Both of them
And that's just off the top of my head.
Further, I see no reason - absolutely none - to believe that Romney will have any more adherence to the Constitution that Obama does, or that Romney will oppose/rollback any of the things going on now that are blatant attacks upon our Constitution and freedom, things like the TSA overreaches, the VIPR searches, Agenda 21, etc. etc. Simply put, a Romney regime will just be "steady as she goes" on destroying the Constitution, pursing the same course already under way.
Likewise, what real evidence do we have that Romney will, for instance, remove the czars and close down that apparatus? More than likely, Romney will continue them and "conservatives" will suddenly stop squawking about these unelected and unnominated positions, since it's "our" guy who's at the helm. That's what happens every time. "Conservatives" gripe about overreaches by the Dems, but then go strangely silent when it's a Republican continuing the same policies.
Further, we have no real evidence that Romney will pursue a better foreign policy. I would expect that superficialities like the apology tours might end, but as for actual nuts and bolts policy decisions, I doubt he'd change much from Obama. After all, worldview will shape foreign policy, among other things, and since the two seem to share similar worldviews, I don't see a Romney foreign policy team being much different, other than to walkback the Anglophobia of this administration.
I would rather have paul for the reasosn you mentioned, even though paul is a moonbat, he would at least somewhat respect the constitution more than Romney and definately more than Obama.....
That being said a vote for paul is a vote for stuipid.