Hunter's fiscal conservatism IS a problem. It's his only negative thus far. His support for tax cuts helps, fortunately.
As for Ron Paul's opposition to the war, I imagine it's on the grounds that it's not actually being fought like a war?
Well, yes and no. Ron Paul was adamantly opposed to invading Iraq without a Congressional Declaration of War, and does not believe that the United States should ever enter into military action for the purpose of enforcing UN Resolutions (Ron Paul believes that we should pull out of the UN altogether -- "get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US" is an old saying of his). On the other hand, he did personally introduce a Congressional Declaration of War on Iraq, stating that if we were going to invade Iraq it should be done right, by the Constitution.
However, now that Saddam and his sons have been killed, the stated purposes of the President's 2003 Ultimatum, which was specifically directed and worded against the Person of Saddam Hussein and his sons, have been fully and victoriously acheived. At this point, Ron Paul does not believe that US Armed Forces should continue to be deployed to Iraq for the purposes of "nation building" -- especially given that the Iraqi people have shown their "gratitude" by electing a Parliament dominated by Shi'ite Anti-American Terrorists:
According to the stated principles of the 2002 State of the Union Address, the Federal Government must not lend any support whatsoever to Nations which "harbor terrorists".
Given that Saddam and his sons are dead, the stated purposes of the 2003 Presidential Ultimatum have been acheived, and the Iraqi People have elected to Power the self-confessed and even judicially convicted Terrorists of the Islamic Al Dawa Party, Ron Paul believes that the Government of Iraq does not merit the further spending of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American Lives in its continued support.