The reason no Republicans take Ron Paul seriously as a candidate is because he's not a Republican. He's a real Libertarian
Of course he isn't. He's the sort of abject political opportunist who makes crazy oversimplifications of complex issues for personal profit (yes even moreso than other candidates). He's just in it for the fame, and mostly, the money.
Why does no one take him seriously? Because he's not running for President of the United States. He's running for President of the Self Righteous Neck-beards With Too Much Money. He's a Republican, he votes like any other Republican, he gets whipped like any other Republican. He raises a lot of money (that he later, you know, pockets) from internet donors because he's struck a particularly rich vein of oversimplification that appeals to marginally successful people who are convinced of their own genius.
They're a weird and fickle lot, these idiots who think things like fractional reserve banking is a bad idea and that 10 year olds should be able to buy pharmaceutical grade Heroin from vending machines. They latch on to a fellow though, I'll give them that. It used to be harder. Lyndon Larouche had to print leaflets and publish whacko books. Ross Perot had the brilliant idea of making oversimplified charts to explain his unworkable oversimplified rhetoric. Paul has had the good fortune of having been anointed without really trying.
Let's look at the archetype he represents, and it's clearly an archetype. I'll call it the "Frustrated Wise Gnome." What are the key characteristics that let you build this persona that the soft minded so identify with? It's simple really.
1. A FWG must be ordinary looking and socially awkward. Ugly is allowed, but average will do. Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, the aforementioned Hercule Ross Pierrot (you're welcome, Sam) etc.
2. A FWG must be consistent with his whacko rhetoric. The great squishy headed minority value consistency very highly. After all the answers are simple, why would you change your mind?
3. A FWG must either seem perpetually amazed that what he proposes doesn't happen, OR have an elaborate conspiracy theory why, either attached to him post hoc, or that he propagates himself. Ideally, both, of course. And most ideally, the FWG is a blank slate softies can project their own craziness on.
4. A FWG must obviously have no real hope of victory, but must continue to campaign and spread his "message" regardless. Rarely a problem given the money involved when one catches on.
5. Oh, right, should go without saying, but white male. The vastness of the soft mildly successful class is composed of white men.
Paul ticks all the boxes. Easy, completely impossible solution for every problem, that if ever tested would lead to disaster, but that will never be tested because...well they obviously lead to disaster. Ordinary looking, socially awkward, committed to ideas (except when told to vote the opposite way), easy to project whatever you want onto, he's really the whole FWG package. He lacks the broader appeal of a Perot, which is probably good for him, long term. The FWG star burns out quickly if exposed to too much reality. It's best if it hovers at the edges.
As for his actual positions, who gives a ****? He's a character actor, not a leading man. It's cute that his son was elected a Senator, but that's about the end of the family dynasty. The best we can hope for future amusement from the family is that his kid has a son and names him Paul.
____________________________
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.