I read this piece by Jonathan Martin about Mike Huckabee and had a few thoughts:

“I think the American people are increasingly frustrated with candidates who attempt, in essence, to buy their way in because they look at it and they say, ‘If a person can do that, do they really understand me? Do they represent me?’ And the conclusion is, no, they really don’t.”

Ever since Romney won the first quarter money race I’ve noticed that some candidates want to make the campaign as some sort of metaphor for real life, as in there are the “haves” and “have nots”. Huckabee tries to make that argument here, trying to paint Romney as disengaged because he’s raised the most money. But that’s just the point: Romney has RAISED the most money. This wasn’t some trust fund of political money that Romney inherited from a wealthy uncle. Romney is not some sort of Paris Hilton of politics; unaware of the realities of real life because of some inherited political wealth. Romney has worked hard to find donors and to generate support. The result of this hard work is the right to spend it as he deems fit to further his campaign goals. Evidently Romney has spent well as evidenced by his growing support.

As to Huckabee’s question about whether the common folk can relate to Romney, I think the answer is resoundingly yes. Beyond the increasing poll numbers, any businessman or blue collar worker will recognize Romney’s work ethic and see that in themselves. Huckabee’s claims ring hollow like the undeserving worker who gets passed over for a raise. We have little respect for people who claim privilege without earning it. Especially in a president, we don’t want someone complaining about the injustices of the world while continuing to under-perform. Americans want a man of consistent excellence.