This is the biggest crock of phewy. We need to compromise and publicly endorse a guy who holds views in direct opposition to the Liberty movement in order to procure its advancement? We need to publicly endorse a guy who sees no problem with the Federal Reserve who is not going to 'waste his time...going after it.' In Ron Paul I saw a man in the political arena for the first time in my life telling the truth and standing up for his convictions and I was willing and am willing to do anything to support him...but more importantly the message. The one exception to this 'do anything,' is that I will not compromise the very principles the movement promotes.
Mr. Hunter's assessment is really a smack in the face for those of us who spent time away from home and family at state conventions, who are out regularly trying to influence the local political processs, who study Dr. Paul's and the Founder's philosophies, who give of our own money to support the cause. In my state (Maine), we fought hard and delivered Dr. Paul all the delegates, alternates and electors. We did this without the pandering political compromise that Mr. Hunter blesses in this commentary.
I hope some new torchbearer's rise to the forefront. Dr. Ron Paul still has my vote even if his own son sells him out.