If he starts his own party, I might have more respect for him. I don't believe in much of what he proposes at all, but as long as he plays the role of "The Republican party left me, so I'm going to change it from the inside," which is a fool's errand and a lie to you, I won't have much for him.
It's been kosher for a few years now to blast the growth of government size, power, and expenditure that we experienced under the Republican party - not since Bush, but since Nixon. We frame it in terms of "holy crap Bush did _____, which is contrary to small federal government Republican ideals!" but the reality is that we've experienced growth in size, power, and spending under all Republican presidents starting with Nixon.
It's shameful, and a show that the Republican party's response to John DiIulio's calling of the Bush Administration as "Mayberry Machiavellis" should have been "so what? It worked, didn't it?" We fall for the images and themes and frames we hear on the news, and don't spend as much time holding politicians accountable for bills they actually promote, power they actually sieze, power they expand upon, etc.
If you're scared about the federal government establishing military power over the populace within the borders, y'alls parents should have left the Republican party the minute Nixon established the LEAA's broader powers.
I've said it before, and many, many Republicans, including thrustbucket, seem to largely agree. There have been no *true* conservatives since Barry Goldwater. Paul represents the closest thing to that ideal possible. So it's easy to see his appeal, even if it accomplishes little to nothing.
I'm with those who imply or state that it's silly to aim for the presidency first. Building grass-roots, localized efforts to engage in politics at the city, county, and state level are more important in establishing power than claiming the office of the presidency. It's the same reason Libertarians aren't taken seriously.