Libertarians should find a new leader to advocate there views

Alright, you have convinced my Ron Paul should remain important with your points, however the resolution still holds that Libertarians should get a new leader in advocating there views because the fact of his lack of bills passed in congress is still something that matters with any politician. Success matters when it comes to who your sending to office to get the job done and it seems the only defense related directly to that fact is ‘minds must be changed first…’ or in other words he needs more people on his particular niche on his side of the isle. This is a week excuse considering the numerous political figures out there who have had to work in state or federal legislations that have more people on the other side of the isle than there own and they still get more of what they want done than 1 bill. (many of the other presidential candidates left right now are actually good examples of such, Santorum worked in a state with more democrats than republicans, so did Romney, and Gingrich was speaker of the house while a democrat held the Whitehouse.) According to their parties official website http://www.lp.org... there are only 154 elected offices period held across the united states. If Ron Paul has so affected the new generation of young voters, why is this not showing up more significantly with offices being held? People generally know when talking about politicians you have to trust what they have done more than what they say (this holds true for any political party) before getting behind them. So does it not make sense that some new leaders from the party need to start stepping up to replace some of the older ones? In the local areas where Libertarians do hold an office of some kind its established enough that there is a base of voters that will elect on to office. But there time in office is not very capitalized; at best people like Ron Paul manage to neutralize one vote. And that kind of thing can really matter when you have more of your kind in power but otherwise, it’s the productive record that can really stand out for what one does in office. Current key figureheads like Ron Paul though have shown they are incapable of establishing such a record, that out of all the things they want pushed the status remains much as it was before. Since supposedly Libertarians are conservative surely he could have found something to compromise on to get there support in backing one of those key issues for him? The fact that minds are not changed yet of other people in congress or those that elect them into office yet is why its so important other newer leaders are ‘placed on the field’ to advance their cause. Since the field is stacked with players from other teams, scoring any runs is going to take someone who can figure out how to play ball with them if that analogy makes sense to you. Right now Ron Paul is the only thing close to libertarian that you ever hear anything about on the news. On a national scale, I’m not seeing any other players spending significant time on the field. How long must Ron Paul wait playing with no teammates and not working with the teams dominating the field right now? Plus he is a very old man, who knows how long there is for a replacement key player will be flat out required to be found rather than spend time on the field at the same time as Ron Paul himself. So in summary… 1) I concede Ron Paul should remain important 2) I maintain the resolution though that a new leader should still be found. 3) Getting stuff done is still very important 4) Having ANOTHER leader up there with Ron Paul would make things easier for Ron Paul.