And here we expect politicians like this to relate to us and understand what the average American needs and wants. Which is primarily, of course, to be left alone and have our nation defended. But when you’ve got this kind of money, there will always be a sense that you know better, and may even be better than the ‘regular’ people.
Romney’s estimated wealth in millions
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who made his fortune as a management consultant, is expected to report financial assets between $190 million and $250 million, an adviser said Friday.
Aides to the former Massachusetts governor said his assets have been held in a blind trust that he and his wife set up when he took office in 2002. The adviser who provided the estimate of his assets cautioned that the number is based on 2005 and 2006 financial activity and could amount to a bigger total once the disclosure report is filed later this year…
Romney also has a blind trust for his children and grandchildren that is estimated to hold assets between $70 million and $100 million, the adviser said. Those assets do not benefit Romney or his wife and are not required to be reported in federal financial disclosures.
You know I like success and think people should have as much money as possible. Money is the only thing that guarantees our personal freedom. But when it comes to politicians, there is something to say about th impact of being so removed from the regular American experience.
I don’t claim to have any answers (yet), but I’m just not so sure the mega-wealthy are the people we want making our decisions any more.
Tammy…who better to keep the economy going…someone with an understanding of finance and actual experience, or someone that only has theories to fall back on? In some things, “the Mega-wealthy” do know better than us, that’s how they became that way. I don’t think a person’s success should be held against them, it’s not a bad thing…we should all strive for that. Romney is a proven leader, and his success with the Olympics should tell you something about the man. I probably won’t vote for him, I’m hoping Thompson will get in, but he is definitely a good man….end of rant.
Part of Romney’s problem is that, to many people, it seems like he’s never known a bad day; that he’s not human. I personally agree with Kevin. I’d rather see a man who understands how to grow money running the economy. In his favor, he does refer to the Islamofascists as the “Jihadist Movement”.
Mitt Romney is probably less far removed from from the “regular American experience” than any of the candidates. He has served as a Stake President in the LDS church. That means he has met personally with hundreds of people and counseled with them, often about private or intimate religious matters. (Think “confession” but with the emphasis not being so much on confessing, but on a process of repenting.) A Stake President usually presides over about 7 or 8 “wards” or congregations. You can be certain that he has been “in the trenches” with people. I have enormous confidence in him to be able to connect with the everyday American.
I have come to take it for granted that individuals who run for office, especially high office, are generally quite well connected and well off. I’m more interested in their track record. Power, wealth, influence and talent can carry a person farther than their character can sustain them. Romney passes the entrance exam.
The current system is stacked in favor of those with great wealth. But the fact that they have accumulated wealth should not be a disqualifier to have power. Even the non-rich lose touch with reality. Our best defense would be term limits for the rich or non-rich. Lots of rich Dems too crying about the “small guy.” Edwards, Kennedy, Corzine, Clinton, Boxer, Feinstein etc.
Does anyone really believe that we are going to get a candidate for President that understands or will do anything in accordance with the “will of the American people” anymore? We will end up with two candidates hand picked by the pollsters and the political parties and we will have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Once in office the nonsense will continue! Spending will continue out of control and there will be ZERO reform of government so what does it matter!
Here here for term limits! If we had, say, a limit of 4 terms in the House (8 years) and 2 terms in the Senate (12 years), there would be no more Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. Plus Bernie Sanders, our only openly socialist member of Congress, would have been kicked out of the House in 1998 and may not have been able to win a Senate seat (He was quietly elected Senator in 2006 after being a Congressman from 1991-2006. Thanks a lot, Vermont.).
The problem is that all of the proponents of term limits think it’s cute to self-impose term limits and “nobly retire” after a couple of terms, leaving nothing but career politicians who will never vote for term limits in office. Can we please end that stupid little martyrdom practice until we actually pass term limits as law?
On the note of term limits: Yes! I am totally in favor of limiting the careers of politicians so they can return to ‘reality’ and live by the same rules they impose on the rest of us. Hey, wouldn’t it be nice to have ‘public servants’ instead of a bunch of bloated morons on display as ‘career politicians’?
As for Romney: Though I want to see us all succeed and want people to strive for their best in all things, we must be mindful that not everyone who accumulates wealth deserves to be president. Just because Romney’s got the bucks does not guarantee he can run a nation successfully.
If wealth is what gauges one’s ability to lead, then John Kerry should be president now.
Funny, but as I recall, many felt Kerry was ‘out of touch’ w/ the average Jane and Joe due to his higher standard of living. Why so different for Mitt?
I would also argue with the point that ‘power, wealth, influence and talent can carry a person farther than their character can sustain them’. There is some truth in that statement, but also a flaw for one’s character is what sustains them when confronted with or given power, wealth, influence and talent. In fact, one’s true character emerges when met with such.
With that in mind, I can’t help but have concerns about Romney that extend far beyond his bank account.
ArtGal, The difference between John F. Kerry and Mitt Romney is John F. Kerry appears to have acquired his wealth primarily by way of marrying a couple of rich women, whereas Mitt Romney appears to have actually had some of his own input into his wealth.
I just have to wonder how Democrats can continue to think that theirs is the party of “the common people” and Republicans are the party of “the wealthy”, given the wealth of the leading candidates of both, and looking at the fact that the Republicans collect far more small-$ donations while the Democrats rely on fewer numbers of donations in far larger amounts.