Would you mind defining Conservatism in terms of running candidates, please? A comparison of Ron Paul's non-conservative values to ones true to definition would help.
How about just one example from each of the three legs of Conservatism:
1. Economic- Earmarks are the most unConstitutional form of spending, redistribution w/ out legislation. Paul is one of the leaders of pork barrel spending via earmarks in Congress.
2. Foreign policy- Paul ignores large sections of the US Constitution on his foreign policy stances, specifically in regards to honoring treaties (as to be considered ‘high law of the land per the US Constitution’), yet never offering a bill to defatify mutual defense treaties as the Constitution prescribes. At that, treaties are the only thing the only law outside itself the Constitution requires to be considered high law.
3. Social- I can go on and on this one, but let’s take Abortion. Paul ignores that the Constitution says no one can be deprived of life without due process of law- in other words, the individual right of existence trumps all, yet Paul treats this issue as a 10th Amendment issue as though States’ rights somehow trump individual rights.
....and so on....
Some more examples- Falsely claiming that the only way the Constitution allows the use of the military in our interest is through a formal declaration of war (specifically worded as he expects). This contradicts Article 1, Section 8 which gives three specific ways the military can be used for force (1. Punishing piracy and offenses against the laws of nations, 2. Formal war, & 3. Quelling insurrections). He has been screaming for a decade how the WOT is unConstitutional yet this falls under category 1 in how the military can be used.)
How about his claim that the Constitution says that only ‘gold and silver coin’ are legal tender. This is again false. (albeit a decent practice). The Constitution limits States to only issue gold or silver for payments of debts but Article 1 specifically gives Congress the power to both mint currency and set the value, something they couldn’t do if it were a commodity currency like gold where the value is set by the market.
How about his opposition to the Defense of Marriage act and saying the government has no role in recognizing any marriage? Again, this flies in the face of Article 1 that does give Congress the authority to set standards for ‘weights and measures’. How does that apply? Federalist 42 discusses how ‘measures’ include definitions that apply to contracts and laws (ie what defines the parties in a Marriage Contract).
2nd Amendment? How about supporting Chicago in McDonald vs Chicago saying that States have the right under the 10th Amendment to restrict gun ownership. (he also took a similar ‘State’s rights’ position in Heller saying that State’s rights trumped private property rights. He goes to the extreme on the 10th Amendment (just the ‘state’ part, ignoring the ‘or the people’ part)- giving it the power to over-ride other areas of the Constitution...
..want me to keep going? Let’s not even forget Border issues where Paul has been given an F by NumbersUSA.