Fox News wouldn't allow it? I always found it odd that Paul fans thought certain agencies or small groups were preventing this man from becoming President or the Republican nominee. Liberals liked him for his foreign policy rhetoric, and absolutely despised (but politely ignored) his domestic policy rhetoric. Independent/Moderate voters wanted someone in a compromise position. Conservatives (sure, go ahead and question their credentials on being "conservative", but don't be idiotic and suggest that somehow "real" conservatives make up the majority of the conservative lexicon in America at present) adored his fiscal policies but censured his foreign policy aims. The first in brief measure said they may vote for him, but that would not be a reality because any Democratic candidate would seemingly be preferable to Paul, because *shock* being an anti-war candidate was all the buzz for Democrats, and one may as well keep Democratic party welfare state policies. The second either could not live with domestic policies such as his, or could not invision foreign policy positions so clear cut and different as his. The last loved his domestic policies, but were completely horrified by his ideology surrounding the War on Terror. Lastly, who on earth really believes young people truly carry the day on getting a politician elected? They can show up in large numbers, but their large numbers are as fickle as the latest fashion and number as many as fans of an indie rock band (well, the "cool" and "enlightened" ones are counted in this, anyhow). They are there for you before you need them and then suddenly do not show up, nor are most of them even politically interested. Democrats had to learn that lesson the hard way in the late 1960s and 1970s. It would be a shame for Republicans to rely upon such a crowd.
I am sorry, Paul fans, but his positions did not satisfy a significant portion of voters. His positions were just too hot/cold for many groups. Don't blame Fox News for American political reality.