Too Perfect? That's Your Criticism?

Despite what you might think, this isn't going to be a post about how Beckett is the cutest tiny guy out there. I mean, he is, but I'll wait to blog about that when Dawnell and Beckett return from Utah with our camera full of cute pictures.

Anyway, Mitt Romney is running for president of the United States. Sure, I'm biased because he's Mormon and that rules, and he saved the Olympics when they were held in the greatest metropolitan area in the world, and that rules, but I really believe he's the best candidate. I think what would bother me more than anything is if he didn't get a fair shake from people because he was Mormon. I mean, it's not like we're space aliens, or even Scientologists.

Check out this article from the July 5th edition of The Economist. I think the main critiques of this article are ridiculous. Since when is it a problem that a politician is "too good" to be true. I mean, after the last eight years of being led by someone who really hadn't accomplished much before running for president, shouldn't we be looking for someone who has succeeded at everything?

The writer of the article also criticizes Mitt's "improbably wholesome" image. Wait, so now we would rather have Clinton era scandals or Guiliani style public divorces instead of Mitt and his creepily wholesome family? Clearly the writer is some East Coaster who doesn't know any Mormon families. Hey, that "improbably wholesome" family sounds like about half of the families that I knew growing up.

You know what, I'm sick of America choosing people to lead their country because they seem cool, (Bill) or because his actual speeches sound more like a Saturday Night Live sketch than actual parody (W). Why don't we go back to looking for the "too good to be true" candidate. Back when I was growing up the guy who seemed too good usually was the best candidate. But, hey, that's fine. The Economist can keep looking for someone with fatal flaws. Me? I'll just keep supporting "too good to be true." And you know why? Because it's true.