There was a campaign of "crazy old Ron Paul" going on when he ran. He was getting cut through but it was a total concerted campaign to make him look like a joke and a fool.
Criminal really - people on both sides of the political spectrum could see it happening and spoke out -
During his previous presidential campaign, it was alleged by many supporters that there was a media blackout and suppression of coverage of Paul.[77] Similar allegations have arisen in the 2012 campaign and received some media coverage.[78]Politico columnist Roger Simon noted on CNN's Reliable Sources that Paul has received considerably less coverage than Michele Bachmann, despite earning a close second to her at the Ames Straw Poll.[79] Simon later opined in Politico that the media was treating Paul unfairly.[80] Comedian Jon Stewart similarly complained about the lack of coverage, despite Paul polling much better than candidates who received coverage. Stewart presented a montage of mainstream media clips that showed commentators ignoring, and two CNN correspondents admitting to suppressing, coverage of Paul.[81]Will Wilkinson opined in The Economist that "Ron Paul remains as willfully overlooked as an American war crime", arguing that if Paul had won the Ames straw poll, it would have been written off as irrelevant, but since Bachmann had won, it was claimed to boost her campaign.[82] Other commentators noted that Paul has had success at past straw polls but has not turned that into broader success as a reason for the relative lack of media attention.[83] Paul was asked in a Fox News interview "What are they [the media] afraid of?"[84] He answered "They don't want to discuss my views, because I think they're frightened by me challenging the status quo and the establishment." Later, he continued on Piers Morgan Tonight: "They don't want my views out there—they're too dangerous ... We want freedom, and we're challenging the status quo. We want to end the war, we want a gold standard, and their view is that people just can't handle all this freedom."[85]
During the November 12 CBS/National Journal Debate, Paul was allocated 90 seconds speaking time. Paul's campaign responded, saying, "Congressman Paul was only allocated 90 seconds of speaking in one televised hour. If we are to have an authentic national conversation on issues such as security and defense, we can and must do better to ensure that all voices are heard. CBS News, in their arrogance, may think they can choose the next president. Fortunately, the people of Iowa, New Hampshire, and across America get to vote and not the media elites."[86] Paul Mulshine a columnist with The Star-Ledger noted that the New York Times admitted to suppressing coverage of Paul. He quoted a column by Times editor Arthur Brisbane that said: "Early in the campaign, The Times decided to remain low key in its coverage of Ron Paul, the libertarian Texas congressman."[87][88] The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found in August 2011 that Paul received substantially less coverage than other candidates in the 2012 race.[89][90][91][92]Pew released another study in October 2011 confirming that Paul has been receiving disproportionately low coverage in the media. Paul polled 6.0–9.8% during the study period, but only received 2% of media coverage, the lowest of all candidates. It also noted that Paul's coverage among blogs was the most favorable of all candidates.[93] In January 2012, The Atlantic cited the weekly Pew study. They noted that despite steadily rising in the polls, Paul has been losing his share of press coverage, going from 34% in late-December 2011 to about 3% in mid-January 2012. They also noted a sharp drop in positive coverage and a small rise in negative.[94]
