So Republicans who are interested in limiting the federal government and protecting our sovereignty (the few who exist, at least) should support a candidate in the Republican primary who will not limit the federal government and will not protect our sovereignty, rather than one who will? Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is something to be considered for the general election. It makes little sense in a party primary.
Paul has approximate zero chance of winning the nomination (and less than zero of winning the election, should he run as an independent). Consequently, he will be unable to ever do a damn thing about limiting government and protecting our sovereignty.
Does the candidate who wins the nomination have anything other than a zero chance of limiting government and protecting our sovereignty? Ron Paul as a fringe candidate who has zero chance of winning anything can do and has done more to limit government and protect our sovereignty than any other candidate, including which ever one wins. Just because he's there.
But be honest with yourself: don't expect it to accomplish anything. Because it won't.
Then, if you feel sufficiently offended by our political process, feel free to sit at home on election day.
But be honest with yourself: don't expect it to accomplish anything. Because it won't.