I am not very naïve. A little bit, probably, but not too much. I know that big-time politicians are rich people, and most have more than one home. So I’m not naïve; I understand how a person who is smart enough, influential enough, and ambitious enough to become a well known politician – say, a U.S. Senator, for example – would naturally end up being pretty rich.
But I am trying really, really hard to get my mind around being so rich that you lose track of how many homes you own. I mean, really? It seems like it would be an easy question, doesn’t it? “How many homes do you own, Senator McCain?” Even just taking a few moments to think about it and then replying would have been better than, “I’ll have my staff get back to you on that.”
So then that adds a layer. I now have to get my mind around being rich enough to have a staff that you could pay to count your homes for you for the purposes of answering the question of how many homes you have. By the way, do you think he asked one person, or did he appoint a task force? Was it, “Hey Joe, do me a favor and count my homes, would ya?”
Like I said, I’m not naïve, so I know that Senator Obama is rich, too. He probably owns a few homes himself. He’s smart, influential, and ambitious enough to be elected Senator and nominated for president, which means he’s probably loaded up a bit of cash along his way.
How out of touch with median-income-$50,000-citizen are you when you actually lose track of how many homes you own, and have to defer the question until your staff can do some fact-checking? In what world must you live, and how in the heck are you going to make sure the working poor can afford health care by the way, when you have to use more than one hand to count your homes?
I’m not saying that being extremely wealthy automatically disqualifies someone from leading the country, either. But it would be nice if someone would remind me of the distinction between a republic and a plutocracy again. The line seems to have grown a bit fuzzy.