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.
Not if the candidate then fails to do anything but say the words. Failure to act, or even to have a strategy in place for action is what distinguishes a position from a platitude, or empty but mollifying words. One man's "Big Government diminishing freedom" is closing the border to cheap, willing, illegal labor. Anothers "Big Government diminishing freedom" is providing governmental services to those same illegals. Until a candidate clarifies which he means to implement, the words could mean opposite things to those two men.