A few things here. One, you have to know, rather than assume, what he has been trying to accomplish. You also have to take into account the job description of a Representative. The job of a Representative, contrary to their and others' belief, is not to create and pass legislation for the sake of passing legislation. It's to represent their district at home. Considering how many times this alleged incompetent Representative has been re-elected, it should force someone to think in terms other than legislation passed as the litmus test for effectiveness and accomplishment.
So now we're back to, "What is he trying to accomplish?" He's trying to reduce the size and reach of government, and do so according to the Constitution. In that light, it should not be surprising that he cannot get a majority in Congress to support him, as the majority in Congress have virtually dismissed the Constitution as irrelevant and are trying to do the opposite of what Paul is trying to accomplish. It's hardly a case of him not getting along and playing well with others as much as it is a case of him refusing to play the politics of corrupted compromise. His views, votes and sponsored bills have remained consistent over his 30 years in Congress, in every case in alignment with the Constitution.
It should also be noted that Reagan and Clinton had fewer legislative successes, combined, than Ron Paul. Clinton even ran for, and failed to get elected, for the same job Ron Paul has now, a US Representative. So legislative successes as a litmus test of any kind with respect to potential presidential effectiveness seems to be more of a red herring than anything else.
