I hate to break it to you, but this is how credible candidates get treated.
But you aren't breaking it to me, and it's not how "credible" candidates are treated. Discount that none of the candidates, "credible" or not, are treated with anything regarding sanity or actual depth. The "most credible" candidates get kid glove treatment always. For good reason.
Not counting that it's an entirely "narrative" driven affair ala sports "journalism" in the end anyway. And none of the above applies to just Ron Paul either. Who is "credible"? 1% polling Rick Santorum, 1% polling Jon Huntsman or 1% polling Gary Johnson?
What Paul did was a while ago, granted, but it was politically idiotic and he's never manned up and owned it.
And he did, but suddenly dropped it when he "went big" again as I said. I assume he's afraid of losing the money by denouncing Rockwell personally.
rather than getting a martyr complex over the media not covering up on his behalf.
I didn't. I pointed out again he's screwing this up to protect Rockwell and I don't buy his entire claim anyway. But added an aside snarking about the medias fascination with meaningless things from decades ago yet little interest in anything logical.
Ron Paul has said the same thing on the newsletters for decades, he's not going to say something different, you aren't going to get anything new from him. He has plenty to say about war, drugs, the fed, etc.
He will never win and his ideas will never catch on, that doesn't really matter regarding the critique.