You know, every time a neocon or Democrat has something good to say about one of RP's ideas, that person gets scorned and called names on here, as if he has no right to any of the ideas unless he accepts everything RP says. It's like some people here absolutely love that the liberty movement is considered fringe. They love being the underdog. They love fighting against some enemy that will go down kicking and screaming and be vanquished on some momentous day. They hate the idea that the ideas will actually start to catch on, because then there is no defining "win" where the old guard gets flushed out. Politicians do not have real philosophies. They will change with the tide and do a complete 180 when they think it's politically wise. Romney is not unique that way. They're all more or less like him, aside from a few exceptions. Many of them will adopt the bare minimum of the ideas in order to please enough people and to keep the wind out of the sails of any third party.
So to those people who react with disgust every time an outsider to the liberty movement seems to like only a single idea, I have to ask, what did you expect? This is the way we change the minds of people, one issue at a time, one neocon talk show host at a time. Not many people will be complete converts. It's going to be a lot of people partially convinced of different issues and bastardizing or misrepresenting the rest of the issues. Every time we gain a little ground, you people just have nothing but bad things to say about the person, as if you really don't want these ideas to be adopted by anyone but pure libertarians (or anarchists). Grow up!
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official