Okay, it's time to get political.

I am voting for Mitt Romney.   I usually keep for whom I am voting a relative secret, because I typically feel I am choosing the lesser of two evils and often don't decide for sure until sometime in the weeks leading up to the election.  I am NOT a straight-ticket voter, although it's safe to say that I  lean to the side of being a conservative, which does not necessarily mean Republican anymore, in my view.  See my post about the Republican Party from a few years back.  This year, however, I am wholeheartedly voting for Mitt Romney.

To be sure, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea of a member of my faith running for such a high-profile office.  Though I feel the publicity the church has encountered because of Governor Romney's bid for the presidency has been largely positive,  I think the media (and the American public) are brutal, and so many attach the failings of an individual to his/her most prominent characteristics - in Mitt's case that he's rich and he's Mormon.  That kind of public scrutiny makes me nervous.  What I don't get is why on earth anyone would want to run for president - it's a constant slugfest out there.  Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but I believe that Mitt is running for the right reasons.

I regularly read articles about the election - and I often scroll down through the comments sections to get my jollies.  I'm not sure they're an accurate reflection of what the general public thinks/believes, but I have discovered a few consistent criticisms of Mitt Romney and his potential (or lack thereof) as a future president of the United States.  Let me address these separately.

#1  People love to bemoan the fact that Mitt is rich.  Why is this a problem?  They think he was silver-spoon-fed and that he's trampled on the backs of the average worker to make millions.  Gosh, the bitterness is truly astounding.  I'm not rich (at least by American standards, which, let's be honest, are wealthy compared to much of the world) but I have no problem with others being rich, especially if:
a.  They worked their tails off to make their money (minus the lying, stealing and cheating that some people indulge in to get there).
b.  They are generous with their earnings.
and c.  they are grounded by a sense that money isn't everything.
Based on what I've read and heard, Mitt fits the bill.  And all three of those attributes will make him a good president, particularly with regards to the economy.

Criticism # 2 : He's out of touch with the average American.  Anyone who has served as, or had a family member serve as bishop of a Latter-day Saint congregation knows better.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints organizes itself into congregations based on geography.  In a typical ward (outside of Utah, in particular) this encompasses people from a broad demographic.  In the Boston area, where Mitt was a bishop, his congregation was likely made up of people from many different walks of life, including those in middle/lower socioeconomic classes.  He would have spent an inordinate amount of time with such individuals as their (unpaid) clergyman.  I find this a remarkable characteristic of Mormon wards - we rub shoulders with all types of people, people we wouldn't necessarily have met (or hit it off with, for that matter) except that we share the same faith.  Not only do we meet with them weekly at church, we serve with them, and we learn and grow from our associations.  With his millions, Mitt could be hanging only with those in the upper echelons of society, but he has his faith to ground him and he has the opportunity to recognize that getting food on the table is a real issue for some people, some of those with whom he meets every Sunday at church.

Criticism # 3:  Mitt Romney will line the pockets of his cronies, the 1%.  Oh please, if we want to whine about misspending in government, look no further than our current president.  This post isn't about Obama, but I believe "Ye shall know them by their fruits".   Most of Romney's experience is in the private sector, but in both instances where he was asked (or elected) to serve in a public role(head of 2002 Winter Olympics and Governor of Massachusetts), he took no salary.   That speaks volumes.  He respects taxpayers enough to cut his own salary, rather than living the high life on their tab.  We need more public servants like that.  It's so George Washington-esque.  Combine that with the fact that he donates 16% of his income to charity (shall we compare him with, say Joe Biden?) and I'm sold.

Criticism # 4:  Release those tax returns!  Really?  This one is getting so old.  Some people think he's got something to hide.  I think he's got better things to do.

Criticism # 5:  He's a blundering idiot, particularly with regard to foreign policy.  Okay, I'll cut you guys a little slack on this one.  His remarks have been, shall we say, less than tactful, at times.  The whole Libya thing kinda bothered me, not because I think he misspoke, but because I'm left to wonder why the heck Romney is making any sort of statement on the Libya situation.  He's a presidential candidate.  Not president, or even president-elect.  Who really cares what Romney said?  As a president, obviously he'll have to work on his diplomacy skills, but personally, I think that the truth is what should be spoken, instead of what everyone wants to hear.  I anticipate that Mr. Romney will speak the truth, even when it is unpopular.

Criticism #6 : He strapped his dog in its crate to the top of a car on family road trips.  It's a dog, people.  He let it out to go to the bathroom, heck, he took it on their family trips!  Surely, this was a beloved animal if they brought it along instead of sticking it in a kennel like many others do (not that I think that's a bad thing entirely, I'm just trying to make the point that the dog was regarded highly enough to be brought on the trip).  But, I say again, it is a dog.  A pet.  Yes, a living creature, but not entitled to the same rights and privileges as humans.  We are at the top of the food chain, and there is a reason for that.  Besides, can you explain the logic behind the fact that liberals are up in arms about how Mitt treated his family dog but feel that killing unborn fetuses (under any circumstances) qualifies as a woman's "right to control her body"?  What about Mitt's rights to include the dog on his trip?

Okay, I need to stop now, because it's just getting silly.

We've still got a couple of months until the general election - my opinions are aplenty, but I can't promise to keep 'em coming - I've got a household to run!  And other blog posts to catch up on.  But there's my two cents.  For now.