NY Times gives more coverage to Ron Paul

[remaxjon]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/21/2008-long-shot-candidates-get-ink/

It seems almost daily now we get an article that mention Dr Paul in the times some good and some bad but they are paying attention

[Dustancostine]

This is a good and fair article, except for the 2nd to last line. I am really tired of hearing it.

[AZ Libertarian]

It's a crappy hit piece! The old "tell two truths and a lie, and act like it's all truth."

And there's another thread on this same article - and it's being dugg like it's a great piece, instead of the smarmy snide corner-of-the-mouth throw the dog a bone but wipe your butt with it first 'new yawk times article', but I repeat myself.

I disagree that 'all press is good press'.

[jblosser]

We need to be able to laugh at ourselves, guys. Not all sarcasm is mean.

And yes, all press is good press. The majority of the people I talk to still say "who is ron paul?" We need them to move on to "oh, I've heard his name a few times", especially so that when they see him on the debates they connect the two and listen to him.

A man of Paul's integrity has nothing to fear from snide press. They're doing us a favor giving him any name recognition, because it makes people less likely to forget who he is when they see him speak and find they agree with him. WHEN, not if.