It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Attack Ad: Rick Santorum

page: 1
32
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   


They MSM says RP is running the most negative campaign but IMO, it's not really an attack if you are pointing out the truth with facts based on past political moves?

I hope this gets airplay in NH.




posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Lol, love it. No beating around the bush in that video



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Santorum's rise to the top will be the most laughable and short lived out of all the "Anyone But Ron Paul" flavors the GOP throws at us.
He's too arrogant to even realize they used him like a rented mule.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by maddog99
Santorum's rise to the top will be the most laughable and short lived out of all the "Anyone But Ron Paul" flavors the GOP throws at us.
He's too arrogant to even realize they used him like a rented mule.


He's already almost entirely broke. He doesn't have enough to even make a dent in NH which is why this was targeted at SC. Santorum is and has already been the biggest joke.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 



They MSM says RP is running the most negative campaign but IMO, it's not really an attack if you are pointing out the truth with facts based on past political moves?


The definition of a "negative campaign" is that you air ads and talk about your opponents faults instead of airing ads and talking about reasons why you are a good candidate.

The ads can be 100% factual, but it is still a negative campaign because you are trying to tell people why not to vote for someone instead of why they should be voting for you.

So the MSM is right in that respect.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by maddog99
Santorum's rise to the top will be the most laughable and short lived out of all the "Anyone But Ron Paul" flavors the GOP throws at us.
He's too arrogant to even realize they used him like a rented mule.


I think you meant "anyone but Romney".

Ron Paul even played that roll in December...and I believe his was the most short lived out of all of them. If Santorum stays on his rise for a few more days, he would have lasted longer than Ron Paul.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
After seeing this AD i realize, i have seen negative ads on every candidate, except on Ron Paul.


The other candidates have trouble diggin up dirt on him? Or are they just letting the MSM do that with the newsletter issue, trusting they will handle it so they don´t have to spend the money?

I don´t know, if there is one, please link it, cause i would really like to see if there is one.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tesclo

Originally posted by maddog99
Santorum's rise to the top will be the most laughable and short lived out of all the "Anyone But Ron Paul" flavors the GOP throws at us.
He's too arrogant to even realize they used him like a rented mule.


He's already almost entirely broke. He doesn't have enough to even make a dent in NH which is why this was targeted at SC. Santorum is and has already been the biggest joke.


He has already made a dent in NH...he is only 8 points behind Paul in the RCP average of the polls.

This is why Ron Paul is going after him...Paul isn't going to go after Romney...he knows he can't close that gap. So Ron Paul is trying to fend off Santorum from taking over second place in NH.

If Ron Paul takes third in both Iowa and NH...you can call his campaign dead because it will officially become the Romney and Santorum race. Paul is fighting for his life in NH...which is why he is going very negative.
edit on 6-1-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 



They MSM says RP is running the most negative campaign but IMO, it's not really an attack if you are pointing out the truth with facts based on past political moves?


The definition of a "negative campaign" is that you air ads and talk about your opponents faults instead of airing ads and talking about reasons why you are a good candidate.

The ads can be 100% factual, but it is still a negative campaign because you are trying to tell people why not to vote for someone instead of why they should be voting for you.

So the MSM is right in that respect.


I agree, spot on, In the case of Ron Paul, it is easy to see why he does these though, since he already has plenty of "positive" ads describing all of his political standpoints, and why people should vote for him.
When there is money left over, of course he spends them on "negative" ads, since it is not hard to find mud on those scumbags running against him. And he needs it, since he doesn´t get much help from the MSM in that regards, since they all seem piled against him.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 



They MSM says RP is running the most negative campaign but IMO, it's not really an attack if you are pointing out the truth with facts based on past political moves?


The definition of a "negative campaign" is that you air ads and talk about your opponents faults instead of airing ads and talking about reasons why you are a good candidate.

The ads can be 100% factual, but it is still a negative campaign because you are trying to tell people why not to vote for someone instead of why they should be voting for you.

So the MSM is right in that respect.


Unless of course the base of your entire competition is so obviously wrong that posting anything postitive would have to be negative. Sure he could talk about how he has a 30 year record of voting for the constitution. Or how he's the only one on the stage not taking the "drop more bombs!" stance. But what would be the point when your opponents give you this much fuel to fire your own campaign?

I'm really not sure what's driving these people anymore. Do they honestly believe that people are going to respond well to corruption, greed and warmongering? Infact, the moment one of these politians go over there and stand on the front lines of the war they so want, is the moment I'll believe that any of them are actually worth fighting. But if we want 4 more years of lies, we already have the man to do it in office. Whats the point of replacing one idiot for another?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
After seeing this AD i realize, i have seen negative ads on every candidate, except on Ron Paul.


The other candidates have trouble diggin up dirt on him? Or are they just letting the MSM do that with the newsletter issue, trusting they will handle it so they don´t have to spend the money?

I don´t know, if there is one, please link it, cause i would really like to see if there is one.



Who is going to waste money on him at this point?

Romney has no need to...Santorum can't afford to...you may start seeing some from Gingrich to help Santorum in NH...but he is more angry at Romney than Paul.

And honestly...no one needs to because Ron Paul is doing a good job himself of making himself look bad. His policies alone are Ron Paul negative ads. Every debate is a negative Ron Paul ad. Everytime the media points out his extreme views it is a negative Ron Paul ad.

So I doubt you will see any...no one needs to waste any money on it.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by maddog99
Santorum's rise to the top will be the most laughable and short lived out of all the "Anyone But Ron Paul" flavors the GOP throws at us.
He's too arrogant to even realize they used him like a rented mule.


I think you meant "anyone but Romney".

Ron Paul even played that roll in December...and I believe his was the most short lived out of all of them. If Santorum stays on his rise for a few more days, he would have lasted longer than Ron Paul.

So you're saying the GOP's boy is Santorum? Have you been following this? I mean seriously...Romney's their man. Every other flavor has been a distraction to keep the focus and alternative vote away from Ron Paul.
Sometimes I think your comments are just made for a reaction only.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I hate that term "negative campaigning".

HELLLLOOO? Do people not remember how vicious the attacks got the last go around from ALL SIDES?

They are competing for the most powerful chair in the Union, not for the lolli-pops and smiley faces.


If your opponent sucks, tell them(the people) why. Otherwise, they wont believe you!

Real question is, why does it take so long for the dirt to come out?

There is no such thing as negative campaining, theres only campaining.

Edit- NICE AD!

Santu-whats his face is up to evil shenanigans.
edit on 6-1-2012 by Common Good because: I forgot to say NICE AD! and evil shenanigans(i probably didnt spell that right but I dont care)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by maddog99
 


No...the "not Romney" is being decided by the voters that don't want to vote for a Mormon, or someone who thinks Romneycare is just like Obamacare, or thinks he is a flip flopper.

I think the GOP is fine with Romney...they know he is their best chance to beat Obama.

I think it is funny that you think this is all being done because of Ron Paul.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Santorum is one of the worst hypocrite christians I have ever seen. When God will help him look better or get him a vote he is sooo christian but out of the spotlight and by his actions he is as bad or worse than any of the rest



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Not really an attack ad, just stating the facts about that weasel. Can he refute any of the pejoratives in that video?
edit on 6-1-2012 by blackrain17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by maddog99
 


No...the "not Romney" is being decided by the voters that don't want to vote for a Mormon, or someone who thinks Romneycare is just like Obamacare, or thinks he is a flip flopper.

I think the GOP is fine with Romney...they know he is their best chance to beat Obama.

I think it is funny that you think this is all being done because of Ron Paul.


If the GOP was fine with Romney, they would have chosen him in 2008. They obviously didn't think Romney was fine back then. I simply don't understand the logic though. How could someone that basically designed Obamacare and is a proven flip flopper on almost every issue he's ever stood for be their best chance to beat Obama? The GOP's best chance to beat Obama is Paul. If not only because I've heard third party runs tend to help the President in office... especially when the candidate has this much support. And I'd be right. Because I personally would love to hand Obama another term in the place of someone like Gingrich, Santorum or yes, even Romney.



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by maddog99
 


I think it is funny that you think this is all being done because of Ron Paul.


Yea, I guess I'm just imagining that!


I guess I'm also just imagining that you troll every Ron Paul thread parroting MSM garbage as well as your own rhetoric to get Paul supporters riled up?



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tesclo
 


If you look at the field of candidates the GOP put forth, with the exception of RP, it really goes from bad to worse.
I also don't agree with everything RP says, but imo, he's a lot smarter and honest than anyone out there...including our president.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<<   2 >>

log in

join