You are completely contradicting yourself here.
First of all, whether or not you understand Huntsman's positions and still rank him first has little to no bearing on my contention.
If by some miracle Huntsman were to win, we would see an attack from the Left on how extreme he is, just as we saw against that other GOP darling of Liberals, John McCain.
Is he a 911 conspiracy nut, birther, racist? Probably but at least he's honest about it.
Are you suggesting all of the other candidates are 9/11 conspiracy nuts, birthers, and racists, but are simply more dishonest than Paul? If so, perhaps you might offer some support of such a charge.
By the way, Paul has not admitted to being any of these three things (quite the opposite in fact) so your basic premise is incorrect, but if he actually had, that would somehow make him worthy of rising in your estimation? Interesting.
I don't see why that is surprising or in any way offensive to you.
You either mistakenly or deliberately misread what I wrote as it's neither surprising nor offensive to me that the Democrats who get the most hot and bothered abouth Social Conservatives are Social Progressives.
I do find it interesting and ironic that those who exaggerate the importance of social issues are most offended by what they perceive to be the exaggeration of social issues.