I'm amazed by politicians who try to turn the wealth of their opponent into a negative. When did being rich and successful become a bad thing? Of course, it's all relative since all the presidential candidates are "rich." It just so happens Mitt Romney is fabulously rich.
So what? He didn't steal money from widows and orphans. He earned it as a smart, tough and effective businessman.
Besides, what's the alternative? Should we prefer a broke, homeless guy who's never succeeded at anything, but at least was never rich?
Remember when Mike Sodrell's opponents tried to smear him by calling him "Millionaire Mike?" All that told me was that he was good at what he did and he wanted to be in Congress to serve – not fill his pockets.
I've always admired people who generated their own fortunes, or took the one given them and made it greater. I don't hate them because they're smarter than I am or better at business -- or even luckier.
I want my political candidates to be smart and successful, to have original ideas and to be honest. People with those attributes tend to be wealthy. But I don't believe that automatically makes them unfit to lead or unable to relate to those of more modest means.
Do you agree? Or is it a deal breaker for you if the candidate is wealthy? Call and let us know.
I'm Bill Lamb, and that's my…Point of View.