LA Times' (Not So) Subtle Digs at Romney

[Yoda]

Please read the following link to the LA Times before proceeding.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,1813376.story

The above link appeared on Drudge, and the following are comments on this article.

Not missing an Easter opportunity to get a few jabs in at prospective GOP Nominee Mitt Romney, the Lost Angeles Times has taken the opportunity presented to it by the occasion of Mitt Romney's vacation at the family home in La Jolla to present the self made multimillionaire as a high rolling fat cat.

The paper implies that the 3000 square foot home on less than a half acre lot, which incidentally is dwarfed by the home next door (former digs of actor Cliff Robertson), is something extravagant. Actually, the real estate web site zillow linked to by the Times article shows the home to be clean, orderly, uncluttered, and very nice. The Times makes sure to report that Romney plans to expand the home to include a four car garage (perhaps room for the Secret Service at Romney's expense?) and additional space, provided he can negotiate California's labyrinthine regulatory process, which could be literally years in the making.

The entire tone of the article serves to paint the Romney's as elitists, in contrast to the plebeian terms used to paint the Obama's use of two separate government planes to transport POTUS and First Lady in order to arrive separately by a few hours. A careful read of the article suggests that Romney may just prefer to work hard and then enjoy life. I was actually struck at the reasonable size of the home (though not the inflated California price tag, whose estimate zillow shows fell by nearly 100k recently), especially given Romney's wealth and success.

In the case of the Obama's, far more expenditure on the public nickel seems to avoid such backhanded criticism, but when Romney chooses to spend Romney's money on a family vacation home, this appears to be deserving of editorial disapproval.

I for one don't disparage Romney for it. Perhaps a President Romney might be less antithetical and downright parasitically hostile toward non-governmentally derived wealth, and more Americans would be able to realize their dreams, even if their wealth were not derived from a government funded solar energy [sic] scheme.

[rlm1966]

I am not a fan of Romney, but I have no problem with his being wealthy. I am more concerned that he will be like Bush and pretend to want smaller and less intrusive government but will in all actuality end up expanding government. The two things in his favor is that he has had a job outside of government and he is not Obama. But don't take that as an endorsement from little ole me as I will probably end up voting third party as a protest vote.

[Green Man]

Romney has a history of of personal frugality, except where real estate is concerned.

[LANCER]

A wiser candidate might have realized that a lot of people DO find Romney's wealth a bit off-putting and would have delayed the extravagant construction and improvements on one of his
properties until after the election.

This comes off as arrogant to those who are not currently employed or struggling to hold onto their [only] humble abode. One thing Romney is not is sensitive. By this time it seems that he is either tone deaf or doesn't care what people think. It's tough for him to draw a distinction between Obama's seventeen vacations, the excessive travel and spending [taxpayer money] by his wife and flying a jet to St. Louis or Chicago to pick up a "carry out" pizza for the White House when Romney is doing a poor imitation of JFK or Rockefeller.

It seems to me that much like Obama, Mitt cares only for himself and his family and in that respect would not be much of an improvement over the current POTUS.