Ron Paul's New Ad: Convincing?

Ron Paul released his "Conviction" ad today (embedded video at Slate). The basic premise: Compromise is a very bad thing.

I should hope to assume that the false dilemma Paul presents of "Compromise vs. Conviction" extends only to the debt ceiling debate, but someone as passionate at Paul can be expected to make this mantra something of a campaign slogan. I fail to understand how he can outright reject the idea of "compromise" when he's running for a position that is, at least in my view, ideally not bipartisan, but nonpartisan.

Don't get me wrong, heading into the 2008 election's campaign season I dearly loved Ron Paul. But the Tea Party seems to have changed him. Now that he's gaining more credibility and traction in the mainstream media, he seems to be devolving into a grandstanding right-winger -- not the kind of candidate who can survive the general election, therefore not the kind who deserves the nomination.

 The major failing of the GOP so far (and this discussion will undoubtedly be a theme with me) is that they have no foresight. Yeah, sure, Bachmann's popular with the uberconservatives. But what about the rest of America? Heck, what about the rest of the party? Socially conservative policies are clearly not what America wants; the Republicans need to slide a bit to the left and deal with it. Otherwise they continue their trend of hypocrisy.

In order to stop this from being absurdly long, I'll leave a to-do list in case there were some gaps.
Things to elaborate on later:
1. Why we need to stop taking consummate conservatives seriously
2. Why the GOP needs to become essentially libertarian
3.  Pros and cons of "pledges" and campaign promises that leave no room for flip-flopping

Any thoughts on the ad or Paul's campaign?

(Or anything else?)