Somehow I missed the latest Political Derby Rankings.  A thousand apologies.  Mitt is back on top.  Jason Wright nails the race at this point.  Ethan Boivie, not so much.  Listening to Ron Paul can do that.
 
Captain Ed comments on Mitt’s post-Ames poll bounce.
 
TPM’s Steve Benen shivers at the possibility that John Edwards might be taking a page from the Mitt health care playbook.  Considering that Edwards hasn’t had an original thought in well over a decade, Benen might be on to something.
 
Michelle Malkin interviewed Mitt.  I haven’t had time to watch it yet.  Let me know what you think.
 
AOL Stump Blogger Patrick Casey takes the MSM to school on the difference between an investment (a la John Edwards) and a blind trust (a la Mitt).  Casey does a fine job, but the MSM doesn’t see Edwards money in the same light as Mitt’s coffers.  There is a difference – Mitt actually earned his money as opposed to Edwards – who fleeced it from corporations by channeling dead children during closing arguments.
 
WOWK’s Chris Stirewalt gives us a very confusing geography lesson.  He says there are mountains in West Virginia, but in my book nothing under 8,000 feet qualifies as a mountain.  So, I’m still confused.  Isn’t West Virginia due to be re-named the Robert Byrd State?
 
The American Daily’s Warner Huston takes aim at Mitt’s abortion stance.  What Huston is really ticked about is Mitt’s invocation of the Gipper in his explanation.  Memo to Huston:  You’re splitting the hair rather fine.  Find a new angle.  End Memo.
 
BloggingStocks’ Zac Bissonnette wonders if another MBA president would be good for America.  While Bissonette mentions the obvious differences between Bush and Mitt, he ends with this question: 

But will his business background help him or hurt him in the general election, especially with all the controversy surrounding private equity? 

Memo to Bissonnette:  Controversy surrounding private equity?  Where did this come from?  Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of the market knows private equity has its ups and downs.  The key is to maximize the ups and minimize the downs – which Mitt has done quite well.  Controversy is only made by those who end up on the downside.  Most people call that envy or jealousy.  End Memo.
 
McClatchy Newspapers’ Steven Thomma reports how Mitt is “distancing” himself from Bush.  Why is this news?  Mitt is a different man.  Of course he’ll have a different take on things.
 
The Detroit Free Press’ Todd Spangler compares and contrasts Mitt and his father, George Romney.  Sigh.  Like this drum hasn’t been beaten lately.
 
The Boston Globes’ Lisa Wangsness pokes fun at Mitt’s demeanor.  Must be hard for the MSM to follow Mitt around.  He never turns the air blue with profanity and there’s hardly a beer to be found at his campaign events.  This is what happens when the MSM gets bored and must fill column space with something.
 
The Cleveland Plain Dealer Editorial Board gets the point.
 
Whoever writes this stuff picked up by TransworldNews does not. .
 
And finally today, Mark Davis is at it again – making even less sense than he did the last time he wrote something about Mitt and Mormonism.  Davis begins his column by praising Mormons – in general – and stating that: 

On radio and in print, I have made clear that Romney’s membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a non-issue to me. 

But, without even pausing to draw breath, Davis adds 

But this does not mean it is a non-issue for him, or to America. 

Excuse me, Mark, but Mitt has gone to great lengths to show that his religion is not a political issue for him.  Unless you’ve been under a rock, you know this – so stop the charade.  If Mitt’s Mormonism wasn’t a big deal to you, you wouldn’t be writing about it. But I digress.
 
Davis is very frustrated that Mitt refuses to take the bait and enter into an ecclesiastical debate for which Davis is wholly overmatched. Memo to Mark Davis: Yes, Mark, Mitt is fully qualified to expound on Mormon Doctrine.  I’m sure he can answer every question you – or any of the hypothetical people you write of – could hurl at him.  The point, which you obviously aren’t willing to accept, is that this is a secular race for a secular office.  Your assertion that Mitt should be prepared to answer any and all religious and doctrinal questions about the LDS Church is – on its face – absurd.  Yes, Mark.  Absurd.
 
When you can show me one other presidential candidate – in the past 30 years – who has been put to the same test you’re asking Mitt to take, I’ll consider coming over to your side of the fence.  I’m pretty sure I can get comfortable where I’m at, because you can’t meet my standard for debate.   End Memo.