As a Christian who highly respects Douglas Wilson, I really think he has a great point about Congressman Paul, and it's been a concern of mine for quite some time. Many times, Dr. Paul comes off as being neutral about his libertarian views, and he does not connect them with his spiritual beliefs. From a presuppositional point of view, that only makes his views arbitrary because they lack an objective grounding for them to be valid.
Don't get me wrong. I love Congressman Paul a lot. I believe he is a man of principle and integrity, and I'm sure he loves Jesus. He has the best platform, by far, than any other candidate in the race. All I'm saying is he needs to be a better philosopher and connect the dots between his spiritual beliefs and his political views. Once he does that, he will gain more of the "Huckabee-types" on his side. I guarantee it.
Upon reading Wilson's blog and the comments under it, it occurs to me that they might have such a high standard that no one will ever achieve to get their vote, so they will either not vote, or pick whoever has the best chance at beating the Democrat (a version of the lesser evil). This thinking is common to conservatives of all stripes, not just Christians, and maybe anyone who has an intricate set of principles, even true marxists and ideological progressives might do this.
The end result is that the candidate who can whip up the most hype to "gain a following" and top the polls will end up getting the votes of even people who claim to be principled. It's like working the RP booth at gun shows in 2008. There were people who knew enough about the law and had the most principled constitutional convictions that they could probably run for office themselves, but were too picky about some minor little detail of what RP said once or one particular vote he took that somehow made him as worthless as the worst guy on the ballot. It's as if a completely different standard is applied to someone who focuses on principle and the constitution than those who simply parrot psychologically perfected talking points.
In response to your comment, I get that you want him to make a connection between his personal life and how he applies his principles to the job of legislating or governing. I don't think it's necessary for him to directly lay out bible scriptures to back specific ideas, that amount of detail would be too wonkish and not really give the personal connection that is really needed. He actually did something just like that in Iowa a couple months ago, at the Family Leader event. I found it interesting, but it didn't flow very well - since he isn't very experienced at preaching/teaching like Huckabee is - and would clearly turn off any audience that isn't seriously biblical Christians; I would advise not doing that ever again.
But he could use more commonly understood analogies instead of specific biblical ones. Much like Dr. Phil does, though certainly not the same ones, but in a similar manner.
This point of connecting his personal life to the principles may also be a good way to get women more interested in the ideas and help them feel more comfortable with him. It was on a different thread the other day, but I wrote about the female mind being much more complex and needing a more personable connection, not merely facts and figures that men like, in order for women to trust that he would do what's best for the country. As an obstetrician delivering babies for so many women, he had earned the trust of hundreds of women in his district, that's what made it easier for him to win all those Congressional races -- even defeating an incumbent three times. He needs to find a way to connect with women, and people in general, on a personal level that builds that trust. Theoretical recitations and biblical lectures aren't going to do it.
