When John McCain stated to the Politico that he was unaware of how many houses he owned, democrats swarmed on the statements like vultures. They attacked McCain eluding that he was unable to connect with "real" Americans because he was obviously an outlandish - out of touch political figure. Now pro-Obama democrats are running an overtime out lash on McCain.
Even Obama and his campaign got in on the attack. David Axelrod, the chief Obama strategist, in an interview with the New York Times, attempted to ascribe McCain as an outlaw for his abundant homes. Then the culmination of the entire side show came when the Obama campaign released an ad that closes with a shot of the White House and a narrator saying, "Here's ONE house Americans can't afford to let John McCain move into."
The problem is that the democrats argument is one, illogical and two, highly hypocritical. First on the illogical assumption that being wealthy and successful is bad thing. Since when? Of course democrats try demonizing the wealthy to gain the sentiment of "bitter" lower class voters (not that lower class voters are all "bitter" by any means, but the 'bitter" ones). We've all heard it before, the democrats preaching dependence on the government and a lack of responsibility. It's a direct attempt to try and demonize the wealthy by saying that they exploit the poor. Why cant a guy be wealthy because he worked hard, studied hard in school and never gave up?....no he has to be wealthy by somehow exploiting the lower class as the means to his success, at least according to democrats; which brings me to my second point.
What about the democrats who are extremely wealthy? Party leaders like Mr. Ted Kennedy- are they out of touch with "real" Americans too? No, because they don't actually believe this class war fare junk they spout. It's all an attempt to subdue a whole class of people keeping them dependant on the democrats power so that the democrats can retain that same power. The hypocrisy is crazy, last election cycle the democratic candidate for president John Kerry, too owned multiple homes. Was it an issue to them then? Was he not able to unite with average Americans? They would have said he was able then...so why isn't John McCain? Why is it different now?
The main dilemma is this: the democrats are saying that somehow achieving success is a bad thing. That the successful are villains, and the unsuccessful are simply exploited. This is in direct opposition to what the "American Dream" is all about. The dream that says I can work hard, despite my means to be successful at what ever I aim to achieve success in. That my government will not stand as an obstacle to my success, but as facilitator of a land where my dreams can be realities. A dream that says success is solution only equated by variables such as hard work and determination that propel both myself and my country. It's a dream that parallels Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" that states that an individual pursuing his own self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole.
Multiple homes is nothing too be ashamed of, it's a blessing. It's an affirmation that the idea's that success can be in any one citizens reach. That our country is still a land that promotes fiscal possibilities too all who dare to dream.
