Say Anything Blog

Which is something anyone paying attention could see coming a mile away given the way the NRO folks on The Corner were in a lather last week after Mitt’s big religion speech.

I think they’ve sort of been in the bag for Mitt for a while, which is disappointing given that there are candidates in the field who as good or better when it comes to their current campaign platform, and don’t have the baggage of having supported publicly funded abortions and socialized medicine in their past.

Update: Here’s their bit on Thompson:

Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has distinguished himself with serious proposals on Social Security, immigration, and defense. But Thompson has never run any large enterprise — and he has not run his campaign well, either. Conservatives were excited this spring to hear that he might enter the race, but have been disappointed by the reality. He has been fading in crucial early states. He has not yet passed the threshold test of establishing for voters that he truly wants to be president.

More of the “he ran a bad campaign” baloney.  Which seems more and more to be used as an excuse by some conservatives to pick candidates less consistently conservative on the issues than Thompson.

If Fred Thompson is as conservative as Romney, and has the added bonus of never having to have changed his positions on key issues like abortion or socialized medicine, why is he not the better candidate?

He is the better candidate, but the folks at National Review don’t seem to get that.