Tomayto, tomahto. A position is a generalized statement; a policy is specific. I like policy over position because it's what makes the position into a real intent instead of a platitude with no deeper meaning.
When Harry Reid says he "supports the troops", it is his policies that distinguish what he really means by it, and contrasts it with the same position that Hunter takes that he "supports the troops" as well, with a diametrically opposed set of policies. Then there are those who "support the troops", but do nothing concretely one way or the other. They are mouthing platitudes.
Joking that the scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the governnment and I'm here to help you" (Ronald Reagan) is not a platitude. It's a TRUE indicator of the philosophy by which that person will consistently govern. Things that Thompson says and ways he has voted in the past about small government are TRUE indicators of how he would lead as President. Things Romney and Giuliani have said and done in the past are true indicators of their total lack of grasp of the principles of smaller government.
Specific policies NOW from candidates are purely speculative and I lose confidence in candidates who spout specific policies this far ahead of when they can have any context or meaning -- all it does is trap that candidate into something that may well be obsolete by the time the REAL thing happens.
I am much more impressed when a candidate expresses a real understanding of the philosophy that guides his approach to the issues, whatever they may be. There is nothing speculative when a candidate express his core philosophy. When the candidate says "compassionate conservatism" or "I support the troops," he's spouting empty platitudes and hoping folks confuse them for positions. When a candidate says "Big government diminishes freedom in all its forms and should be resisted at every turn," that is a philosophy -- a "position" -- that means something.