His votes for sanctions on Iran bother me much more than his endorsement of Romney, which doesn't bother me at all. Endorsements are nothing but politics. Nobody who believes in the things Ron Paul does changed their mind about Romney because of Rand Paul's endorsement. All it did was buy him political capital.
If he didn't endorse Romney, he would have had ZERO chance of ever winning the White House. In fact, he would have broken his campaign promises in Kentucky where Republicans repeatedly asked him if he'd support the 2012 Republican nominee.
Endorsing Romney did nothing to US citizens. It didn't infringe upon any of their rights. It didn't expose them to unnecessary risks. It's a nothing.
Voting for sanctions on Iran is a different story. I'm willing to overlook that and conclude that - as disappointed in him as I am that he doesn't believe sanctions to be acts of war, which he told me directly that he doesn't - that weighing everything he'd still be the best president the US has had in over 100 years. Even with the sanction vote (which any candidate for president we'll likely see took or would have taken), nobody else who will seek the nomination out of the major parties in 2016 will be in the same league as Rand Paul. The rest will all be traditional conservatives, which don't think like libertarians, don't see the world like libertarians and therefore will never take policy positions like libertarians.
author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of Amer