@Frank Apisa,
Quote:"Pointing it out" is really just code for "giving him more publicity."
All the other candidates realize the best option if to simply ignore him. He will go away soon enough.
This explanation would make sense to me, except that if we review the 2008 election, an even bigger underdog, Tom Tancredo, received all sorts of criticism for allegedly being a racist xenophobe. The media and opponents alike launched accusations against him on the basis of their own extrapolations of his policies on immigration and terrorism. Tancredo also associated with a few unsavory characters, however, so did Obama at one time.
Now maybe Tancredo really is a racist. It seems more likely than not. But there's still a measure of ambiguity and doubt. People are reading between the lines rather than looking at anything tangibly racist Tancredo actually said or did in his record.
With Ron Paul, there's no need to read between the lines. We can read the actual lines. There exist a bevy of articles bearing his signature, under his masthead, containing all sorts of anti-black, anti-Semitic, anti-homosexual refuse. And hardly anyone in the media seems to care. Why did Tancredo get heavily scrutinized while Paul, at three times the popularity of Tancredo (albeit still not a threat for the nomination) receives virtually none? At debates, moderators ask him if he's too old. How about asking him to offer up a better excuse than "I didn't read the articles I signed off on" for two decades of published bigotry?
