The establishement better watch out. If ron paul wasn’t so zany on foreign policy he would be a SERIOUS threat. he already is. he is going to win iowa and is polling well in new hampshire.
I think it was intersting that he chose to go negative on Romney. It certainly has the potential to open the floodgates, but I think Romney is a little more positive. He hasn’t run any attack ads on the candidates. Why start now?
whats ron pauls excuse for the racist 1996 papers? isnt that a deal breaker for the generals? how can we argue he should get the nom if that could come to kill him in the generals?
That’s not an attack ad. He put one screen of Romney in there with the “establishment” politicians that Paul positions himself against. This is a very positive ad that uses the rhetorical techniques of juxtaposition and contrast to highlight Paul’s strengths.
All this said, the best-case scenario would be Ron Paul wins Iowa, with Romney second. Then Romney wins NH by double digits. Gingrich has little money and a small staff – he would probably drop out. Would be tough to see Perry finish 3rd or 4th in Iowa and 5th or 6th in New Hampshire and still have any traction at all.
Ron Paul does have issues that will certainly differentiate the LEADERSHIP Romney has and turn around experience of ACTUALLY GETTING THINGS DONE…….you know, compared to RP.
9. But how is Romney establishment, having been a politician for 4 years in a highly democratic state? I agree that Romney will not fight back on this one. This ad is not as good as the other ones Paul has put out. I think they tried to be a little too cute with the movie angle, and it comes off amateurish.
Everyone claims……..as has Gingrich……….Mitt’s been running for office for 16 (?) years. Uh….hello……..he worked hard in 2008 (McCain….NOT Obama!), 09, & 10 to elect conservatives. SUCCESS in 2010! Mitt was behind the scenes, flying coach, not wanting his face in front of every camera. THAT’s establishment?
Making $$$ in a capitalist system……..THAT’s establishment???
14. Paul sees him as establishment because he adheres as strictly to the establishment line as possible. The point Paul is trying to make with this ad is that Paul is for massive government overhaul and that other candidates are only for continuing politics as usual. It’s not an attack, just a typical ad saying “I’m the real change candidate and everyone else is status quo.” Romney, Perry, Newt, and the rest all have ads with a similar message.
Interesting that this ad attacks Romney as a “smooth-talking politician.” Ron has been a politician since the 70′s, and Mitt’s been in office 4 years. Ron Paul’s been part of Washington a lot longer than most of his supporters have been alive.
Romney, OTOH, just wants to fix Washington and then go home to his family.
19. You should be. We’re pissed off and tired of business as usual. If you are not with us, then you are against us…parties be damned, we’ll split the GOP into fractured little parts if we have to. It’s either Ron Paul or Obama, and we’re going to make sure of it.
This is negative? You really have to be kidding, right? To go any more “kid-gloves” than a mild juxtaposition of Paul to all other candidates would make the commercial absolutely meaningless.
As far as Paul’s supposed foreign policy problems…it’s really only a “problem” to the neo-con establishment wing of the Republican party that advocates endless war for its own sake instead of true national defense, or for the war money machine and its profit taking by its stockholders (which also has nothing to do with actual national defense).
My take from Paul is he is saying that it is time to defend America instead of policeman of the world. He appears to have been able to take a look at the history books and see empire after empire falter and fail because of the mentality of policeman of the world. It frankly rings hollow to say “we spend more than pretty much the rest of the world combined, have done that for enough years to have a massive arsenal, still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, have GENERALS IN OUR MILITARY telling Congress they do not need all the money Congress keeps pushing in order to protect the country, and yet we listen to the neo-cons telling us any penny cut from our budget will bring the stars down from heaven as the Muslim bogeymen will find their opening they have feverishly been waiting to see.
The easy response for Paul, and that he could play up a bit more IMO, is his taking more political contributions from troops than all his opponents combined. So – cut to the chase, are we blindly following the neo-cons and ignoring our troops that we say we love and respect so much?
In the end, the truth is this: we cannot afford to continue to be policeman of the world regardless…keep the $15 trillion deficit in mind if you need a reminder. And, the more we give into bogeyman fear-mongering and demanding to be policeman of the world, the more our defenses get thinned out and the true openings to our security DO occur.
@ 19 – I might not have phrased quite that way, but I agree with some of the sentiment. Romney/Gingrich/Perry: when push comes to shove there is really little substantive difference to Obama. I am no fan of Obama and his policies, to say the least, but I don’t have such blind hatred of the man and such blind following of the “R” after the name that I will support just anyone. Romney/Gingrich/Perry have all given no substantive talk of cutting the budget and promoting liberty while truly respecting the Constitution. In the end, the overspending will continue under any of the three and policies threatening US Citizens constitutional rights will not be reversed. If we are going to take the same handbasket to the same place anyway, why worry if Obama is the face that brings it there or R/G/P? If the Republican Party needs to be effectively humiliated and rebuilt to get it to listen to true small-government principles and true free market economics, then unfortunately so be it…I’ll write in third-party or not vote even if it effectively re-elects Obama (and that curdles my stomach just a bit…)
December 20th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Whoa, his first attack ad on Romney. Gives Romney the authorization to attack back
December 20th, 2011 at 11:25 am
I think we may see an ad about the Ron Paul papers now. He went negative on Romney.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:26 am
The establishement better watch out. If ron paul wasn’t so zany on foreign policy he would be a SERIOUS threat. he already is. he is going to win iowa and is polling well in new hampshire.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:26 am
You can trust Paul to be Paul, and Obama to be Obama. Which one’s worse?
December 20th, 2011 at 11:31 am
I think it was intersting that he chose to go negative on Romney. It certainly has the potential to open the floodgates, but I think Romney is a little more positive. He hasn’t run any attack ads on the candidates. Why start now?
December 20th, 2011 at 11:35 am
whats ron pauls excuse for the racist 1996 papers? isnt that a deal breaker for the generals? how can we argue he should get the nom if that could come to kill him in the generals?
December 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
That’s barely an attack ad, on anyone. Mitt will not respond. Not worth alienating those voters in a general.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:36 am
They should include Ron’s foreign policy views in the ads.
Foreign Policy is RP’s Achille’s heel and fatal flaw.
No thanks.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:39 am
That’s not an attack ad. He put one screen of Romney in there with the “establishment” politicians that Paul positions himself against. This is a very positive ad that uses the rhetorical techniques of juxtaposition and contrast to highlight Paul’s strengths.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am
All this said, the best-case scenario would be Ron Paul wins Iowa, with Romney second. Then Romney wins NH by double digits. Gingrich has little money and a small staff – he would probably drop out. Would be tough to see Perry finish 3rd or 4th in Iowa and 5th or 6th in New Hampshire and still have any traction at all.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Ron Paul does have issues that will certainly differentiate the LEADERSHIP Romney has and turn around experience of ACTUALLY GETTING THINGS DONE…….you know, compared to RP.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Keep up the good work Ron. newterd keeps falling farther and farther behind obama. Romney is the only one that can beat obama.
obama 48%
newt 37%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
December 20th, 2011 at 11:43 am
Mild attack ad but not vicious.
Give em hell Mitt!
December 20th, 2011 at 11:43 am
9. But how is Romney establishment, having been a politician for 4 years in a highly democratic state? I agree that Romney will not fight back on this one. This ad is not as good as the other ones Paul has put out. I think they tried to be a little too cute with the movie angle, and it comes off amateurish.
December 20th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Everyone claims……..as has Gingrich……….Mitt’s been running for office for 16 (?) years. Uh….hello……..he worked hard in 2008 (McCain….NOT Obama!), 09, & 10 to elect conservatives. SUCCESS in 2010! Mitt was behind the scenes, flying coach, not wanting his face in front of every camera. THAT’s establishment?
Making $$$ in a capitalist system……..THAT’s establishment???
UH, Republicans……you’ve got the WRONG party!
December 20th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
14. Paul sees him as establishment because he adheres as strictly to the establishment line as possible. The point Paul is trying to make with this ad is that Paul is for massive government overhaul and that other candidates are only for continuing politics as usual. It’s not an attack, just a typical ad saying “I’m the real change candidate and everyone else is status quo.” Romney, Perry, Newt, and the rest all have ads with a similar message.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Interesting that this ad attacks Romney as a “smooth-talking politician.” Ron has been a politician since the 70′s, and Mitt’s been in office 4 years. Ron Paul’s been part of Washington a lot longer than most of his supporters have been alive.
Romney, OTOH, just wants to fix Washington and then go home to his family.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
17,
Don’t have to be in office to be a politician.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Having met Ron Paul supporters, if I had the slightest belief that Ron Paul could actually win, I’d be very afraid of who he’d appoint to positions.
December 20th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
#18……..Romney is FIRST and FOREMOST a businessman…….a PROBLEM SOLVER………a GET IT DONE guy.
He’s not a politician…….that would be Gingrich, Perry, Huntsman. I don’t view Paul as a politician nor Bachmann, Santorum.
AMEN: “Romney, OTOH, just wants to fix Washington and then go home to his family.”
December 20th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Yeah, the 3 quick images of Newt, Romney, and Obama, lumping them all together as smooth talking politicians was pretty clever.
The clips of Ron in front of huge, adoring fans was powerful.
Very wise of them to not include Ron Paul actually SAYING anything. Would have totally ruined the mood!
December 20th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
19. You should be. We’re pissed off and tired of business as usual. If you are not with us, then you are against us…parties be damned, we’ll split the GOP into fractured little parts if we have to. It’s either Ron Paul or Obama, and we’re going to make sure of it.
December 20th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
This is negative? You really have to be kidding, right? To go any more “kid-gloves” than a mild juxtaposition of Paul to all other candidates would make the commercial absolutely meaningless.
As far as Paul’s supposed foreign policy problems…it’s really only a “problem” to the neo-con establishment wing of the Republican party that advocates endless war for its own sake instead of true national defense, or for the war money machine and its profit taking by its stockholders (which also has nothing to do with actual national defense).
My take from Paul is he is saying that it is time to defend America instead of policeman of the world. He appears to have been able to take a look at the history books and see empire after empire falter and fail because of the mentality of policeman of the world. It frankly rings hollow to say “we spend more than pretty much the rest of the world combined, have done that for enough years to have a massive arsenal, still have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, have GENERALS IN OUR MILITARY telling Congress they do not need all the money Congress keeps pushing in order to protect the country, and yet we listen to the neo-cons telling us any penny cut from our budget will bring the stars down from heaven as the Muslim bogeymen will find their opening they have feverishly been waiting to see.
The easy response for Paul, and that he could play up a bit more IMO, is his taking more political contributions from troops than all his opponents combined. So – cut to the chase, are we blindly following the neo-cons and ignoring our troops that we say we love and respect so much?
In the end, the truth is this: we cannot afford to continue to be policeman of the world regardless…keep the $15 trillion deficit in mind if you need a reminder. And, the more we give into bogeyman fear-mongering and demanding to be policeman of the world, the more our defenses get thinned out and the true openings to our security DO occur.
December 20th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
@ 19 – I might not have phrased quite that way, but I agree with some of the sentiment. Romney/Gingrich/Perry: when push comes to shove there is really little substantive difference to Obama. I am no fan of Obama and his policies, to say the least, but I don’t have such blind hatred of the man and such blind following of the “R” after the name that I will support just anyone. Romney/Gingrich/Perry have all given no substantive talk of cutting the budget and promoting liberty while truly respecting the Constitution. In the end, the overspending will continue under any of the three and policies threatening US Citizens constitutional rights will not be reversed. If we are going to take the same handbasket to the same place anyway, why worry if Obama is the face that brings it there or R/G/P? If the Republican Party needs to be effectively humiliated and rebuilt to get it to listen to true small-government principles and true free market economics, then unfortunately so be it…I’ll write in third-party or not vote even if it effectively re-elects Obama (and that curdles my stomach just a bit…)
December 20th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Oops…sorry, not 19 but @22, who was talking to 19…
December 20th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Awesome.