That’s the verdict rendered in this article. It’s just another example of the case conservatives should be making on Fred’s behalf. Here’s one of the key sections of the article:
In short, Thompson holds the same conservative positions of all the other candidates combined, and has none of their flaws. In fact, any close observer of the campaign season would tell you that Thompson has been on the receiving end of barely any substantive attacks on policy issues. This is no coincidence. And it is the reason he has had to bear the brunt of shallow attacks about his demeanor, campaigning style, and laziness (whatever that means).
Thompson is a demonstrably viable candidate with solid conservative positions across the board, and unlike Mitt Romney, whose continued defense of his sometimes liberal record puts a dent in his newfound conservatism, Thompson has not budged on the issues since running for office in 1994.
Fred’s conseratism doesn’t change in the sense that the same underlying principles still guide his policy positions now as they did decades ago. The issues might change but the principles of unwavering federalism and fiscal freedom still guide his domestic policies.
Fred’s also the only candidate that’s published detailed plans for entitlement reform, immigration reform, dealing with Iraq and Iran. That’s before we get to the issue of judicial nominees, where he’s got the best credentials of anyone. (One of his advisors is David McIntosh, the founder of the Federalist Society.
Unlike Giuliani, Thompson is an undisputed social conservative, with the National Right to Life endorsement to prove it. And unlike Huckabee and McCain, he is an economic conservative who was given high marks by organizations such as the Club for Growth, and whose flat tax and Social Security plans were praised by editorial boards across the country. Thompsonâ€™s courageous and spot-on designation of the National Education Association as the primary obstacle to education in this country also shows a remarkable divergence with Huckabee, who was recently endorsed by the NEAâ€™s New Hampshire affiliate.
Fred’s plain-spoken policies are refreshing, even inspiring. He doesn’t back away from fights. He doesn’t pull his punches. He calls it as he sees it. It isn’t just that he’s talked the talk; he’s the only candidate who’s consistently walked the walk.
Finally, there’s this:
Thompsonâ€™s plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabeeâ€™s weaknesses on illegal immigration. And unlike the other candidates, most notably Huckabee, Thompson reassuringly has extensive foreign policy experience, and identifies national security as his top priority in light of the greater war against expansionist Islamic radicalism.
Fred Thompson is the most qualified candidate in the race. You’ll notice that the people that criticize him for his campaigning style don’t criticize his substance. That’s because it’s impossible to argue with his positions.
In fact, they’re the type of positions that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater would take. You can’t do better than that.
Cross-posted at California Conservative