The Republican party is the better of the two for those things you list. However, you're leaving off half of what makes a paultard. They also believe loopy info-wars conspiracy theories, abandoning Israel, that it's okay if Iran gets nukes, that a wall along the Southern border might be used to keep Americans from fleeing to Mexico, etc - you know the crazy stuff that makes it impossible for Ron Paul to really get an traction beyond his drug addled college mushhead following.
That being the case, the voter who actually wants government off his back may as well stay home come election day.
Most people realize that general elections are simply a choice between the 2 tickets that have any chance of winning. Voting for the least bad option is the norm in 2 party systems. It sucks, but that's just how it is. Maybe once or twice in your lifetime will you really have someone to get excited about voting for in a general election.
Paultards do not have some constitutional right to be in the GOP. If they aren't going to support it's nominees, then they should just go away. Maybe try taking over the Democrat party and see if they are more agreeable to an insurgency within their ranks who have no intention to support the actual party nominees.
I'm not talking about pro-Paul chauvinists... I'm talking about genuine conservatives. Forget about the Paulistas and answer me this: If I want smaller government, not just government growing more slowly than before or government growing in different ways through different means than the Liberals want but actually SMALLER government, who do I vote for?
Saying that the Republicans are closer to what I want in that regard misses the point. It's like telling a man who's thirsty for a drink of water that used fryer oil is closer to what he is looking for than Drano is.
Romney won't get my vote this year. I can see how our current president, a product of Chicago politics, is a bad idea; I don't see how voting for a product of Boston politics is any better.