No, it was kinda a joke. But there is a lot of truth to it. Everyone seems to want anyone who will talk “conservative,” whatever that means, but they run from the one guy who wants to change the scope of government because of one issue here or there.
The problem is Paul is not a conservative, he is a libertarian. There really is a big difference.
Conservatives = low domestic/entitlement spending, high defense spending/hawkish foreign policy.
Liberals - high domestic/entitlement spending, low defense spending/dovish foreign policy
Libertarian = low domestic/entitlement spending, low defense spending/dovish foreign policy.
Conservatives/Republicans are generally going to like libertarian domestic economic policy and hate the libertarian defense policy and dovish foreign policy. Liberals/Democrats are generally going to like the libertarian defense spending and dovish foreign policy and hate the libertarian domestic economic policy.
While these are obviously generalities, they basically hold true. Paul is simply not a conservative. Paul attracts sort of the extremes on both sides - conservatives that want nearly no domestic spending and liberals who want nearly no defense spending and a dovish foreign policy.
There is probably somewhat more sympathy for Paul among conservatives simply because those of us on the right distrust government more than those on the left. Still, conservatives support certain things government does - and that includes a large and powerful military and an hawkish foreign policy that aggressively defends our interests and allies. This dynamic simply is not going to change when it comes to libertarians trying to win elections. Paul won't be the nominee, because the bulk of Republican/conservative primary voters will not vote for a libertarian. Paul can offset this some with crossover voters, but it will never be enough to actually win a GOP nomination.