The Google visit was a stroke of genius by Paul's campaign. In marketing, it's known as the "softpedal sell" and is considered rather unethical (though very effective). If you have a product or messaging problem, you deliver ambiguous concessions suggesting your view is different at a quasi-public event.
You then turn around and continue your targeted marketing campaign. If caught out in the larger marketplace, you turn back and have a proxy cite your statements during the softpedal sell event/moment to muddy the waters.
That way, your "official" position remains the same (in contradiction to what was said/done at the softpedal sell event), but the "spirit" of your position is ambiguous (and can be argued as such by people who are not officially attached to your campaign). It blunts the effectiveness of critiques of the value proposition.
In the case of the Google event, Paul suggested positions that he's since either repudiated or ignored, and that his actual campaign literature makes no references to. When his logic is called out on a particular point, however, there's always someone willing to jump in and cite some nebulous phraseology he uttered "at the Google event" -- while simultaneously blasting any notation of very different on-the-record comments he's made at various events such as the "Values Voter" debate.
It's clever (far more clever than Clinton's "triangulation" approach, which was downright awkward and clumsy at times), but it serves only to increase my skepticism on his candidacy (which is based on facts, not feelings). That Paul has so passionately avoided going on the record on the issues where he's "muddy" only underscores my belief that he's playing the softpedal sell.
Cheers,
Brian