The Ron Paul "non-factor" factor...

Elephant Biz points us to this post, claiming that Fred Thompson's potential candidacy is "...a desperate move by Republican leaders to offer what they consider a viable contender."

A desperate move? By Republican leaders? First of all, if "Republican Leaders" were pushing for Fred, they'd have to think long and hard before doing so, since it just so happens that, unlike "Republican leaders" Mr. Thompson is against the so-called "bipartisan" immigration reform bill. The article goes on to say,

Yet Ron Paul (R-Tex), congressman and republican candidate for president has been seen by Internet observers as doing well both in debates and in terms of public sentiment. His message is one of minimalist government, low taxes and a non-aggressive military policy.

Not to mention that the guy is absolute loony-toons and a truther:

Face it, the only place where Ron Paul could effectively lead a nation is within the expanse of his more-than-vivid imagination.

It's as simple as this: Give me a guy who wants to be President, who believes that 9/11 was our fault, that President Bush had something to do with the towers coming down, that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, that we need to cut and run from Iraq, and that we need to listen to terrorists' concerns--and I'll give you Ron Paul.

Give me a guy who wants to be President, who believes that the government is too big, that we need to stand up to terrorists, that we need to prevail over them in Iraq, and that we need to secure our borders, and I'll give you Fred Thompson.

Given their stances on things, just who do you think is the more "desperate" candidate?

Given their stances on things, just who do you thing should be the more "desperate" candidate?

I thought so.

Fred Thompson is blogging...

...At Red State.

Oil prices fell. The stock market rose. Video images of smiling British soldiers with Iranian President Ahmadinejad were everywhere. So were pictures of the 15 freed hostages embracing family members back home. The relief over the return of the Brits was so tremendous; you could almost hear birds singing.

Maybe it's because military action won't be needed or maybe it's just because the ordeal won't drag on and on, but the world is breathing easier now. A lot of folks are happy. The problem, as I see it, is that Ahmadinejad seems to be the happiest.

And why shouldn't he be? He has shown the world that his forces can kidnap British citizens, subject them to brutal psychological tactics to coerce phony confessions, finagle the release of a high-ranking Iranian terror coordinator in Iraq, utterly trash the Geneva conventions and suffer absolutely no consequences.

The UN Security Council summoned its vaunted multilateral greatness to issue a swift statement of sincere uneasiness. The EU, which has pressured Britain to rely on Europeans for mutual defense instead of the US, wouldn't even discuss economic sanctions that might disrupt their holidays. Even NATO was AWOL.

Please do keep reading . . .

Tony Blair doesn't appear to be in much of a mood for celebrating. I don't know how he could be, given the troubling spectacle of British soldiers shake the hand of their kidnapper as a condition of release. In the old days, they would have kissed his ring -- but wearing Iranian suits and carrying swag more appropriate to a Hollywood awards ceremony may have been as embarrassing. Ironically, Blair's options are fewer by the day as his own party moves to mothball the British fleet, once the fear of pirates and tyrants the world over.

Some in the West seem part of Iran's propaganda war; claiming that the release of the hostages was a victory that proves the Iranian dictatorship can be reasoned with. To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?

Read the rest.

Read Fred Thompson's words, and you will read what has been missing from American politics since those fateful times in 2001. Statesmanship. Calling a spade a spade.

Thompson is the kind of straight-talker we need in the White House.

h/t Michelle Malkin