I have read at least four different articles concerning Ron Paul's candidacy in the last two days alone. Naturally, each article asserts that Paul will not make it anywhere -- naturally. They all say it like that too: "Of course, he's not going to win, of course, but we're going to talk about how he's not going to win, of course." Still, it's interesting that he's becoming news, finally. Most of the articles also group his political views together in such a way that they do not make sense. They call him anti-war. It's funny how two years ago it was bad to be a "warmongering Republican neo-con." Now it's bad to be anti-war. Not to mention the fact that this generalization fails to explain anything about Paul's views on the War in Iraq. That's beside the point to most journalists, I guess.
Here is an article that actually explains some of Ron Paul's views fairly well. Naturally, the writer thinks Ron Paul's candidacy will go nowhere, naturally. But she did actually do some research into his views, actually. She might need to put in some more efforts researching the Cold War and how the U.S. dealt with that. I think it's rather difficult to describe anything so complex in a short article and people should stop trying. All the same, I applaud her for saying that not all Paul supporters are fringe weirdos, even though she then implied that all Paul supporters are fringe weirdos. Ah, people. They need to put some thought into their analysis sometimes.