I'd say I feel the same way about Ron Paul - he brings a refreshing perspective to politics, but he's certainly not right on everything.
Santorum adds nothing to the debate but repetition of the narrative that's already going on. I should add to this that no one ever likes the same tactic they use to be used against them - in this case having Stallman define an extreme position to maintain a more pragmatic narrative.
All considered, I'm glad both Stallman and Paul are doing their thing - even if I don't agree with them much of the time.
To elaborate on this, fanaticism often looks like a great idea to those allied with the fanatics, even if they disagree with their behavior. But people should not feel entitled to fanaticism because they think they are right, because that's how you get people like Santorum. Everyone thinks they are right, after all. It's hypocritical to say fanaticism is a luxury permissible to the "good guys" and not to the "bad guys".
I would feel that way about Rick Santorum if (and only if) I wanted people's views to move closer to his. This is not a statement about his opinions, but about how his opinions influence the public discourse. Likewise for RMS.
There's a difference between a leader who drinks the kool-aid, and a leader who mixes the kool-aid. Kool-aid drinkers by definition cannot set the agenda.
Santorum adds nothing to the debate but repetition of the narrative that's already going on. I should add to this that no one ever likes the same tactic they use to be used against them - in this case having Stallman define an extreme position to maintain a more pragmatic narrative.
All considered, I'm glad both Stallman and Paul are doing their thing - even if I don't agree with them much of the time.