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. Thompson’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 NEA’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:

Thompson’s plan emphasizing border security and opposition to amnesty also stands in stark contrast to McCain and Huckabee’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.

UPDATE: I just noticed this comment on my ‘other’ blog. I thought you’d like reading it.

FRED THOMPSON is the best person to lead this country. He is a true conservative and has been his entire life. All one has to do is check his record to see this.

During my time in the Army as am Intelligence Analyst, I served under both Presidents Carter and Reagan (as my commanders in chief). Without argument, President Reagan was the best commander-in-chief a military person could ever have served under. Fred Thompson possesses the same qualities and vision as President Reagan in that he is strong on national defense and sees a dire need to secure our borders and control immigration.

I can think of no better person to lead this country and fix the problems we have. He is the only candidate from either party who has specific and detailed plans on border security and immigration reform; revitalization of America’s armed forces; saving and protecting Social Security; and tax relief and economic growth. These are detailed on his Web site at www.fred08.com. I challenge you to find any other candidate who has laid out specific plans to fix anything.

Fred Thompson has published his first principles, some of which are mentioned above. In addition to those, he strongly believes in individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, federalism, traditional American values, the rule of law and is a strong proponent of the Second Amendment — all concepts established during the birth of our country and documented in our Constitution.

Again, try to find any candidate who has laid out their plans to “fix” this country. You will find they all speak in vague and abstract terms on their plans.

For those who have heard Fred Thompson speak, you will usually hear him say that the Fred Thompson you see today is the same Fred Thompson you saw yesterday and is the same Fred Thompson you will see tomorrow. He stands by his principles and values and doesn’t shift his positions based on polls or public opinion; in other words, he doesn’t say what the voters want to hear just to get elected, but remains steadfast on his views and convictions.

During his time in the Senate he focused on three areas: to lower taxes, strengthen national security and expose waste in the federal government. Fred Thompson has foreign policy experience, having served as member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Senate Intelligence committees.

As chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he opened the investigation in 1997 on the Chinese government’s attempt to influence American policies and elections, and this investigation identified connections with the Clinton administration (documented in the committee’s report).

As a member of the Finance Committee, he worked tirelessly to enact three major tax-cut bills. Fred Thompson remains steadfast and even though a person may not agree with all his views and he understands some may disagree with him, you can count on him to be consistent and unwavering.

Don’t be fooled by his laid back approach and what critics call his “laziness.” As a former assistant U.S. attorney, he earned a reputation as a tough prosecutor and he possesses the toughness this country needs in order to tackle today’s and tomorrow’s issues.

I ask that you take a hard look at what this country needs, then take a hard look at all the other candidates’ views, policies, their records and their track record on consistency. Fred Thompson possesses integrity, loyalty, commitment, energy and decisiveness, all traits of an effective leader, and will emerge as the best person to take this country boldly forward.

Comment by Frederick Paxson • 18Dec2007

Mr. Paxson is with Fred’s campaign so his opinions are appropriately biased, though I can honestly tell you that their bias is documentable and irrefutable.

Technorati Tags: Fred Thompson, SCOTUS, Federalism, Immigration, National Security, Conservatism, Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

1. Before you can claim that anyone is “undeniably” anything, you have to define what you’re talking about. And that pretty much sums up Frederick of Hollywood’s only advantage: he hasn’t defined himself well enough to garner the political traction that Paul Ibrahim so desperately wants him to have.

   Look up the results for the “conservative brand” on the Google. The top five search results all discuss how conservatism is in decline and lost its soul (especially since Reagan and even moreso since Goldwater). That leaves Fred in an untenable position, regardless of his stance on the issues… if we could just figure out what that is! When the questions aren’t at the top of the list of questions voters have about candidates, and even at that, you don’t answer the questions, nobody knows for what you stand.

   Let’s look at one of the hottest-button issues of the day: Is he pro-life or pro-choice? I guess he was for choice before he was against it.

   How ’bout torture? Well, Fred registered as a lobbyist for deposed Haitian leader Jean Baptiste Aristide, so we just don’t know where he stands.

   Or maybe Fred is like every other republican, and stands for where the money is today.

   When Peter Mulhern at Real Clear Politics writes a thousand words attempting to define Fred’s position by what he’s not (he’s not Rudy! He’s not Mittens! He’s not…), you have to wonder what he is.

   Fred’s problem was nicely summed up by one of the focus group commentors after the previous debate when she said she thought Fred was different than the character he plays on TV, but after listening to him, she realized that’s all he is… a character on TV.

   Comment by Rocky — December 18, 2007 @ 3:02 pm