I become aware of Paul during the late 1990s on FreeRepublic, and was impressed with a lot of what he had to say. I know it’s to an extent a chicken-egg thing, but if he ever busted out of the second tier, I’d be inclined to give him more detailed scrutiny. I also think that on balance he’s gotten a bad rap from the rightosphere and right-talk, though he’s brought some of it on himself.

If he’s serious about a prez run, he needs to figure out how to broaden his base and his visibility during the next 4 years. I’ll give him this — He has shown that he’s not just a Kucinich in it for the ego. He takes what he believes very seriously, and always has. The fact that folks like you are with him is in and of itself a reason to hope he continues his quest and breaks out for next time.

The single biggest factor driving this primary campaign is FEAR; for example it’s either fear of Hillary, fear of al-Qaeda, or fear of a recession. Fear is literally dripping from every major opinion piece in America today, and I would be willing to bet that Bork’s decision is based upon “fear” that the SCOTUS falls yet into another 20 year cycle of leftist orientation and judicial legislation. There is little doubt in my mind that assurances were made to him by Romney that he would not appoint any left leaning judges for his endorsement. And there is no doubt that Rudy made the same commitment to Pat Roberson. The big question is will Rudy and Romney if elected keep their word? If one considers their past actions as a predictor of the future, then I would say no they won’t.

I make it clear on my weblog that I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I have yet to read any analysis of Ron Paul’s policies from any of his detractors. All I read is that he is a nut, stupid, or a moron that is going to leave us vulnerable to terrorist or Chinese domination. Again it’s the fear factor. However I came to my conclusion about Ron Paul through studying his past and his written words. But if one of the many wingnuts out there spent half the time critiquing him as you have made with Romney, I might consider another candidate. And this is what needs to happen; we need more analysis and less fear.

As an aside, back in the cynical portion of my brain there is a voice telling me that this “fear factor” is nothing more than a Clinton tactic meant to divide the Republican camp. And the MSM is spinning the web and laying the ground work, and we are falling for it, but I must remember, RATIONAL THOUGHT, RATIONAL THOUGHT, RATIONAL THOUGHT.

Folks should stop with the low ball attacks and the cult of personality enshrinements and start looking at past performance and the words these candidates have spoken. And let’s not be afraid. I fear the steady march of a tyrannical government as much as anyone, maybe more, but that is also tempered by my faith in God. God will protect us; we only have to place our trust in Him…and less in men.

I’ll echo the other comments and I applaud your analysis; great job! Great weblog!

#5 to Mr. Paxson:

I agree with you to a point, but one area that has concerned me over Thompson is his health. I have my doubts that he is healthy enough to hold the Office of President during this time of war. With that said, your appraisal is noteworthy, of which I will consider. My belief has been that Hunter, Paul, Tancredo, Brownback, (and now Keys), and to a lesser degree Thompson are men of conviction. All others have demonstrated political expediency at the loss of virtue.

We can’t look into a man’s heart, and founders knew this, and this why the U.S. Constitution was written as it was. Let’s return to the U.S. Constitution.

A. Digest this, where Romney is shown to have made a promise not to do his constitutional duty:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Read the first three paras. Grasp their full impact, esp this promise made BEFORE the election:

….he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.

Further thoughts:

The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=6199

B. Tell me specifically where I am incorrect. Argument by supposed credentials doesn’t fly around here, and Romney’s attempts to win arguments with credentials doesn’t seem to be working anywhere else either (thank goodness). Ask Congressman Steve King.

2. and you think that a Harvard Law education along with all the advise he had gives him less knowledge about the law involved than you have .. ?

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 http://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.

Fair [e-mailer] question to Romney/Bork. If they are consistent, they would have to say that Romney would have no choice but to comply. That is a good comparison that I hope people will take to the Romniacs of talk radio.

Again, simply outstanding. Thanks.