With the exit of Fred. . .

. . .Thompson, the folks over at The Corner seem a bit morose. He's apparently the guy they wish they could have endorsed before settling on Romney. Rich Lowry gave a perfectly cogent analysis of his campaign that didn't sit well with Michael Ledeen. K-lo posted the heads-up about it all, which stated that Thompson had no plans to endorse any rivals, for now, which Mark Levin took as a great opportunity to say, in so many words, "Woo-hoo! In your face, McCain!"

I don't know about anyone else, but when I first started following politics, I had a bit of an idealized image of conservative leaders and opinion makers. But, the more I see them unfettered by editorial constraint, the more I feel I can come to my own conclusions without their help. Consequently, I feel less trepidation at going against the establishment conservative opinion grain.

There's a question I've often seen posed by folks in examining the quality of Republican candidates that is just as appropriate when examining conservative opinion makers: "Is this the best we can do?"

UPDATE: As if on cue, Victor Davis Hanson shows us that we can do better.

It's one thing to be an advocate your candidate. But, when your candidate is so riddled with flaws and his record is punctuated with more question marks than bullet points that you feel the need to resort to declarations of doom if the other guy wins, your candidate's foundation has already begun to display a fundamental weakness in the eyes of any reasonably objective observer.

My first inkling as to Romney's basic weakness came upon Hugh Hewitt's abject genuflection at his "Faith in America" speech, accompanied by his out-of-hand dismissal of any analysis that didn't bear the same worshipful obeisance, before any had even been issued.