I'm American and I will be voting in November (actually in October, as I always vote early) for Mitt Romney (unlike Dolph's, who lives in Cali, I live in Texas and my State's electoral votes will go to the Republican nominee...that's pretty much a guarantee). The reason for my vote is that I am a fiscal conservative and a libertarian and Romney balances those views far better than President Obama.
As for Ron Paul, I do believe that he truly believes and supports what he says. It's just that his solutions are far too simplistic for the complex world in which we live. The problem with true believers often becomes that they support the grand vision but often miss the point that the implementation of that vision becomes extremely problematic. The problem with Paul (who is a guy I genuinely like, but would never vote for, at least not for President) is that all he's ever really given the voters is the vision. He's never told us workable ways to make that vision into a reality.
Oh, and the take on abortion by Paul is one I completely agree with. The U.S. law, put into place by a Supreme Court decision called Roe v. Wade, made abortion into a national legal issue, which, constitutionally, it never should have been. It should have been returned to the States, for each State to make its own law. Most of the libertarian opposition to the health care law in the U.S. is based on a similar premise: that any government-run health care system should be administered by State governments (Massachusetts has had a government-run health care system for years, put into place by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney), not by the central government, as the control of health care is not a power specifically granted to the central government by the U.S. Constitution.
wk