One of the things that bothers me most about the anger towards Ron Paul is that it's over things he's never said.  His biggest problem is that he's really just a libertarian, and therefore he attracts the more "out there" questions.  The latest invented controversy is over his declaring that we're in danger of a staged terrorist attack.  The problem?  He never said we were in danger of such a thing.  The interviewer did, and then Ron Paul started talking about the danger we face in losing our civil liberties, which is a pretty straightforward libertarian fear that always exists:

Think what you will of libertarian Texas congressman Ron Paul, but I’m crying foul over this post to the Politico’s "Crypt" blog: "Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack." Paul simply did not say that the government is planning a fake terror attack, and to say otherwise is journalistic malpractice.
...
What I did hear was an unhinged radio host ask Paul a wide-ranging, minute-long, wacky question about terrorism, Bush the "dictator," and neo-cons that ended with "How much danger are we in of some new Gulf of Tonkin provocation?" Paul begins his answer with, "Well, I think we’re in great danger of it - we're in danger in many ways." But as he continues, Paul says nothing about a staged terror attack or the Gulf of Tonkin. Rather, he goes into his usual schtick, complaining about the "great danger" involved in the loss of "civil liberties" and the evils of U.S. Iraq policy. Then he speaks to the likelihood of a real terrorist attack - not a staged attack:

"I would say that we're in much greater danger than we've been, even four or five years ago, whether it's overseas or even by terrorists here at home, because I just think the policies are seriously flawed."

This is how you know someone is getting too popular.  People who disagree with him are inventing controversies, about things he never said.  Ron Paul's star must be on the rise, otherwise he wouldn't be worth the trouble.