Gene,

Ron Paul doesn't quench my thirst for liberty.

Yes, there's the argument that Paul is "only wrong on one or two issues, and someone who agrees with you on 90% is a friend."

But there's also the argument that it MATTERS what you put up front in your campaign rhetoric, and Paul is emphasizing his "conservative" credentials mostly to the exclusion of his "libertarian" credentials. That doesn't promote libertarianism, and to the extent that it gets associated with libertarianism, it promotes the misconception that libertarianism is just a store brand of conservatism.

I suppose that might be a way to score some cheap short-term political gains (although I doubt it), but it isn't a way to get Americans to adopt libertarian ideas or to demand that those ideas be translated into public policy. It's a dead-end trail that leads "libertarian-curious" voters into the GOP corral, where they can be broken and saddled for a ride in the wrong direction.

If I pointed to a Democratic candidate who opposes the war on Iraq but supports socialized health care and victim disarmament, you'd laugh in my face if I said that candidate was "the best current choice to promote libertarianism." I don't see that it's any different when Ron Paul opposes the war on Iraq while supporting Know-Nothingism on immigration and "don't ask don't tell" in the US military.