Speaking as someone who worked for Dr. Paul (as he is known by his admirers) in 2008, I can very much understand why he is, with good reason, not the president. Even though I have enormous respect for his character and integrity, and count him one of my primary political inspirations, and agree with many of his policy positions, I would still feel dubious about having him as president due to a fear about his ability to preserve continuity with previous administrations.
Basically, the president is not a legislator, ultimately. People might want him to be, but he isn't. I increasingly favor moderate technocrats with an emphasis on foreign policy for president. Keep Paul in the House. Maybe make him Speaker. Heck, even a cabinet post could be interesting. But I have a hard time seeing Paul as an effective president or as a reliable voice in foreign policy.
My heart just broke a little.
No separation of church and state? Seriously?
Not sure I know of him ever saying that. Other than saying that "Separation of Church and State" is no where in the Constitution... 'cause it isn't.
