Of all of those candidates, every one except Thompson will shortly be out of the race (even both Tancredos and both Hunters). Regardless of their views or their records, they simply don't have the name recognition or the money to be elected. All are good men, but all have fatal flaws IMHO:
Tancredo is a one-issue candidate (even though he's really not, and has views that I largely agree with) - he's Mr. Anti-Immigration to the vast majority of Americans, because every soundbite with him in it is about immigration.
Huckabee, despite Iowa's showing, and despite the fact that I think him a very good man who has shown a lot of personal character (he lost over 100 pounds and has kept it off), has no real base. He's just another governor of a low-population Southern state. Yeah, I know, so was Clinton, and so was Carter - which is why that won't happen again for a while, even if he's on the other side of the aisle.
Paul is viewed - repeat, VIEWED - as a kook by the 95% of the population that doesn't think he walks on water. Even if the ratio was closer to 50-50, he'd be a very risky candidate. He's no Reagan - he just doesn't have the charisma, the ability to connect with people that Ronaldus Maximus had. I agree with him on many issues (but vehemently disagree with him on others - he's too isolationist for my tastes), think he'd make a generally good President, but he's simply not electable in either the primaries or the General Election.
Hunter. Wow. I really like this guy - a LOT. Here's a guy who's a Reaganesque figure regarding free markets and low taxes, who's as much of an expert on military policy and its relationship to foreign policy as has run for office since Nixon - just the kind of guy we need at this point in history, with the WOT far from over and the Russkies and Chinese making threatening noises and preparations. But he is virtually unknown outside of his district. Sad to say, but IMHO he has too much work to do (and money to spend) to get face and name recognition within the Republican Party that he'll face a very serious uphill battle next year. I just don't think he can make it.
Thompson - imperfect, to be sure, but the man has generally spot-on views. He's admitted mistakes or misjudgments about past votes - which is a plus for 2 reasons: first, it shows that he can learn and second, it shows great humility, which the American people love and which none of the other candidates have (or have shown, if they have it). He's smart as a whip, and his experience as a trial attorney gives him a very serious leg up in debates (which will, I'm sure, be put to the test starting next month). He's too old and too wealthy to give a rat's arse if someone likes him or not - he speaks his mind and let's those people and nations that need a verbal smack have one...and the American people like that - it is refreshing, something we haven't seen since Reagan. His acting career has given him a lot of face recognition and a great stage presence (though I'd say that he had that beforehand, enabling him to be a decent actor). His size and his voice, while absolutely without any substance, will help him win over voters for psychological reasons (if you don't believe that, picture him on a stage with Her Evilness, she of the short legs, fat calves and shrill voice - guess who wins that debate from the perspective of perception? Fred, just like JFK beat Nixon on TV, even though Nixon won the debates on points). In short, policy-wise he's 95% of what I'd like to see (e.g. Duncan Hunter), but he's got far more of the image and charisma than anyone else. He's electable.
I will very happily take a slightly flawed Republican President who will assuredly keep taxes low, keep our military strong, keep our guns in our hands, nominate good or great Supreme Court Justices and federal judges and keep our enemies in fear (those who survive in power, that is) than to nominate an unelectable "perfect" candidate. You see, without getting elected you are powerless. Giving someone like Hitlery or Barack Hussein Obama power will be a disaster on multiple fronts, and I'm not sure that we'll be able to recover. He can also take advantage of the many good Republicans in the race now: how about Hunter as Secretary of Defense, Tancredo in charge of ICE/INS and Huckabee at Commerce or the FDA (he knows health issues WELL, and would speed up approval of life-saving drugs)? Heck, put Romney in at Treasury and Rudy in at Homeland Security - those guys will do well there (though we have to have a gag ready for Rudy on the topic of guns). I'm still going to hold out for John Bolton as Secretary of State, first because he'll do a great job, and second because it'll drive the wingnuts crazier than Bush, Cheney and Halliburton combined.
General George S. Patton, Jr. summed up my philosophy on this matter well: "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good." Fred is definitely the "Good" in this race, no matter who anyone may think is the "Perfect" candidate. He's electable and he'll do a very, very good job. I think that he has the potential and the very real chance (because of the nature of events overseas) to be one of the greats. Maybe he won't make it but, IMHO, none of the others will even get the chance. I'm with Fred.
I have to agree with your very excellant analysis.
I think Hunter has a future as a candidate if we don;t win in 2008. But hopefully he or Thompson will get the nomination.
I love your cabinet by the way. Even Giuliani would do a great job as head of homeland security.
Fred Thompson will be the tallest President in history!
His voice? Think of Barry White speaking very conservative views on all the issues with his southern wit and charm.