How was that a great writeup when it discounts him in the first paragraph, using adjectives like wacky, radical, no-hoper and quirky? I was expecting it to be an objective look at Ron Paul's policies by Economist.
That IS a great summary of Ron Paul, so the Economist is being reasonably objective - as they usually are. Only the libertarian fringe and people who don't know much about anything support Ron Paul.
Thanks for posting. A question about this statement from the article:
>> But [Ron Paul] coming this far tells you something about the mood of Republican voters.
Don't you think it's a bit limiting to single out republican voters? I am fairly convinced that there are a significant amount of voters on all sides that support Ron Paul. I have also come to believe that specifically many republicans are against him, largely due to the anti-Ron Paul right-wing media influence. Thoughts?
There is a huge amount of ignorance about what Ron Paul really stands for - when he becomes a serious candidate (not very likely) and is given the scrutiny and attention that other candidates are given, then he will implode like Perry and Herman before him.
