it comes to the children of the wealthy, perhaps the saying should be, “If your parents are so rich, why ain’t you smart?”

Many Americans mistakenly connect being wealthy with being smart but George W. Bush and now Mitt Romney have proven that conventional thinking to be as dead as the dodo…which coincidentally has become the new mascot of the GOP.

Ask yourself, has Mitt Romney exhibited anything resembling cleverness, inventiveness or strategic thinking since he’s been in the public eye running for office? Or…has most every action or comment he’s made that hasn’t been a deception or lie, just plain dumb? And you don’t have to be smart or well educated to lie, just ask Michele Bachmann.

People who aren’t born into wealth need to use their wits, reasoning and vision to deal with problems. Wealthy people can simply throw money at someone to do just that for them, no exercise of intellect is required beyond the challenge of writing a check.

Wealth can cover up the incompetence and lack of intelligence of the wealthy. They can hire “brains”, people who are experts in the financial, legal or political world, to do all the research, preparation and strategizing for them then as the CEO figureheads, they can present it as their own brilliant accomplishment. There are brilliant people who are wealthy but there are also many who use their wealth to exploit the intellect of others to become wealthier and more powerful…while remaining the clueless people that they are. In fact, many of these allegedly “sharp” CEOs spend most of their lives just attending meetings, where those below them have done all the thinking and they sit there like pompous game show contestants, choosing what’s in the box or behind curtain number three based on the colors. Or, they attend meetings with other businesspeople and just regurgitate what others have told them or thought out  for them. A parrot could be just as successful as a CEO in these cases.

It doesn’t take much intelligence to become wealthy like Mitt Romney, you just have to be born…which Mitt probably bumbled anyway (I could imagine him forcing a chuckle when he was born and rolling right off the operating table because he wasn’t tied to the top of it). Though there have been studies, it doesn’t take much imagination to recognize how being a child of the wealthy means the path to success will be swift and easy, requiring less intellectual prowess than having to work for it would demand.

Children of the wealthy are born into connections and circles of political and financial power, they are brought into the most prestigious and expensive schools as legacies. When they graduate college, they are swept up into top, fast-rising positions at wealthy and powerful businesses of their parents’ or their parents’ financial peers.

Mitt Romney may have leveraged his silver spoon to get a wealthy friend of his father’s hand him the startup of Bain Capital but how much of Bain’s growth and operations was Romney himself directly responsible for? After seeing him in action, are we to believe that Romney is a remarkable genius who devised all of Bain’s strategies? Or are we more likely to assume that a man this incompetent and this ignorant of so much just rode the backs of people who were actually smart and claimed their accomplishes as his own?

Following are a list of items that I propose prove that despite the wealth and career success that was guaranteed to Romney upon his birth, regardless of his actual capabilities or intellect as a human being (just as was the case with George W. Bush). Mitt Romney is dumb.



1. Despite planning for and running for the Presidency for 10 years, he never thought he needed a strategy for dealing with attacks on his anti-American financial dealings…even though he was attacked for them in his Senatorial and Gubernatorial campaigns.

2. He routinely and obliviously insults entire countries, ethnicities, states, supporters and his own acts as Governor.

3. He has been wholly unsuccessful in fooling the GOP base that he is one of them and independent voters that he is likeable, not to mention his ignorance about how his constant phony chuckling comes across as dishonest to most people.

4. The only semblance of policies he presents are either just promising to reverse everything Obama has accomplished or making the wealthy wealthier, never able to give details on any position.

5. He lies so avidly and freely about even the most obvious things without any concern about how being seen as a liar might impact him. He has even claimed to have lied on official SEC documents where he claimed to be the sole manager of Bain Capital but denies he was.

6. The people with whom he has surrounded himself as his campaign team, come off as feckless and incompetent, often delivering gaffes that send him off message and undermine his campaign.

7. He actually believes he can win the Presidency by hiding his identity from voters and not offering the public any positive alternative to Obama, focusing his entire campaign only on moaning about whatever numbers are bad about the economy or blatantly lying about how Obama has done something awful that all MSM outlets (except Fox News) routinely expose as being another falsehood from him.

8. He has alienated the majority of women and Latinos whose support will decide the election.

9. His economic proposals, all lacking sufficient details, simply don’t balance out and in fact add hugely to the deficit unless unprecedented slashing to public services, Social Security and Medicare occur…which would likely lead to a new Recession that would send the budget deficit skyrocketing.

10. He tied his family dog to his car roof and responded to criticism by saying, “PETA is not happy that my dog likes fresh air.”, solicited financiers of South American death squads to bankroll Bain Capital, says people play “sport”, insulted a local bakery’s cookies by saying they looked store bought at 7-11, publicly bragged in difficult economic times that he likes to fire people, invented the imaginary and nonsensical theory of “self-deportation” for ridding the country of illegal immigrants, was in London for the Olympics to use them for political advantage and insults the nation which damages him politically…and on and on.

It will take a far more intellectually “generous” person to make a list of items…or even list one or two meaningful things that would argue Romney is smart. Whenever he’s gotten into trouble, which is nearly every week, his only “genius” solution is to throw more money and lies against Obama.

Obama has plenty of money too but he constantly displays strategic thinking and smart political moves. All the dumb rich kid knows to do when attacked, whether by the Obama campaign or through a self-inflicted wound is to pull out the checkbook.

It doesn’t take a genius to have lots of money when it’s handed to you, through inheritance, family connections and an elitist system that rewards even those who fail (See: George W. Bush and those Wall Streeters who lose billions and get billions in bonuses for doing so).

Money can buy a lot of stupid and Mitt Romney seems to be intent on cornering the market.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

56 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. AdLib says:

    Exhibit #237 on Mitt Romney being an idiot:

    Host for Romney event is a convicted drug dealer

    Mitt Romney held a campaign event Monday evening at a Miami juice shop owned by a convicted cocaine trafficker.

    Romney appeared at El Palacio de los Jugos, which is owned by Reinaldo Bermudez. Court records show that Bermudez pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in 1999 and served three years in federal prison.


    How much intelligence does it take to run a background check on a millionaire juice shop owner?

  2. AdLib I’ve retweeted this post a few times for two reasons. First I think it is important that we have truly intelligent leaders in office because we face truly difficult problems. Second I think we should discuss the intelligence of leaders more and that’s why I’m discussing my opinion about Obama’s intelligence as well.

    I know intelligence is just one part of being a good leader but it’s a big part and tragically we’ve seen what happens when we don’t elect intelligent leaders who always come up with the wrong prescriptions for America.

    • AdLib says:

      KQ -- Thanks so much for doing so. I agree, the stupidity or intelligence of a President makes a massive difference, as we’ve seen from Bush at one end of the intellect spectrum to Obama at the other.

      If Romney is picking Ryan as his VP then we see pretty conclusive proof of his stupidity and lack of a core.

      Paul Ryan is not attractive to indie voters, women or Latinos. It isn’t possible to win an election without the majority of all of them. And to have a running mate whose plan is to have zero tax on capital gains, meaning, his plan would cut Romney’s taxes to zero while Medicare and SS as we know it are trashed as entitlements? This is a winning formula?

      I say it again, Mitt Romney is an idiot.

      • I just tweeted: “RMONEY and RYAND the dream ticket for screwing the middle and working classes”

        I concede Romney is an absolute idiot with no qualifying remarks. The pick of Ryan was surely desperation and worse bending to the base AGAIN. Worse on an intellectual lever it was one of the worst picks.

        I totally agree with your political read on this. I find it fitting that the village idiot Romney introduced Ryan as the ‘next president of the United States’ because for the second time in two elections the GOP nominee stupidly picked a Veep more popular with the base than them.

        The Obama team is already hitting the Ryan budget which is the right choice. Ryan is the conductor of the right wing engineering train after all. But Obama needs to remind woman voters that Ryan actually voted to end Planned Parenthood and has a ZERO NARAL rating which means he’s even against contraception. I know this isn’t a foreign policy election but Obama still needs to hammer the fact that this is the weakest foreign policy team in recent memory.

        • bito says:

          Paul Ryan is right that the growth in Medicare costs represents a large problem for the future and must sooner or later be dealt with.

          He is right that the solution must take the form of spending restraint; the US can’t tax its way out of this mess.

          He is right that “premium support”—aka voucherizing Medicare—represents an interesting idea to apply market pressures to Medicare costs.

          Here’s where Ryan is wrong, and dangerously wrong.

          He’s wrong to believe that today’s economic problems are caused by fears of tomorrow’s debts. Ryan’s plan implies a promise that we can create jobs in 2013 by restraining Medicare costs after 2023. That’s ideology talking, not economics.

          He’s wrong to say that the US faces an imminent debt crisis. Today’s big deficits are the consequence, not the cause, of the weak economy.

          What’s Right and Wrong in the Ryan Plan
          by David Frum


          The more I think about it, the more the “pick Ryan because he’s the best person to sell the Ryan plan” logic makes sense to me as Romney’s rationale. Not that the plan itself makes sense -- it’s political leprosy -- but Romney’s calculus here has to be that he’s already heavily committed to the plan and is himself the worst possible person to present it. Paul Ryan, as documented with hair-pulling frustration by Krugman, Chait and others, has successfully managed to play down the radicalism of his proposals in the eyes of the media


  3. Olderandwiser55 says:

    So true AdLib. I don’t think he’s financially intelligent either-he reminds me of so many managers over the years. Many get in a position of financial wealth but still have little understanding of finance. They are steered into situations and fed “techno-babble”-and I believe they really think they understand. Certainly, smart or not, people are easily fooled by a lot of financial terms thrown at them. I’m not sure why but people never like to admit they don’t understand complicated finance-yet they wouldn’t expect they should understand any other field of study easily!

    It’s really the same with a financial adviser to client or head trader to CEO or broker to auditor….

    Financially Adept Person: “Buy this, blah, blah, (complicated strategy, complicated terms inserted HERE) buy this…a smart person like yourself understands though-I don’t have to explain to YOU, right?”

    Smart But Not Financially Adept Person: “Well…yes…no….okay”

    FDAP….”Just sign here and here and here….I’m sure it’s the same an important person like you signed a million times so you won’t need to read it..”

    SBNFAP: “well…yes…no…okay”

    • kesmarn says:

      Hello, Olderandwiser55! I don’t think I’ve had a chance to welcome you to the Planet yet…so, welcome!

      Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago in the office of a financial “adviser” that was recommended by — of all things — my employer! He looked to be about 24 years old and was extremely “groomed” and dressed in a well-tailored suit. He was treating us to a line of techno-babble as you mentioned and I interrupted long enough to ask a question: “By the way,” I said, “Would you happen to know if the interest on Series EE Savings Bonds is tax exempt if it’s used to pay college tuition for a child?”

      His eyes went totally blank and he said: “I have no idea.” Then he went back to his well-rehearsed sales pitch for the product they paid him a commission to push.

      That evening I learned that the title “financial adviser” means absolutely nothing.

      • Olderandwiser55 says:

        Hello kesmarn and thank you! It’s nice to find a place to share ideas.

        And exactly so on financial advisers, financial planners etc., etc….it’s all about commission. There are a few left that are decent but very, very few.

        Good for you for seeing it-so many don’t.

    • AdLib says:

      Olderandwiser55, you really nailed it! That is exactly the scenario I’ve seen and that I see Romney “lording” over. And never do these types, once heralded for their financial smarts, say, “Well, actually, all I did was say yes after the people I hired figured everything out.” They always take credit because they rationalize that because they were smart enough to pay someone to come up with brilliant ideas for them to say “yes” to, they’re responsible for the brilliant ideas.

      People are way too quick to elevate people they see as higher up the economic or professional ladder. There are doctors who are total idiots, lawyers who are completely incompetent, hedge fund managers who are thick as bricks, just because someone has wealth, especially because they had wealthy parents, doesn’t mean they are smarter than the average American.

      • Olderandwiser55 says:

        Yes Adlib-that’s exactly the way I see it. Over the years, the financial business was less and less likely to want anyone who was really knowledgeable. They hire those with fresh MBAs or a newly licensed person who really has no understanding of the business. And that’s how they fleece the public at every turn.

  4. SallyT says:

    AdLib, I think there is a similarity between Bush W. and Romney. Both want to best their fathers. Bush W. wanted to be President longer then his dad and also to take Baghdad. Romney wants to be President because his dad didn’t make it that far. Both made it to Governor. Romney Jr has made more money than Dad, although Dad was wealthy but not like his son. So, to best Dad further, he has to be President. (See, Dad never made it to President but he is thought of as a good person. Sonny, not so much. Got to be President to be listed in history above Dad. However, I think he will have about the same place in history as Bush W.)

    • Olderandwiser55 says:

      Yes Sally-and there’s something else going on with both fathers I think. The fathers were traditionally absent types and the traditional mothers raised them. And spoiled them, I think. That’s especially common among the wealthier-providing lots of things and little real emotional support.

    • AdLib says:

      Very true, Sally.

      And there is a difference between being driven by genuine ambition vs. greed. Obama had true ambition. Bush and Romney have had greed as their motivation.

      As you say, both Romney and Bush wanted to be “better” than their fathers and want power for power’s sake. Like the people who are driven to buy better cars than their neighbors, they compete on a superficial level to be “better” than others, to “beat” them and feel superior. That’s not how I’d define ambition.

      The difference between them and Obama is that they had/have no purpose to becoming President other than to benefit themselves. There’s no vision, no sense of public welfare, only the ego gratification of being the most powerful man in the world and trying to change the country so that they and their fellow 1%ers can become wealthier.

      It’s greed or coveting or both but it’s not the kind of ambition that we tell our children to aspire to.

      • I think for some people, ambition is motivated by greed. The more one succeeds, the greater the return, financially. Not in all cases, but I would say the majority of cases. That’s hard to understand in Romney’s case, because he is already obscenely wealthy, and he must be obscenely greedy, if financial gain is his motivation. I think ego is really at play here. I think that many of our presidents have wanted to be a part of history, to have their names preserved by history. He must have a huge ego. His attempts at humility always fall flat. I don’t think he is capable of genuine humility.

      • Ditto Sally has a good point. Sometimes I tend to jumble up ambition with greed because most people’s ambitions in the Reagan greed is good era are seeking greed. But the greatest pols, scientists and artist all have to have a certain level of healthy ambition to succeed. It all depends on what your ultimate motivations and goals are.

    • Indeed Sally I see allot of parallels in their emotional development and resulting behavior. To sum it up both are thin skinned bullies with a daddy complex. Both are extremely insecure men in their own ways. Romney is insecure about showing who he really is to people and Bush is insecure because he does not have confidence in his intelligent so both show a faux toughness. I read an article several years ago written by a psychologist that disused the neurotic tendencies of GWB and that’s essentially the diagnosis he came up with for Bush. But let me say I see allot more mean intent in Romney than I saw in Bush. While Bush was content making others play the bad guy for him Romney relishes negativity, lies and attacking. Remember Bush’s first campaign was very positive save for the dirty tricks played by Rove in the primaries. Sure it was all a lie but Romney is incapable of being positive.

      Again Obama cannot be more opposite. He is tough as nails but does not have to show it because he’s one of the most secure people I’ve ever seen in the public spotlight. He’s got a little abandanment issue with his father but it did not manifest in any severely negative behavioral traits, save for a tad of passive aggressive and petulant behavior at times. I think he’s much more centered because he has such a great wife and family to support him. Writing the book about his father was the only catharsis he needed to not let his childhood issues spoil his life. I know to some people especially race tinged people the confidence Obama shows comes off as arrogant or dare I say uppity.

      • SallyT says:

        KQ, the President did have a good male roll model in his grandfather. Grandfathers sometimes have a better influence because they have lived the father roll but with grandchildren they can make up for any mistakes and re-enforce all the things that worked out well in bringing up their own child. And, Grandpa is old but always wise. At least that is how I remember mine.

  5. What Romney did at Bain is exactly what he’s trying to do with Obama’s efforts as POTUS. I have little doubt the economy is going to take off in the next four years no matter what. One reason is Obamacare will lead to a boom of growth for small business. By 2014 for the first time small business employees will have guaranteed access to healthcare insurance. So it takes away the biggest competitive advantage that big business had over small business for decades in their competition for good employees. Also big business and the rich just can’t hold onto their huge sums of cash for another four years and grow profits at the current rate without hiring more people. So like he did at Bain Romney is trying to make his political capital off of a real visionaries work.

    It doesn’t end there because Romney will leverage the US. Romney will no doubt increase government spending and the debt because that’s what Republicans do. He already said as much by saying he would increase the pentagon budget 5% and believe me he has no intention of paying for his tax cuts, he never did. He knows that Reagan’s boom was based on an increase in government spending which was 3.5% per year. While under Obama the only thing that stopped unemployment from being around 7% instead of over 8% is an annual decrease in government spending averaging 1.5% per year thanks to GOP governors. Romney if he wins will take over the US and artificially grow the economy even further than it would by leveraging America even deeper into debt. Not by investing in things that would help the country like a clean energy future but by expanding the MIC for an enemy that does not exist.

    • AdLib says:

      An excellent analysis, KQ. I would add that Romney’s focus is not building the economy but increasing the acceleration of the US into an unregulated, wealthy-favored plutocracy with greater wealth inequality.

      When you put together all of his plans, as you say, you have a zooming deficit and a slashing of services and income for the 99%.

      I would suggest that if he became President, slashed taxes for the wealthy but raised them on the 99%, raised military spending by 5%, trashed the ACA, SS and Medicare and slashed funding for social programs and services, the economy would instead deteriorate into the Great Depression Obama saved the nation from going through.

      Meanwhile, without regulations, the nation would become polluted, Wall Street would run amuck and destroy the economy and government would become weaker (as is the plan) with revenues slashed and the deficit expanding.

      I think that is what makes this such an important election, if Romney won, the US would likely tumble off the cliff it’s been so precariously balanced on since Bush.

      • Many people say this election lacks vision on both sides. But I think both candidates have antithetical visions they both have laid out there for voters to choose. Obama has focused on tax fairness as his biggest concern and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the rich AND raising capital gains taxes, cutting tax credits for big oil and tax incentives to ship jobs over seas. While Romney has clearly stated he’s for the 1% over and over where his biggest evidence is his tax plan that would give more tax cuts to the wealthy while making the middle class pay for them. Just because Romney’s vision come off as gaffes like he doesn’t care about the poor and likes to fire people doesn’t mean that’s his true vision.

  6. choicelady says:

    George W. Bush was a grifter. He had nothing at the core of his ability, so he manipulated other people to run and finance his “businesses” using Daddy’s money to attract other money. When he failed because there was no core to his “bidness” sense, he walked away and abandoned those who’d helped him. That is NOT evidence of “good business practices”.

    Romney is a buccaneer, a freebooter, a pirate, a knave. He took his own meager talents to make money manipulating the tax codes and write down laws rather than actually running a business building wealth. He stripped assets from everything he touched. It was all perfectly legal, but it is also NOT evidence of good business practices because he created nothing, decreased rather than increased value, never met a payroll, never offered a good or service to the public. Stripping out value to convert to personal riches is not the work of businessmen. It’s what pirates do. Romney is a pirate.

    We have to stop equating rich people with business. Hell -- any decent bank robber or drug dealer can make what these guys do, but we’d not make them role models for “how to make money”. HOW you make money matters -- and business people may have an insight or two, but the grifter-freebooter class? Never in a million years.

    • AdLib says:

      CL, the way I see both Bush and Romney is that they are very similar in their ignorance and it is only the image of what they’ve done that makes them look ruthless.

      Both have an extreme arrogance and IMO, are both of below-average intelligence.

      However, we look at them from an exterior POV, we only see what they’ve done in their past and judge their character by the sum of those events.

      But what if the real story for both of them is simply about the people they surrounded themselves with and the choices provided to them by those people?

      These are men who I see as lacking the intelligence and wisdom to have put themselves in the positions they’ve attained in their lives. They have all of the ego and self-entitlement of business and political moguls but none of it backed up by their intellectual traits.

      So, my theory is the Judge Judy logic, if something doesn’t make sense, it’s not true.

      The wealthy surround themselves with professionals and advisers who can do much of their thinking for them. When we on the outside just see what course they’ve plotted, we attribute that to their insights but in a number of cases, all they are doing is pointing at one of three choices all thought out for them by others.

      At the same time, I agree that there is a real personality difference between Bush and Romney. Bush is the aggressive, spiteful snotty brat and Romney is the more mother-spoiled, prissy elitist brat.

      In both cases, I see children who never really grew up, partially because their wealth allowed them to not have to do so.

      Compare that with Obama who I think can only be seen as an adult.

      And in November, I think we’ll see that the American public does not want a wimpy, ignorant but smug brat as their President.

    • You are dead on about Romney. He was a pirate. He was not a Steve Jobs entrepreneur that created something, instead he exploited other people’s hard work and true business acumen.

  7. AdLib even though you have put together an almost airtight argument that Romney is dumb or at least has no common sense, I’ll play Devil’s advocate a bit.

    Since Romney has no core convictions and is a liar he sounds dumb. Of course that could just be part of what you are saying since liars and people with no core are dumb by definition because they don’t have the capacity to develop a core personality or integrity. But let’s say for argument sake Romney had at least an above average intelligence when it came to making money at least in the fixed system he was one of the better fixers. Since making money was perhaps his only true core value he performed at that very well showing that when he put his mind to it he did show some innate intelligence.

    But in politics when you have no core convictions and are a liar, save for wanting to win you look incredibly dumb because you are campaigning lie to lie. Studies have shown it takes much much more brain power to tell a lie than to tell the truth. To me that seems obvious because telling the truth is just simple recall while lying is like creative writing over and over. If you’re not William Shakespeare, Agatha Christie or Charles Dickens most people simply don’t have the brain power to recant their fictional stories exactly the same over and over again.

    I also have the belief that ideology makes you dumb as a pile of rocks. You just don’t have the ability to look at the world that exists without rationalizing away everything that does not fit your ideology. For example we know there is no good reason to give the rich lower taxes. That ideology is totally corrupt so you aimlessly have to invent reasons to justify a falsehood again requiring brain power.

    So sure I think Romney has ZERO common sense and a very narrow world view based on his protected history you describe so well. But I think Romney like most Republicans are not inherently dumb but waste most of their brain power either trying to recant lies or using rationalizations to describe failed ideologies.

    Like I always say. Human being’s greatest strength is their capacity to reason while there greatest weakness is their propensity to rationalize.

    So I guess my bottom line is Romney has no common sense and is not smart enough to lie or pass himself off as someone he’s not. So yeah Romney is dumb just for making the bad decisions he’s made so far resulting in all these gaffes that trickle out inevitably.

    • AdLib says:

      KQ -- It’s possible that Romney isn’t dumb as a post but I still haven’t seen any evidence to support that argument.

      I am certain that it was highly paid accountants and lawyers that conceived of every tax avoidance scheme Romney has participated in at Bain or in his own finances. Not believable that Romney spent months or years studying complex tax law to come up with such complicates schemes.

      Instead, Romney did what most wealthy people do, paid the top law firms, financial experts and accountancy firms to find ways to avoid paying taxes and just approved what they came up with.

      That doesn’t take any brains, just inherited money.

      As you say, Romney also exhibits no common sense. Can one be brilliant but not have any common sense? I suppose but it’s hard to understand since it is hard to be smart on one hand but incredibly ignorant on the other.

      I’ll go for the most likely combo meal here, Romney is a stupid rich kid who is not very bright and his deficiencies flow from that.

      • Like I said to K the empirical evidence is on your side of the argument. I definitely have to rationalize a bit myself to infer that Romney is even a little above average intelligence. The only concrete empirical evidence I have on my side are Romney’s educational credentials which would lead me to believe that Romney is at least a bit more intelligent than average or he would not have been able to complete his JD and MBA at Harvard. But again is it really intelligence that matters in the real world and to that question I say no it doesn’t based on my knowledge about PhD’s who have all the academic credentials in the world but still use common household spray paint to spray their bumpers after getting dinged (long story).

        It think there is a greater truth here as well. For so many years the right wing has been pushing the self fulfilling prophecy that guvment is bad and only attracts incompetent people has come full circle. Now the GOP is stuck with not only a bunch of people that are not passionate about good governance but where ideology is favored over competence. So the GOP now gets the kind of candidates it deserves, those propelled by the peter principle where everyone rises to their level of incompetence.

        • AdLib says:

          Indeed KQ, the GOP seems to have brought their vision of the future to fruition within their own party. Intelligence, truth and science are eschewed in favor of advancing an agenda that benefits the wealthy and promotes a religious theocracy.

          So, as you point out, the gold standard in the GOP is being a divisive and ignorant liar.

          And while such candidates can thrive in a district or state that’s well populated with blindly loyal Repubs, on the national stage, they are inadequate.

    • kesmarn says:

      KQ, may I tweak that proposed theory just a bit? How about the notion that it’s possible to be dumb and cunning at the same time? I’ve always felt that cunning is different from intelligence. It seems much more instinctual.

      I’ve known people who are not intelligent at all, but are cunning in figuring out ways to make money. Others were incredibly ingenious when it came to inventing ways to be cruel. Or in coming up with ways to be seductive, to get ahead on the job, to play on others’ sympathy, or any of a number of questionable “accomplishments.” If they’d been given an IQ test, they’d have scored pretty low, I’m sure. And yet, when you look at some of the schemes these sorts of people come up with, your first reaction is often: “Good God, I never would have thought of that!” (Of course, that feeling is sometimes combined with horror, too.)

      I think Romney, Bush and Palin all have this sort of cunning. They go with their guts and their guts seem to have an uncanny instinct for promoting their own agendas. All three of them are dim-witted, though. And they seem to have a tendency to overplay their hands, which brings them down in the end. Unfortunately, in Dubya’s case his fall from grace came too late to do the rest of us much good.

      The thing that distinguishes Romney from Dubya and Palin though, is his abrasive personality. Granted Dubya and Palin can definitely get on people’s nerves. But — much as it pains me to admit it — Dubya could be incredibly funny. I seriously would have loved to see him drunk at a college party, because he was a born clown. Add to that the fact that his wife was a MUCH more sympathetic figure than Ann-toinette Romney, and you can see how he made it to the White House. Palin has her looks. But Romney has none of that. He’s considered handsome by some people, but to me he resembles the Steve Carell character in “The Office,” the boss everyone hates (and who is completely oblivious to that fact).

      Who would vote for that guy?

      • AdLib says:

        Kes, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.

        I look at Romney as I would a snake. Not very smart or very evolved but cunning, unsympathetic and solely focused on acting to serve his own best interest.

        Romney was raised to be a predator and has acted like that his whole life…but has only succeeded at it because he has been protected by a shell of wealth all along.

        If you put Mitt Romney on a desert island, he wouldn’t survive a few weeks, in fact, he’d probably have killed himself accidentally before the boat that dropped him off left shore.

        Take away Romney’s inherited wealth and connections and he would sink like a stone. He has no wit, no inventiveness, no awareness, no reasoning, none of the traits that a “real” person would have to employ to succeed in the world.

        Mitt Romney, like George Bush, Donald Trump and a slew of other brats born into great wealth succeed despite their incompetence and by using the elitist and sociopathic mindset of being willing to do anything and harm anyone to satisfy their greed.

        • No doubt ambition and greed make up for talent and intelligence often for people who are ‘successful’. Look at Aryanna for Pete’s sake.

          • AdLib says:

            KQ, I think this is a fascinating area. Putting aside Romney’s being born into wealth and powerful connections, there do seem to be a variety of paths to achieving success, only some of them involve being intelligent.

            Sometimes greed and persistence, even if stemming from a false sense of confidence in one’s intellect or wisdom can lead to success.

            In Romney’s case, I think he had a low hurdle to jump, that was just the world he was born into, one where all the hurdles are low.

            So his unjustified sense of superiority and entitlement may have given him the confidence to move forward but it is still his wealth and being able to pay people to do the thinking for him that made him successful.

      • I absolutely agree and good way to describe it.

        Not saying Romney is one but psychopaths are extremely cunning at feigning human behavior but they still don’t have a clue what being an empathetic human means.

        Romney to me seems like a terrible big picture thinker which is the antithesis of President Obama. So many times I’ve seen Romney interviewed where he says absolutely nothing of substance. His whole campaign is just a meandering group of disjointed attacks rather than having a coherent strategy. Maybe Romney has AADD.

        The first thing that really sold me on Obama in 2008 was when I read a transcript of an interview he had with Wolfe Blitzer about foreign policy. I found it astounding how much Obama understood the big picture but understood nuance as well. I just said to myself this guy ‘gets it’ like no candidate I’ve seen in a while.

        If you don’t have a good BS filter Romney can sound like a smart guy but he really does not understand the crux of any issue.

        You last point is spot on too. Romney has a truly uncomfortable presence because he just think he’s above being questioned. I think the difference between his interviews and W’s and Palin’s interviews is Romney resents being questioned and that’s why he’s defensive while the other two are insecure so that’s why they get defensive. So Romney comes off as mean spirited and the other two come off as being more human.

        Again compare Obama. He is always comfortable in his own skin and any combativeness he shows is more based on his experience debating dare I say intellectuals. He does get aggressive when someone like O’Reilly asks stupid questions but I don’t blame him.

        • kesmarn says:

          KQ, I think this was a brilliant observation:

          I think the difference between his interviews and W’s and Palin’s interviews is Romney resents being questioned and that’s why he’s defensive while the other two are insecure so that’s why they get defensive. So Romney comes off as mean spirited and the other two come off as being more human.

          That’s it exactly.

          I think Obama is exceptionally smart. Maybe one of the smartest presidents in American history. And I do think stupidity really annoys him — or maybe, more accurately, willful ignorance. I think he struggles to suppress his impatience when others can’t/won’t keep up. And he succeeds. I also sense that he and Biden have a better relationship than many folks assume, partly because Biden — plain-spoken as he is — is also very smart.

  8. AlphaBitch says:

    Law, AdLib -- with what you have just described, it’s a true wonder that he isn’t from Texas! (However, not sure of “Ham” Rove’s origins -- aside from Porky Pig, of course)

  9. Kalima says:

    There is no doubt that Romney is thick as a stack of house bricks, you just have to replay the primary debates to see how long it took for the penny to drop and the defensive reaction to start when someone insulted him. It was often so embarrassing to watch. Then follow his dismal performance so far in answering questions about his policies, hard to answer when you really don’t have a clue, and have no policies worth mentioning.

    I imagine that Romney, just like Bush, spent his school days feeling privileged and looking down his nose at others. If he actually graduated in anything, it would have been in Deceit, The Art of Lying, Apathy, Superiority 101, and Entitlement, and I disagree with some that he didn’t learn this from an early age, and at home. Someone close to him shaped the young, callous Romney, and the closest were his parents, and immediate family. Romney is like many rich kids, closeted by his family, never having to have had to sort out his own messes, and totally unaware of the rest of the world and the people in it unless it meant making extra money off them.

    Hopefully the voters who will decide this election are catching up to the sheer spineless nothingness of his campaign, and realize that it and he have no substance. Romney is like a sandcastle built in the morning too close to the waterline, and little by little will dissolve with the ebb and flow of the tide of uncertainty turning against him.

    As usual AdLib, spot on, and the graphic is priceless. 😀

    Just to prove that Mitt is still sliding in the popularity vote, here is the latest poll done by CNN no less.


    This just now from an email alert:

    “President Obama holds 7-point lead over presumptive GOP challenger Mitt Romney in a CNN/ORC International poll released Thursday.

    The poll also shows Romney’s unfavorable rating is up, and Romney’s supporters are increasingly getting behind him.

    However, “Among independent voters, the poll indicates President Obama has a 53%-42% lead,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “The president holds a 9 point advantage among women and a 6 point edge among men.”

    Poll: Romney’s unfavourability rating on the rise.


    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, the one silver lining to Romney and others like him being such greedy, selfish and unprincipled people is that these traits also make them very distasteful to the public and even their huge amounts of money can’t always equalize that.

      I think most voters do see what an arrogant elitist Romney is, it’s hard not to see. It’s actually unprecedented for a Presidential challenger in poor economic times to have the unlikeability numbers Romney has.

      It’s not over yet but with Obama having won the Summer and ahead in most swing states, a surge by Romney after the GOP convention, which is far from assured since it will be a mosh pit of hatred, would only bring him even in the polls…then comes the Dem convention and Obama bounces up past him again.

      Yes, there will be millions in SuperPAC propaganda ads lying about Obama but I think the hill will be way too steep to climb, especially considering what a terrible candidate and campaigner Romney is, for Romney to win the race.

    • In the spotlight Romney is truly starting to make GWB look like a genius in comparison.

      If you go by empirical evidence alone you would have to say he’s that dumb.

  10. AdLib says:

    Add this to the reservoir of stupidity in Mitt Romney’s head and you get the nastiest concoction, “The Romney Cocktail”:

    Rich People More Likely to Lie, Cheat, Study Suggests

    Four lab tests that included undergraduates at Berkeley and national online samples of adults revealed those who considered themselves upper class had greater tendencies to make unethical decisions. This included unrightfully stealing something, lying in a negotiation, cheating at a game of chance to boost their chances of winning cash or endorsing unethical behavior at work, such as stealing cash, receiving bribes and overcharging customers.


  11. The cause of Romney’s insulting behavior and/or remarks are somewhat of a mystery, to me. I think he insults people with his stupid remarks without intentionally doing so. It’s like he can’t help himself. I’m sure living in the multi-millionaire bubble has a lot to do with it. He strikes me as someone who always expects the best (and usually gets it, I’m sure). People like this have a habit of insulting others because, to Romney, what others offer, it is never good enough, in his eyes.

    Romney has a way of implying that nothing rises to his standards. Even when he tries to praise, he insults in some way or another. Diplomacy is not among Romney’s list of qualifications. His scumbag air of entitlement ultimately breaks through the very thin veneer of any attempt he makes to look like a regular guy. People (who are not brainwashed by the right)don’t see him as a “guy I’d like to have a beer with.” He doesn’t even drink beer. I’m sure that in his private mind, he sees himself as better than everyone else. No person or organization or group can ever measure up, and Romney just can’t stop himself from letting his disapproval come to the surface, in some subtle way or another. He doesn’t seem to know this about himself and must think that others aren’t capable of noticing his subconscious
    disapproval. He reminds me of Dr. Charles Emerson Winchester on MASH. Nothing is good enough if it doesn’t come from wealth and people who consider themselves above average in the cultured, moneyed upper crust of society.

    • To me the strongest character trait I read from Romney is he judges everything and everyone based on the money it’s worth or makes. It seems he’s got his mind on his money and money on his mind 24/7.

    • AlphaBitch says:

      KT: Romney would only drink IPA -- IF he drank. I like them, but can drink a beer with the best of the boys! Just don’t give me Budweiser (or as we say here: Buttwiper). I’ll take a Shiner, please.

      \The analogy to Charles Emerson Winchester (was it the III?) is a good one. Or Thurston Howell and his wife, Lovey.

    • AdLib says:

      KT -- I really suggest that if all of his financial trappings are put aside, all one sees is a dumb person. I don’t say that as a pejorative, I think his IQ is not so high and neither is his ability to reason.

      My proposition is that there’s a very easy and obvious answer to why Romney does stupid things…he’s not that smart.

      I do agree that his elitist upbringing put him in an inescapable classist bubble and given him a mountain of undeserved entitlement. I see those as part of the mixture of his stew of ignorance.

      I think folks have bought into the elitist mindset that the two are opposites but having known some real idiots who had a lot of money, I can personally testify that being wealthy and stupid are not mutually exclusive.

      • Oh, no doubt. It’s definitely a combination of stupidity and elitism. I believe that much can be told by looking closely at a person’s face. Romney has a real dullard’s look in his face. I know we can’t always judge a book by it’s cover, as the old adage goes, but I think Romney is the exception. He just doesn’t look very bright. Just the type of president the GOP likes.

        • I know exactly what you mean W and Scott Walker have that look too. Honestly I’m not so sure I see that in Romney. I would have to meet him in person because it’s not that obvious to me.

          I’ve know allot of intelligent people and the one thing I found is that intelligence is pretty diverse and very complex. I’ve met PhDs that were dumb as a pile of rocks and high school dropouts who were brilliant. I think there is also an innate intelligence IQ and an emotional IQ. To me because Romney had such a guarded life his emotional IQ seems real low.

          • KQ, the look is not always evident in Romney’s face. It does show pretty vividly depending on camera angle and the topic that he is dealing with in the moment. I think it appears in between statements that he is making. The scripted Romney seems like someone who actually has some smarts, but off script is when that look really shows. In between performances.

            I don’t think education necessarily denotes intelligence. Sure, in the field of study that one has achieved, but outside of that field of study, a person can be, as you say, “dumb as a pile of rocks.” I’ve known many people with only a high school diploma or GED that were very intelligent.

            • Agreed I think being able to accomplish certain levels of education does require people to have a certain level of a certain kind of intelligence. I consider people with real intelligence to have not only common sense but a certain kind of wisdom to discern the real truths in the world around them. About everyone I’ve encountered on the Planet has this kind of discernment. So using that as that ultimate yardstick in experiencing intelligent people I see very very few Republicans including Romney who have that kind of intelligence anymore.

              An intelligent person by no means needs to know all the answers but they should know most of the right questions or be inquisitive enough to try and discover the right questions to ask.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories