Posted by
Glen Albrethsen on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:04:32 PM
Look, we get that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is rich.
Now with Chuck Norris repeatedly complaining--op-ed pieces here, TV appearances there--about the fact that Romney can finance his own campaign however he wants, but Norris can only give $2,300 to his favorite candidate, Mike Huckabee, who isn't as rich, it's beyond old.
"Do you think Romney would have done so well if it weren't for the fact he can give himself whatever he wants?" Norris reasons, or something to that effect.
The truth is, no. Romney, despite his ample business credentials and the turnaround of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, and then his four year term as Governor in Massachusetts, where he pulled off another turnaround and passed the closest thing to market-driven universal health care in existence, he was still not a household name. Certainly not on the level of a previous presidential candidate, self-styled maverick Arizona US Senator with 25 year tenure and war hero status, or a hardnosed, bare knuckle mayor of New York City, who ruled the lawless with an iron fist, and then showed great leadership and compassion for the same city when it was devastated by 9/11.
Throw in a two term US Senator from Tennessee who was best known for his role on law and order, and such a line up would dwarf many a presidential nominee hopeful.
It did dwarf Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo and eventually Duncan Hunter.
So, in order to run a national campaign, without the help of the Evangelical Preacher Rock The Vote Network (EPRTVN), Romney needed money. He raised more than any other Republican candidate, and then he dipped into his own money. The money was spent on advertising and to get his ground game up and running. While surely there's been ample grassroots help, it's not compared to what Huckabee has managed to put together, and has been outdone by McCain, through endorsements by prominent governors of late.
Well, my thought is, it's his money, the law allows it, so he can spend it.
Huckabee might want to talk to his buddy McCain about some more campaign finance reform, since it was his wonderful bill that contributed to the law now governing campaign finance. But no, not a word from Huckabee about McCain. It's all Romney's fault, because he's rich!
The way I see it, Romney's been working for free since 1999. Sure he's got some investments and assets worth up to $250 million, and he's making interest or dividends or what have you at a good clip, but he didn't take a salary while with the Olympics and he didn't take a salary as governor, and he's not being paid to campaign, and he wouldn't take a salary as President of the United States. Who was the last president who did that?
All of this wealth redistribution rhetoric, what's it for? I feel for those who don't have much. Heck, I've been there. By the grace of God go I, for that matter. Who knows, I might end up back there. It's not like I made $300,000-plus in 2006 like Huckabee did. Admittedly, he's the poorest of the candidates, but even that's not poor compared to the rest of us, the ones he's wanting to remind everyone about.
And just what is the responsibility of the president towards the poor, anyway? Is he supposed to be using the powers of the presidency to orchestrate some kind of economic boon for the poor? Gee, I always thought it was the conservative way to allow the free market to create wealth, better jobs, higher wages, not government. I always thought government was supposed to just get the heck out of the way.
But then Huckabee, aside from a radio stint, has been living off the people's generosity for most of his adult life, first as a Baptist preacher, where I would guess salary was financed at least partly relative to donations by the congregation, and then as governor. Granted, $74,000 a year (or maybe it was raised to that over the 10.5 years he was there), isn't much nowadays, but still more than a lot of us make. And all from the taxes the people of Arkansas paid.
I've always understood it was the conservative way, heck, the American way, to make your own way in life. Huckabee decided to go from one type of service to another, where salaries aren't that high paying. Romney chose to get a dual degree in law and business, then use that to get into business consulting then venture capitalism. At the same time, he served as a bishop and a stake president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for free, no easy tasks to perform with such a busy work schedule. All of that on top of raising five sons.
Personally, I think Romney has paid his dues. Moreover, he's chosen to give back, by putting himself and his family, his character and his faith, under the enormous scrutiny of presidential politics. He certainly didn't need that kind of aggravation. And he certainly doesn't need the kind of disdain from fellow candidates that only seems to be bred from jealously and a fundamental misunderstanding of just what the American dream is.
The American dream is not that everyone gets the same thing as everyone else. It's not even that everyone gets the same level of opportunity to achieve greatness. The American dream is, you can dream, and you can make those dreams real, if you work hard enough and sacrifice enough to do it. Believe me, there are plenty of countries on this earth where dreaming is futile, but not here. Not yet.
When Republicans act like Democrats, America loses. That goes for going after the haves when you're a have not. No one has to accept their lot in life. They have every right to want more out of it. At the same time, there's no reason to drag someone else down because of their own fortune and prosperity.
Move to change the campaign finance laws so that Norris can spend more money on you. Don't go after the guy who earned his own money and is willing to put a bunch of it up on his own behalf.
Besides, if you think Romney's got money, wait until you and McCain are running against Bloomberg in the fall!