What is very interesting about Ron Paul is how unfair the media have been to him in the debates, and in particular, how the media are now all pulling a Fox and trying to ignore him.
For example, in the October CNBC debate, Ron Paul got less time than Huckabee, Brownback, Tancredo or Hunter, despite the fact that he had a higher fundraising haul n the 3rd quarter than any of them.
Then, yesterday, he received the least time of any of the GOP candidates in the MSNBC debate, despite the fact that he has beaten Rudy Giuliani in all but one (maybe two, I don't know about Wyoming) of the contests held so far.
And no one is discussing him anymore. After the debate yesterday, almost no mention of him was made until the text poll rankings came up.
Also, note how no one talked about the GOP part of the Nevada caucuses except to mention the winner, as Vox Day pointed out:
It's always easy to tell how Ron Paul does in a primary; you need merely count the number of finishers reported, then add one. If this means the media has to fail to report any of the finishers from second to sixth place, as was the case with the Nevada caucuses this weekend, well, that just leaves that much more space to anoint this week's "frontrunner."
And let's not forget the near blackout of Louisiana's caucuses, where Paul either did very well, or did even better.
That is all.