Paul has his strong and weak points. I actually think he is better not as the president, but as someone that carries major clout that the president must listen too.
I know what you are saying, but Paul doesn't want to 'do nothing' and in a position as president, he'd be forced to act on more things that go on. In general, his idea of not intervening in so many things is good IMO. That doesn't mean do nothing, but as far as foreign policy, it does mean we use diplomacy to promote freedom and democracy, limit military missions and the excessive aid the US gives (while we are 11 trillion in debt). Obama isn't limiting military missions and he is giving aid all over, just like Bush.
Hannan is really quick too, not just eloquent.