I'm weary of pundits who equate wealth with success, as in Harold Henderson's "Get over Mitt's riches" (Forum, Oct. 7): "Do you want a poor man as president, or would you rather have a man who knows how to be successful?"
I prefer a poor man.
Former Gov. Mitt Romney reveals how unaware he is when he: dismisses government dependents as "victims" unwilling to "take personal responsibility"; says he was sent on his mission in France "to live … among the lower middle class"; marvels at shirts from Costco; advises young people to borrow from their parents to start a business; and was so poor in college he had to sell stock to survive. This is his "success" at understanding the human condition.
Riches are not the most important gauge of a successful life. Come Judgment Day, will the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Sheldon Adelsons and Koch brothers be greeted with "Well done" because they were wealthy? Or will it be John Doe who worked a menial job and was a good father, or Jane Average who cared for an ailing spouse and was a good neighbor? I'll take an understanding heart any day.
Call Romney rich, but please don't insist that defines him as successful.
Salt Lake City