To clarify, when I wrote "I can understand why you would like to see Paul gone." I meant the mainstream media not the author of the article in question who in fact is saying keep Paul in the debate even if it is not for Paul's own good.

Well I guess that depends on what your definition of "lost" is.

You might ask Jim Gilmore, Sam Brownback, or Tom Tancredo if Paul lost the debates. You might ask Duncan Hunter. You might ask Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee and John McCain if Paul lost. They only seem to attack him once. The MSM gleefully posts the "controversy," tittering in anticipation that one of their mainstream candidates poll numbers will increase while Paul's campaign is finished. Yet their candidates internal polling clearly shows their attacks did nothing to help their campaign. That is why they ignore him in subsequent debates. On the other hand, Paul's numbers in supporters, straw polls, Internet hits of any kind, donations continue to rise after each debate setting new records, while the mainstream polls register a continuing slight rise. Thanks for the publicity. I can understand why you would like to see Paul gone.