Ron Paul Super PAC Ad Knocks Perry, Romney (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- Revolution PAC, a Super PAC set up by supporters of presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), is out with an ad hitting the two front-runners for the Republican nomination, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, for their past support of universal health care, bank bailouts and other policies.

The ad, which is titled "Plastic Men," features a cartoon Romney and a cartoon Perry. Romney is receiving the support of President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- wearing a red shirt emblazoned with a hammer and sickle -- as he signs the Massachusetts health care reform bill. Perry is wiggling with delight in front of the words, "Big Pharma Tool," as he prepares to force "young girls to be injected with an STD vaccine" -- a reference to Perry's support for mandatory vaccination of girls to protect against the sexually transmitted HPV, which is a leading cause of cervical cancer.

The ad release is tied to a fundraising event planned by Revolution PAC for Sept. 19. To help fund air time for the ad, the group is planning a "money bomb," an organized day for supporters to contribute. What is different about this money bomb is that it comes from a Super PAC, which, unlike a normal PAC or campaign committee, can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions and corporations. Revolution PAC's website clearly touts the advantages of its Super PAC status, naming the event a Superbomb with the tag lines for the event reading, "People. Business. Organizations. No contribution limits!"

According to a statement from Revolution PAC advisory board member Tom Woods, "The question now becomes: Will the American people accept being governed by establishment-driven plastic men and automatons or will they opt for the constitutional consistency, incorruptibility and real economic foresight of Ron Paul?"

Paul is currently polling in third place among declared candidates in a CNN poll released Sept. 12.

WATCH:

Comments

[JohnFromCensornati]

06:44 AM on 09/13/2011

"I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and MUST BE PROTECTED.­­­­­­­­­­" - RP

Liberty!

[tony thebrain]

07:43 PM on 09/15/2011

Intellectually lazy much?

It's completely congruent with his philosophy and his positions to say straight monogamous marriage must be protected, and to simultaneously support voluntary associations like gay marriage and polygamy.

Afterall, he clearly believes this is State's jurisdiction to define, not the federal government's jurisdiction.

Where would he get such a crazy idea? Because NOWHERE in the Constitution's enumerated powers does the federal government have the right, power, or authority to define any marriage, whether straight, gay, monogamist, or polygamist. Obviously all adults are free to associate anyway they like, and the 10 Amendment leaves all non-enumerated powers of the federal government to the States or the individuals therein.

Try blaming the Supreme Court of Cowards for not declaring marriage an individual right...not being intellectually lazy and indirectly saying Ron Paul is anti-gay marriage.

[joekel]

08:14 PM on 09/15/2011

Spin away full - paul is anti choice and anti gay - he supported DADT.

[JohnFromCensornati]

08:40 PM on 09/15/2011

Nah. Liberty would mean liberty. It would mean that it's none of his business if gay people get married. It would mean that he wouldn't feel the need to "protect" the English word "marriage". No need to preach the constitution if you're going to ignore "Full Faith and Credit".

BTW - There's nothing indirect about what I said. Ron Paul *is* anti-gay. He demonizes gay people with tyrannical, oppressive remarks.

[beyond left and right]

02:15 PM on 09/18/2011

You're totally distorting his possession on marriage. Ron Paul doesn't believe the State has any right to intervene in marriage. Gay people can marry under a Paul administration.

[Polarpetrus]

05:45 AM on 09/13/2011

Ron Paul 2012

[Ram Samudrala]

02:14 AM on 09/13/2011

I think the ideas that are not inconsistent (like abortion----under a libertarian regime, abortion would not be prohibited by government) are okay but it's one thing to have an idea where people take care of each other and so on and accept responsibility with minimal government and it's another thing to MAKE IT HAPPEN! I am of the belief that people FIRST need to reach a level of cooperative behaviour BEFORE you stop having a top down government manage things. Adults collectively are still like the way we think of children, not capable of taking care of ourselves and so government has to. This is a biological and a communal emotion, it's the survival instinct kicking in. To get around it, you need to provide a certain form of self sufficiency to people so they don't worry about the stupid things in life. This is where I think liberalism comes in. While I think top down government have done great things, it is because they followed a bottom up approach in many cases (NIH, which funds me with a Pioneer Award, comes to mind).

In a sense, the ideas of extreme liberalism and libertarianism actually come together, but it happens only once the objects of interaction have achieved a certain autonomy which is not possible now for not just social reasons, but biological ones.

[Shelly Jefferson]

08:51 AM on 09/13/2011

So You are pro abortion?Against it?I do not think this is a matter to elect a president by.We are not appointing a Czar of abortion here.We are trying to save a country that has failed.I do know that he does not think it right for a federal government to mandate what we do as individual States.I wholeheartedly agree.Anyone who suggests that we can all be forced to think one way with police enforcing the federal thought crime is a Nazi.It is as ridiculous as me going to Boston and telling them to stop talking funny,or going to San Francisco and telling them to stop acting so fruity.It is just not going to happen.

[tony thebrain]

07:53 PM on 09/15/2011

"Adults collective­ly are still like the way we think of children, not capable of taking care of ourselves and so government has to."

Perhaps you require a parental State, I do not. If YOU cannot handle it (or any others who insist of having their hands held or being ordered by threat of law to do things) then maybe YOU should be taxed, regulated, and threatened.

I personally do not need this, and in fact would argue such a state of things prevents us from taking the opposite approach through moral hazard and horrific incentives. Some baby birds need to leave the nest before they will provide for themselves, and that includes providing themselves with freedom adults enjoy.

You wish the child to be blamed for the bad parenting of the adult...you wish to have an over-babied child-turned-adult show they are fully adult FIRST, instead of allowing the child to experience freedm and it's rewards and penalties by removing the overbearing parent's constantly interfering hand.

It's clear...the child (us) will continue to take advantage of the overbearing parent (government) until the parent finally says enough is enough, and puts the child out to see for themselves how rewarding and yet tough real life can be.

Anything else is horrible parenting (not to mention tyranny).

[PerotVentuSheehCarte]

08:41 PM on 09/12/2011

Why is Slick Rick seething with hatred tonight on-stage?

[Pyrum]

01:58 AM on 09/13/2011

When is Slick Rick not seething with hatred?

[joekel]

09:20 AM on 09/13/2011

The same can be said of paul.

[nogimmicks]

08:13 PM on 09/12/2011

Ron Paul is a genuine and consistent candidate. He is also the only unequivocal anti-war candidate.

[hottingers]

08:35 PM on 09/12/2011

Consistantly in another reality. The man has ideas that would take this country back 80 years. You can't just look at one idea.

[nogimmicks]

09:01 PM on 09/12/2011

With all due respect, we had it your way for the last several decades. And what is the result? Which candidate do you like?

Btw, Dennis Kucinich would be another great candidate, just watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFabLp-Jcbg

[jimmcclarin]

09:59 PM on 09/12/2011

Yeah, hottie, we took a wrong turn on a number of things. Remember, that government is best that governs least.

[MrUnlimited]

01:56 PM on 09/21/2011

The only unequivocal anti-war candidate?

2 words, 4 syllables: Gary Johnson. Lol, I couldn't resist.

But Paul certainly is consistent and his poll numbers suggest that he's more viable than Johnson.

[jyatt7]

08:11 PM on 09/12/2011

Ron Paul is the only one in this debate that can even get close to getting this American mess straightened out. All the others are "staus quo".

[Electrum 01]

07:57 PM on 09/12/2011

I disagree with Ron Paul on almost everything, but the man has some integrity, unlike the rest of these posers.

[Screwed college student]

08:00 PM on 09/12/2011

Even if you don't like what he says at least you know what he is really going to do

[drwtsn]

11:45 PM on 09/12/2011

True. That's why I respect and fear him.

[Ram Samudrala]

02:23 AM on 09/13/2011

Why does he work FOR government, and take government aid for his health, ss, etc.? Why does he not return his health benefits or deny his health insurance paid for by us? Why is SO against abortion?

I also think he's fairly consistent and pretty good, but he needs to go beyond WANTING something. He has to have ideas to make it happen! The public isn't ready yet for a libertarian society and HOW we get there in a compassionate way needs to be said, not just that we need to get there.

[Inez Tyler]

07:53 PM on 09/12/2011

I love this ad!!

[Philimanjaro]

07:35 PM on 09/12/2011

No matter what the Paul-haters have to say...

They either voted for the last debt driving warmonger, or the current debt multiplying warmonger.

Yeah... their guys have really been an immense success- huh?

[JohnFromCensornati]

06:42 AM on 09/13/2011

LOL! I've noticed that one of the most common talking points used by ronpaulians is "I voted for Obama". Thanks.

[Mickey1]

08:59 AM on 09/13/2011

We could not vote for John McCain. Corporatist Obama will not get my vote again. Not LOL.

[Philimanjaro]

11:49 AM on 09/13/2011

"You've" noticed.

[PerotVentuSheehCarte]

07:31 PM on 09/12/2011

plastic fantastic Willard Romney
plastic fantastic Ricky Perry

Neocon Bush Clones*
dance dance puppets

[armchairpickleback]

07:30 PM on 09/12/2011

Why do people hate?

They are afraid of what they do not understand.

FEAR AND IGNORANCE.

[cdhj12000]

08:43 PM on 09/12/2011

Why are people afraid of what they do not understand? Because they are ignorant of whether it will do them harm. I think we as humans are beginning to acknowledge that and I will be so optimistic to say that we are beginning to realize that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" to phrase it one way.

[armchairpickleback]

07:29 PM on 09/12/2011

WOW WHAT A POINT!!!

[abbadabba]

07:09 PM on 09/12/2011

I think telling more folks Perry tried to bundle up elders like sticks and bet on their expiration dates to manipulate the Texas Retirement System with Phil Gramm is a lot more damaging, but I get that doesn't make a pretty cartoon.

[GdubHeel]

07:02 PM on 09/12/2011

Hmmmm.

Dr. Ron Paul or some guy who got a C+ in basket weaving?

[kickapoop]

07:27 PM on 09/12/2011

Let's vote for the guy that got a D in economics 101!!!

[Andythelawyer]

07:33 PM on 09/12/2011

Rhere's other choices. I like Huntsman.

[kirkrfisher]

01:32 AM on 09/13/2011

just like obama if you ask me... how many speeches would he make about jobs?

[Simon Aguilar]

06:56 PM on 09/12/2011

I'm tired of liberals claiming Paul's ideas would "set us back a century" without ever explaining why that is the case. I suppose the assumption is that programs Paul opposes such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, workplace safety laws, social security and federal agencies like the Fed, IRS and FDIC have helped the middle class. The fact is those programs accomplish nothing beside entrench special interests, stifle competition, and create unemployment. We've had 100 years of "activism" and what do we have to show for it besides high unemployment, falling standard of living, and financial turmoil. But go ahead and support the status quo.

[Michael Ruiz]

07:01 PM on 09/12/2011

Dems think that programs such as food stamps help the poor... They actually enrich the banks like JPM.organ, http://dailybail.com/home/jp-morgans-food-stamp-monopoly-the-more-americans-that-fall.html

[AJ187]

07:16 PM on 09/12/2011

Democrats believe that the goodness of most of these programs sought to attain in the first place, still exist. The horror of the truth hasn't caught up to them.

[Andythelawyer]

07:34 PM on 09/12/2011

LOLOL....So you want unsafe workplaces, kids having to work instead of go to school, and people working 14 hours per day, 6 days a week dor pennies per hour -- all as they did before the 20th Century?

Tell you what..Move to Pakistan. They have all thse things now.

[Electrum 01]

08:00 PM on 09/12/2011

Couldn't have said it better.

[Shelly Jefferson]

09:24 AM on 09/13/2011

Oh puleeze,your such a drama Queen.If you think your State would allow that to happen you had better get out of there quickly.Those dangerous locals could resort to cannabalism before Ron even gets in office.As far as the wage thing,people will have to pay more when they have to hire American citizens.That is the opposite of your scenario.You are not a lawyer.