Ron Paul is not going to get more than low single digits in the R primaries, no matter how much he can raise in a day. There aren't enough engaged Rs to give him a shot at the nomination.

Prove it, and BTW, New Hampshire is looking to serve you up a generous helping of crow.

You comment is the same thing as calling him names. You use, "he can't win" as a way to not only marginalize the man, but marginalize his ideas as well.

I can't wait for the next article about any of the other candidates. I look forward to reading the updates so I can learn about all of the controversies they have been a part of, no matter how off topic or irrelevant.

I mean, because the fact that they call him all those names in the Establishment Press has everything to do with that decades old newsletter?

Aren't the Internet (and wikipedia) great:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul#1996_campaign_controversy

In 1996, Paul was re-elected to Congress after a tougher battle than he had faced in the 1970s. Since the Republicans had taken over both houses of Congress in the 1994 election, Paul entered the race hopeful that his Constitutionalist goals of shrinking government size would have more influence,[34] but he quickly concluded "there was no sincere effort" toward his goals.[14] The Republican National Committee focused instead on encouraging Democrats to switch parties, as Paul's primary opponent, incumbent Greg Laughlin, had done in 1995. The party threw its full weight behind Laughlin, including support from House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor George W. Bush, and the National Rifle Association. Paul responded by running newspaper ads quoting Gingrich's harsh criticisms of Laughlin's Democratic voting record 14 months earlier.[39] Paul won the primary with support from baseball pitcher, constituent, and friend Nolan Ryan (who served as honorary campaign chair and made ad appearances) and tax activist Steve Forbes.[10][33]

Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, lost in a close margin, despite assistance from the AFL-CIO. Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris two-to-one, giving the third-highest amount of individual contributions received by any House member (behind Gingrich and Bob Dornan).[51] It became the third time Paul had been elected to Congress as a non-incumbent.[10]

Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included politically incorrect comments concerning race and other politicians.[52][53][54] In 1992, alluding to a contemporary study finding that 85% of black males in Washington, D.C. would be arrested sometime during their lives,[55][56] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males and "black men commit [crimes] all out of proportion to their numbers".[57][58]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan as a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist" were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[59] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[33] In 2007, with the history resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own."[10]

I imagine the fact that he manned up already and took Moral Responsibility for it doesn't matter, since it is more fun (and damning) to pretend like he is keeping secrets. This is out there for all of his supporters to see.

You could be an archaeologist, and have the joy of competing with one of Creationism's newest fronts, some new age archaeological theory about civilization being millions of years old, that attempts to undermine evolution in a very subtle way, through contradiction.

Articles about Paul are good. I apologize for the "classy" comment, but I am an asshole and I say a lot of regrettable things. Go to almost any political board, and it is always the same thing. The first step is to ridicule using various name calling and smears. Then it goes to, "hey, have you heard about this newsletter from last century". So, I apologize if I read the article then right after it saw all the links and got butthurt.

People can go ahead and keep calling him names though. Soon they will be calling him President.

It didn't get us to the moon.

What's going on here? Are you trying to spoil the Huckster's chance at being Romney or Ghoul's VP?

Up bright and early to play more divide and conquer I see. So what else is new?