Here are the problems with the tired, old and nonsensical article being propagated by a phony conservative newsletter called Cowboy or Conservative Byte.
1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. The writer thinks the two are mutually exclusive. I beg to differ. Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian because he voted for the defense of marriage act and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. He also errs on preventing people from entering the country illegally. These are things many libertarians disagree with. Within Libertarianism, there are people who are socially conservative like Ron Paul and Tom Woods, and there are those who are more socially liberal, who say, for instance, that abortion is alright.
Moreover, the term conservative is subjective. For example, the writer probably believes drug prohibition and small government are both conservative. Yet, at a certain level they mutually exclusive since government must grow to enforce prohibition. The wiggle room within conservatism means that some prioritize drug prohibition while others will prioritize small prudent, constitutional government. Oddly enough, Republicans of the 19th century did not concern themselves much with drug prohibition, so according to writer they might be called "liberals".
Suffice it to say that unless the writer has a copyright of the word conservatism, then his commentary is fundamentally meaningless. Those who put the least amount of effort into reading something are probably the most likely to be influenced by use of labels such as "libertarian" or "conservative" without actually considering the issues and values in depth. Hence, this labeling critique is placed at the beginning to try to make the simple-minded reader believe that Ron Paul is not in the conservative camp, thus attempting to make the rest of the critiques more biting.
2) ? [Will address this later]
3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts. Ron Paul openly states on page 120 of his book End the Fed that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, and in so doing he has actually drawn ire from many truthers. It is a logical fallacy to say that because he does not try harder to discourage truthers, he therefore encourages them somehow. Attack dogs like Hawkins who write haphazard smear jobs fail to realize that Dr Paul got into politics long before 9/11, primarily because of his belief in Austrian Economics, desire to legalize owning gold, and desire to advance liberty. Yet connivers like Hawkins want to cast him as a truther fad.
4) Ron Paul's [alleged] racial views Ron Paul denies having anything to do with the racist article Hawkins cites. This is believable since many Ron Paul Newsletters--being of a deregulated, grassroots sprouting--were published without his knowledge. Ron Paul has never been known to say anything racist, so the racist "quotes" would seem totally out of character. Regardless, the evidence would fail in a court of law, especially since the writer of the "interview" has never attested to its veracity. Moreover, Ron Paul has condemned the comments and whoever it was that tried to say he said them.
5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating. This is subjective nonsense.
6) Ron Paul is an isolationist As Sheldon Richman has pointed out, Ron Paul supports free trade and is anything but an "isolationist." Ron Paul opposes neo-con government intervention abroad and in so doing, he embodies the conservative virtue of prudence and restraint. The writer wants you to think that being "conservative" means wanting to bomb people who haven't attacked you at all and supporting lingering occupation in their homelands--as was the case in Iraq and as is the case in Libya. Ron Paul actually did vote to go into Afghanistan to eradicate the perpetrators of 9/11 in retaliation; so even if Paul is not hawkish enough for Hawkins's taste, he cannot be accused of pacifism.
7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq. The writer says Al-Qaeda would have taken over if the US had left Iraq. I doubt this was even true back in 2007 when it was written. Moreover, the writer worries that civil war and "genocide" will ensue following troop withdrawal--forget the fact that 100,000 Iraqi civilians were murdered by US bombs in the Iraq War. Apparently the writer had no problem with that genocide. Ron Paul did not vote for the Iraq War--so shouldn't our genocide-averse writer give him credit for that? Hence the sophist nature of Hawkins's post. Moreover, the overthrow of Saddam ultimately would be to blame for whatever power vacuum may result in lieu of US occupation, and it seems Hawkins is exaggerating the danger Iraqis might face in lieu of US occupation and is taking for granted the idea that we ought to be their military defense.
8) In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11. "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." This was not an "excuse" to anyone who scored above nil on the SAT reading comprehension test; rather, it was the reason given by the CIA itself, whose intel revealed that terrorists were primarily mad about the US bombing their lands and its agents' efforts to manipulate their politics. There's even video of Osama on youtube in which he complains of US predator drone strikes killing mohammedan civilians. That terrorists "hate us for our freedoms" was concerted propaganda on the part of the Bush administration; (Osama was a porn addict, and enjoyed that freedom). Moreover, most would-be terrorists probably could care less about our freedoms, just as most of we Americans could probably care less about people living far away. Regardless, if Ron Paul really meant to "excuse" 9/11, then he wouldn't have voted to go after the terrorists and kill them in Afghanistan.
9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party Hawkins says Ron Paul's Libertarianism is too out of the mainstream, but he neglects to mention that many conservatives, moderates, and Democrats support Ron Paul. In fact, many Democrats have changed their way of thinking to become more fiscally conservative and more open to other conservative ideas in general because of their respect for Ron Paul.
Paul offers troop withdrawals, which most Americans favor and which no other candidate offers. He wants to audit our monetary overlords at the Fed, which is something the average person hit by inflation wants. Although Ron Paul may be libertarian in his ideals and may not share everyone's ideal political philosophy, many non-libertarians have found enough about him to like in him and respect him for being a stand-alone statesman who always keeps his promises. They like that is not a sophist politician like Mitt Romney or Obama who tries to promote himself at the expense of the nation.
Others simply want someone who is anti-Washington and anti-establishment who won't fit into the Bush, Obama, Clinton mold. So although not everyone shares Ron Paul's ideals, they like his policies.
Finally, to say that because third party candidates do poorly that it somehow confers unelectability upon Paul is meaningless because Ron Paul is running as a Republican...
The sad part about "The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul" is that on the surface it is effective propaganda which will deceive many and turn others away from Ron Paul, especially those who have been conditioned by years of Sean Hannity, FOX News and other phony conservative outlets to have an unnatural, unwarranted aversion to him.