In her Oct. 2 letter, Gabriele Leister-Jones says great wealth disqualifies one from being president. If that’s the case, we should never have elected Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, as both were very wealthy. But they were Democrats, so I’m sure Leister-Jones would have made an exception in their cases.
While Roosevelt and Kennedy inherited their money, Mitt Romney got his the hard way — he earned it. Given the choice between Romney and President Barack Obama, who has had zero business experience, I’d go with Romney any day, especially considering the deeper economic hole Obama has dug us into.
Liberals have a propensity to turn everything on its head, and the party line this election year is that being a financial success is somehow suspect, a belief that has more in common with Marxism than American free enterprise. Democrats are hoping that the old class-warfare routine will strike a responsive chord with the electorate. But voters, many of whom could stand a little financial success, may not be buying it.
What would a second Obama term entail? More of what we’ve seen already: the worst economy since the Great Depression; a crushing national debt; higher taxes and their corollary, high unemployment; a steadily expanding and intrusive federal government; a healthcare system run by Washington; a timid and dangerous foreign policy and continuing military decline. A Romney administration would be the polar opposite of Obama’s socialist agenda, which is why he’s got my vote.