He's the best of a bad lot. I've withheld outright support, but if push came to shove, he'd be a decent candidate. He's one of the few candidates that I don't utterly despise.
IMO, Dr. Paul is appealing because he is sincere*, and his most radical proposals (gold standard) can't possibly be implemented in just 4 years. I can see a Dr. Paul Presidency reducing the scope and level of the Patriot Act, reducing several Federal departments, and possibly tinkering with the tax structure. He won't have the ability to dismantle the Fed and revert to a gold standard. Since he won't be able to implement his most reactionary policies, they don't really 'count against him', and his strict-constructionist stance on the Constitution is appealing. At least we know where he stands.
His economic policies are broadly justifiable. Low taxes and few barriers to trade are no-brainer good things (from the libertarian/republican view, of course). A stable currency is a great thing to have; I just disagree with Dr. Paul on how to achieve that.
His social position is both a cop-out and designed to resonate with the old Republicans. It's a cop-out because "leave it to the states!" really sounds like dodging the question, especially regarding such 'important' issues abortion and gay marriage. However, it strikes a chord with many in the Republican Party's libertarian wing. It's also a stance I support: leaving such things to the states is the best solution, but it doesn't easily turn into a strong talking point.
I'll just end with a look at the Republican Party, and where Dr. Paul fits in there. IMO, it's got three grand factions: the fiscal conservatives, the social conservatives, and the defense hawks. Dr. Paul is pretty much made for the fiscal conservatives: free trade, low taxes, little regulation, small government, all that good jazz. He's got an uphill battle against the social conservatives, who want to see social issues become Federal priority. He's also alienated the defense hawks by opposing the Iraq war and wanting to cut government spending; cuts will probably be made in defense as well as social programs. Though he does make up for it by taking a strong stance against immigration.
Problems I have with Dr. Paul:
-Some of his economic policies would make the Fed meaningless, and even if he can't achieve those goals, it's a bad signal
-His immigration stance: he opposes illegal immigration, but I've never seen him talk about relaxing the quotas or simplifying the immigration process.
-He opposes Net Neutrality. It's not a major concern, but it is a bad signal.
He's the best of a bad lot. If push comes to shove, I'll vote for him in the primaries, because he's marginally better than the other Republicans. He won't make it much farther, though.
He's not ideal. He's not even necessarily good. But he's decent compared to the rest of the field.
-Integral
* I hate to use that word, but it's true; he doesn't come off like Romney or Guliani. Sincerity counts for very little, but it's something.
