I don't usually review hit pieces but I get what the author is trying to do here and agree with it in a somewhat less hyperbolic way. There's a lot of Ron Paul love going on right now and that alone has piqued my interest. I threw my vote away in the 08 primaries by voting Romney over Paul and have regretted that decision ever since. And these days, I look around and see an awful lot of right-leaning pundits praising Ron Paul when they wouldn't give the time of day to him two years ago.
Greenwald is trying to point this newfound love out but in a rather silly way. He's trying to set up these "A-Ha!" moments by point out Pundit X can't POSSIBLY support Ron Paul because of [insert single issue here]. People can disagree with candidates even on large issues yet still support them. You couldn't really stick to two political parties without that give and take. What's far more interesting is why they haven't supported Ron Paul until now.
I suspect Greenwald is right about motive in many cases. There are plenty of people in the GOP who have no interest in actually trying to push a conservative agenda. A lot of them just campaign on conservatism and hope we look the other way when they're in office. I imagine that a lot of this posturing for Ron Paul is based on GOP me-toos trying to ride the coattails of a real conservative into office.
But Greenwald has ignored our shifting attention from foreign policy to domestic policy since 2008 (well, really since 2006). For all our wailing and gnashing of teeth on spending increases under Bush, it only took Obama a year to make Bush look like Scrooge McDuck. Compound that with an Obama foreign policy that looks awfully similar to Bush's and a lot of people just aren't worried about the one topic with which they disagree with Ron Paul the most. Yeah, foreign policy is very important but if Obama can't make significant changes, how will Ron Paul?