Paul, the latter, is not a true republican, once people understand that, they'll be better informed. In the truest sense of the word, he is a R.I.N.O. because he doesn't have views consistent with the republican party, his views are more to the right of most republicans, more extremist.
The reality is that there are two major parties in this nation that have any legitimate chance of succeeding on a national stage; The Democratic Party and the Republican party. The democratic party leans left in terms of the scope of the american political spectrum and the republican party leans right. Those who lean decidingly more right than left make more sense as a part of the Republican party, and vise versa for those leaning left. Rand absolutely leans right, and at times far right on certain issues as it relates to the american spectrum. But that doesn't suggest he is ill suited for being a part of the Republican Party any more than an individual like Olympia Snowe or John McCain leaning right, and at times extremely moderately right, is ill suited to be part of the party.
Again, don't presume that my support from Paul is born out of ignorance of his views, beliefs, or ideological lean. Such a notion is hardly the case. While I definitely disagree with Paul on certain issues, the reality is there's very few politicians out there that I agree exactly with 75% of the time let alone 100%. However, I do agree on a large number of issues with Paul and I do agree on a large number of ideological view points with Paul. Addition7ally, I have a decent trust in him in regards to pragmatism and realism as it comes to actually actively persuing various policies. I believe Paul to be an academic of sorts and someone who is prone to speak at length on a political issue in a way similar to how a professor may discuss it; but that hypothetical/theoritical views on politics don't always materialize into actual tangible, realistic policy.
Take for example legalization of drugs. This is something that I can easily see him acting like many individuals on this forum; discussing it and debating it from an ideological stand point that drugs should all be legalized. However, debating something from an ideological stand point of a theoritical situation and debating about actual tangible policies you would actively want to see are two different things. Ideologically, I can absolutely see an argument (and even in engage in such) that all drug use should be legalized. However, realistically, I'd never support or suggest a need for an utter reversal of all of our drug laws partially because we don't live in a theoritical word and realistic deference to the realities of our society need to be taken into account with law.
Too often, people mistake ideology with policy. Ideology can DRIVE policy, but they are not one in the same. And sometimes something that is ideologically correct is not necessarily the best POLICY, at least to the purest of ideological degree. This is because ideology functions in a sort of vacuum or at best in a generalized concept of the world where as policy needs to accurately weight the realities of the situation present at that moment in the general public.
As was the case with Ron Paul, many of the more problematic view points that I may have with Rand are things that I think he either speaks of more from an academic ideological perspective rather than tangible policy agendas
or are items that would never have a realistic chance of passing and as such are of little true worry other than as a means of attempting to play on peoples fears. Perhaps if the POTUS had dictatorial powers to simply act or not act in any way it wishes I would be more worried, but that is not the case in our system of government.