Let's face it.  Ron Paul, though attracting a dedicated following, also has a slim chance at winning.  He's not getting nearly the same kind of attention in the media as the rest of the Republican candidates, and his poll numbers aren't as great.  Part of this is the media's fault of course.  The media really works backwards from how it should.  Those who are popular early have their ideas talked about in the media, where in an ideal world, people's ideas would be discussed in the media and that would drive their popularity.  The media is really just interested in reporting the horse race.

But Ron Paul is unique... in that in a Presidential race where the Iraq War is still taking center stage, he is one of the few candidates who can honestly say he voted against it.  With practically everybody who is talking about the Presidential race right now being concerned with one issue, and one issue only, why is it then surprising that Ron Paul attracts those who are most fervently against the war?

So the question has to then be... do you find Ron Paul guilty by association?  Yes, there are "truthers" who support Ron Paul, but he has never said that September 11th was an inside job, or anything remotely nuts like that.  He has simply said that he did not believe that going to war in Iraq was the correct means to the ends that we're trying to achieve.  And the reality is... every candidate has the vocal whack jobs who support them, but aren't supported by the candidate themselves.  Edwards had the Green Party whackos.  Bush had some crazy Evangelicals who think the Rapture will happen and they will disappear in a few years before Armageddon.  Hillary... well... all Hillary supporters are crazy... but somehow they don't make as much news.

The difference here is that Edwards and Bush were anointed early by the media as being "real candidates", and so their crazy supporters were more quickly diluted by others who came on board earlier.  You mention the name Ron Paul to most people today, and you get a blank stare, and then they ask you who that is.  So the realty is that with Ron Paul, the crazy supporters just haven't been diluted with the normal supporters yet.  For some candidates, like Admiral Painter, he has a movie and television career to help him get immediate support.  Hell... the guy wasn't even running yet and people were flocking to him.  I still haven't actually figured out why, as his candidate persona really hasn't come close to meeting the expectations people were putting forward.  It probably has something to do with the fact that TNT was playing Law & Order constantly.

I of course won't disagree that some of Ron Paul's supporters aren't necessarily helping him, I also realize that his supporters aren't him.  For my part, I like Ron Paul right now because frankly, I can't be a one issue voter again.  I did it with George Bush, and I honestly think I regret my decision.  Granted, it was a choice between a douche bag and a pile of shit... but part of me wonders whether having a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress wouldn't have turned out better.  My disappointment so far in Ron Paul's candidacy is his inability to break out of the anti-war mold and talk about the other issues sufficiently.  In the end, I just want someone in the White House who I know won't be afraid to veto a bill... to say No... enough... this far and no farther.  I can't imagine the last time someone in government said that and meant it.  I honestly believe Ron Paul to be the only one who could.