2012 Election

Ron Paul Goes After Newt Gingrich's 'Serial Hypocrisy' in New Ad: VIDEO

Serialhypocrite

Get your popcorn out because the GOP feathers are starting to fly.

The video will not run on television. But the Paul campaign is promising to send it “to a far-reaching email list of conservative voters nationally, including in key early voting states.”

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. I love seeing the GOP eat their own, but that ad could have been half as long and twice as effective. The excessive repetition almost seemed condescending, and extracting most of Newt's words from one speech didn't convey the clear issue of his flip-flopping or much else.

    I can respect Ron Paul for being consistent in his positions---one of the very few Republicans I can say that about, though I'd still never vote for him. But that ad needed a much better writer, editor, and director.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 30, 2011 9:03:34 PM


  2. GOP/Tea Party denialism runs very deep. I cannot wait to see how the "faith-based" community reacts to this. Will they just ignore the video-squib and stick with Newt? (It's two plus minutes long. Can you really call it an "ad?" Will it ever play full length on any TV station? Isn't it going to be chopped up and played in pieces on treally alk shows and shown full length on youtube?) Or, will they revive one of the other "not-Mitts?" This could be very interesting.

    Posted by: Tony-N-SF | Nov 30, 2011 9:08:35 PM


  3. Communists and Islamists also used to tear one another apart with ideological purity tests, much to the joy (and criticism) of the GOP. Pot? Kettle? You've come a long way from the Politburo, baby.

    Posted by: Betty_Cracker | Nov 30, 2011 10:16:54 PM


  4. I hate Paul's politics, but the video is very effective

    Posted by: ACe | Dec 1, 2011 12:22:10 AM


  5. I posted it to my Twitter and FB account, this needs to go viral.
    Of course, there should be another one highlighting his Sanctity of Marriage hogwash vs. his divorces.

    Posted by: ticosf | Dec 1, 2011 12:27:27 AM


  6. (I should clarify - I hate MOST OF Paul's politics)

    Posted by: ACe | Dec 1, 2011 12:29:54 AM


  7. I don't think this is going to hurt Newt. He's made of Teflon.

    As for hypocrisy, how can you go past Bill Clinton? He signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law at the very time he was banging Monica Lewinsky.

    Dems are just as guilty of hypocrisy as Repubs. Let's not pretend otherwise.

    Posted by: jason | Dec 1, 2011 7:10:54 AM


  8. He's the biggest hypocrite of all the candidates - he and his fellow Repugs impeached Clinton while he was having an affair himself! Talk about moral hypocrisy!

    Posted by: KMC | Dec 1, 2011 7:53:27 AM


  9. Dearest Towleroad, thank you for continuing to post stories about Ron Paul. While I understand his policies (and party affiliation) don't align with many, if not most, of this site's viewers, it is great to see him getting some attention here.

    In a gay community where Repubs/Conservs are often hated on and dismissed as crazies, it's nice to see some neutral posts coming through here. Very refreshing!

    And, to those that are against RP just because of his party affiliation (and I know there's a lot of you!), I urge you to step outside of the box and look into his policies.

    He is the ONLY candidate (Dem or Repub) who stands for peace. He is the ONLY candidate truly concerned with our nation's debt. He is the ONLY candidate with the economical understanding of our Federal Reserve monetary system and its devastating affects on our currency. And, he is the ONLY candidate who believes full-heartedly in the rights of states to choose what is best for themselves (and this is the key to gay marriage as a national right to marriage is probably decades away!).

    Obama has done some good things, but he's also expanded the wars and launched entirely new military conflicts, which is something he campaigned against. And, he's absolutely wreaked havoc on our national debt, and therefore our currency. A viable alternative (and one that is truly different) deserves a legitimate look from the gay community. This strict party line thing we've been doing for so long should be reexamined.

    Again, much kudos Towleroad for not following the so often taken road of dismissing any and all Repubs.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 1, 2011 9:28:43 AM


  10. Neither Newt Gingrich nor Ron Paul will ever get near the White House. (Much as I'd love to see NG be the nominee since he'd be a disastrous candidate for the Republicans.) So, ultimately, it doesn't matter that they'd both be terrible for gay rights, but lest anyone be confused here, their gay civil rights policies are wrong. (Leaving marriage entirely to the states is not in our best interests, Brian, and the right of gay couples to marry--not "gay marriage"--is not decades away, unless we continue to elect Republicans and put them in charge of Supreme Court appointments.)

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 1, 2011 10:25:40 AM


  11. Ernie, it seems you live on either one of our coasts, or in a major city. The middle of this country, the south, and even conservative strong holds like Orange County, are not anywhere close to accepting gay marriage. In my opinion, thinking otherwise is foolish and in no way strategical.

    States' right are not only the most constitutional approach to gay marriage, it is also the most strategical approach. There are several states that either have, or are close to having, gay marriage rights. Thus, again in my opinion, the strategy should be starting at the state level and changing the national discussion through the acceptance of gay marriage in states across the country.

    That being said, states' rights are not the main reason RP would be best as President. He has said many times, verbatim, that marriage shouldn't even be a government issue. Which, it shouldn't! He believes every person, gay or straight, should have equal rights across the board. The fact that there are 1000+ rights given to heterosexual married couples is a fallacy of our government. There should be no additional right given to couples once married because those rights should be based on us as INDIVIDUALS not as married couples. And, that is RP's perspective.

    If government gets out of marriage (which RP wants), then all the rights that have been exclusive to marriage will then be available to every person, individually, regardless of marital status.

    So, whether a vote for RP, and therefore gay marriage, is strategical because of states' rights (which, considering the very evangelical base of this country, I think approaching it from a national level is a lost cause), or because of his position of getting government completely out of marriage, that still moves the fight for gay marriage vastly further than it is now.

    Every step we've made toward gay marriage has been done on the state level. Individual states slowly coming around to gay marriage equality. Continuing that move is by far our best option, and RP is the best choice for that.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 1, 2011 10:45:29 AM


  12. DO ANY OF THEM HAVE ANY ROOM TO TALK??? PLEASE - WHO LISTENS TO ANY GOP BESIDES THE IDIOTS, BOTH MIDDLE AND LOWER WHO WANT THEIR CHILDREN PROTECTED FROM HOMOSEXUALS AND RELIGION BACK IN SCHOOLS, OR THOSE WHO WANT TO BUY THE FAKE HANGBAGS AND PRETEND TO BE RICH - LISTEN PEOPLE, THEY WILL TAKE YOUR VOTE, BUT YOU WILL NEVER SWIM IN THEIR POOLS! DOWN THE GOP!

    Posted by: GRivera | Dec 1, 2011 10:55:27 AM


  13. Please forgive my typos above, and I just wanted to reiterate something.

    RP stands for individual liberty and rights, which is the most historically consistent and humane understanding of rights (rights being based on belonging to a group is dangerous, as different groups can take majority and change the rights of people outside of their group. Just like heterosexual marriage supporters have done to their gay counterparts).

    Approaching all rights, whether gay/women/civil/etc, from an individual perspective is how it should be done, constitutionally and morally.

    Every right any individual in this country has should be given to every individual because that is what our country stands for, not this divisive approach to rights that rules our system now.

    So, again, that is why RP is the best choice for the gay community. He doesn't see us as a group that has to fight for our rights because he sees us as individuals that should have the same rights as every other individual in this country.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 1, 2011 10:58:47 AM


  14. Oh Grivera, your comment is so dated and tired. There are many gay GOP members, both in government/think tanks/lobbies/etc., and living throughout this country. To say they are idiots (and the other hateful things you said) is akin to people saying gays are sexual deviants. It's off base, untrue, and, in my opinion, just plain unintelligent.

    At least we could try to approach people as open minded as we want people to approach us. No? Dismissing gay GOP's as "idiots" and such, is the opposite of open minded.

    With people like you on our side, it's no wonder many people don't give us the respect we want. Attacking people and calling them hateful things because of their political affiliation is ridiculous.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 1, 2011 11:08:28 AM


  15. Jason, These days most Democratic politicians are NOT as hypocritical on sexual matters as most all Republican politicians these days. Many Democrats may be as guilty as Republicans of extra-maritial affairs, carrying on while in the closet, sexting, etc., but most DO NOT rant and rave about and publicly campaign on upholding "traditional family values." It is the holier-than-thou, damn-all-who-differ words and actions of Republicans and that make them hypocrites, not their sexual activities.
    On economic matters, the hypocrisy score is closer, given how many former elected officials of both parties become lobbyists and public relations agents.

    Posted by: MichaelJ | Dec 1, 2011 11:46:59 AM


  16. Brian, I live in Vermont, not on the coast or in a major city.

    My state, VT, wants its legally married couples to have the same federal benefits that all other married couples, including Ron Paul, take for granted. DOMA, which Ron Paul supports, prevents that. Ron Paul opposes the right of gay couples to bring lawsuits challenging DOMA. Believing in achieving marriage equality at the state level (I'm on the board of Freedom to Marry in my state, so I'm hardly opposed to it) should not exclude a simultaneous federal and Court approach, especially for those of us who have a different view of the role of the federal government than you and RP have. Parts of DOMA have already been found unconstitutional because of federal court cases.

    But we've been through all this before when you're shilling for RP here . . . re-explaining his brand of faux-libertarianism isn't going to win many converts. I'll give him this: he perks up the Republican field by speaking his mind, and since he's far too old and too nutty (in the eyes of the nutty Republican power brokers)--bless his heart--to get near the nomination, I really don't see him as a threat.

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 1, 2011 5:26:12 PM


  17. Vermont, that explains it all. Clearly a far more liberal state than the majority of this country. I live in California, and I'm used to people here in this state assuming that the rest of the country is as ready for equal marriage as this state is (well, this state is almost ready for it!). But, Vermont and California are, by far, not the norm in this country. Far, far from it.

    You like to bring up DOMA a lot in your comments about RP, but you seem to miss a couple of key points. First, DOMA was signed by the alleged end-all-be-all Democrat President, Bill Clinton (so, if you are so against DOMA, you may want to reexamine your party affiliation since they were the ones who brought you it). Second, and this is the most important thing you seem to miss, RP is in favor of DOMA because it protects States' rights, not because it limits rights to same-sex couples which he has said numerous times he is against. If Vermont, or California, want to have marriage equality than by all means they should have the right to! BUT, if Texas or Georgia doesn't want it, they should have the right to that as well! That's the beauty of a free society, and one where power is distributed to the federal and state governments.

    If you disagree with that being the way it should be, than you are really arguing against the Constitution of this country, and that then becomes an entirely different conversation (yes, we have different views of how this country should be run. I believe our law, the Constitution, should dictate, whereas it seems you think your personal opinions should). States' rights are an essential tenet of the Constitution, which is the major protector of an out-of-control, power addicted, federal government.

    Yes, parts of DOMA have been found unconstitutional, and rightfully so, but RP's position is in line with those findings. He's in favor of every individual getting every right, and the parts that were found unconstitutional are the ones that limit rights to same sex couples. RP is against limiting rights to anyone. Yes, he favors DOMA, but not because it limits rights (which he is undeniably against) but because it protects States' rights. This country was founded on limiting centralized power, and ensuring States' have the right to choose what's best for them is key to protecting that.

    So yes, RP is for DOMA, but he's not for limiting rights to anyone. Under his Presidency DOMA would be much different than it was when Clinton signed it into law. Because Clinton, like Bush and Obama, didn't and doesn't believe in individual liberties. DOMA has pros and cons. Big cons, but also big pros.

    To say RP is for DOMA is true, but you consistently miss the point as to why. You also continue to overlook the fact that RP is for equal rights to everyone, which is more than anyone can say for Obama (Bradley Manning, the American citizens he ordered assassinated, an the innocent civilians around the world who have died from his continued wars, new military conflicts, and internationally illegal bombing campaigns... just to name a few).

    I am glad you have noticed my shilling for RP! I think we could use a lot more shilling for views other than the same ole' same ole LGBT position that we have taken for so long.

    Posted by: brianinla | Dec 2, 2011 10:57:22 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «First Look: Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln« «