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

Elephant Biz points us to this post, claiming 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.