NRA ad attacked for including President Obama's daughters

[candlegal]

The National Rifle Association on Tuesday released a controversial new ad that makes reference to President Barack Obama’s daughters - sparking outrage from critics who charged that the spot is over the line.

“Most Americans agree that a president’s children should not be used as pawns in a political fight,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said. “But to go so far as to make the safety of the President’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly.”

The video calls Obama an “elitist hypocrite” for not embracing armed guards in schools even as his daughters enjoy armed protection at their schools.

(Also on POLITICO: W.H.: NRA ad on Obama daughters 'repugnant')

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the ad’s narrator asks. “Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools? Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he’s just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.”

The gun group’s spot came under immediate attack.

Former White House Press Secretary and Obama advisor Robert Gibbs slammed the ad on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday morning.

“I mean, it is disgusting on many levels,” Gibbs said. “It’s also just stupid.”

(PHOTOS: Politicians speak out on gun control)

He added, “This reminds me of an ad that somebody made about 2:00 in the morning after one too many drinks, and no one stopped it in the morning.”

“What’s wrong with these people, Mika? What’s wrong with these people?” Joe Scarborough, host of “Morning Joe,” asked co-host Mika Brzezinksi in disbelief.

“They are out of step, out of the mainstream, totally out of sync with what’s going on in our society, and quite frankly after seeing that, I think some of the people who run that thing are sick,” Brzezinski said. “I really do. I think they are sick in the head.

“And I’m serious,” she continued. “I am embarrassed right now.”

Later, replaying the ad, Brzezinski added, “It may disgust you. It terrifies me.”

(Also on POLITICO: NRA knocks Obama on daughters’ security)

According to MSNBC, the NRA swung back in a statement provided to the network.

“Whoever thinks the ad is about President Obama’s daughters are missing the point completely or they’re trying to change the subject. This ad is about keeping our children safe,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

The NRA did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America, defended the ad Wednesday in an appearance on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”

”I think the ad is spot-on,” Pratt said. “It points to the hypocrisy that we see so much from our ruling class, and it underscores the need that we’ve been pointing to that if we’re going to get serious about protecting our children, we’re going to do away with the ‘gun-free zone’ requirements in federal law, which have created a magnet for these mass murders.”

When asked about discussing the president’s children, Pratt added, “This is a democracy. This is a country where we are all equal before the law, and to have special privileges for others that wouldn’t necessarily extend to us common people goes down a little hard.”

Continue Reading

Text Size

• -
• +
• reset

Melody Barnes, the former director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the country should brace for more ads like the NRA spot.

“And that’s what’s going to infiltrate the debate,” Barnes said. “Those are the kinds of visits members of Congress are going to get, and that’s why people have been scared to take on this issue even after tragedy after tragedy in our communities around the country, and the American people have to be prepared for that and make a decision what kind of country do we want to live in and the message that they want to convey to their policymakers about the kinds of laws and the kinds of policies that we’re going to have.”

Sasha and Malia Obama attend Washington’s posh private Sidwell Friends School.

”Their whole goal is to ratchet up the rhetoric,” Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said on CNN’s “Starting Point” about the NRA ad. She added, “Let’s stay calm. Let’s look at the function of these weapons… we need to ban those weapons that have the functionality that can kill a whole bunch of folks in just a few seconds.”

David Frum blasted the ad in a blog post.

“…the NRA’s sneering references to the president’s family are beyond the pale,” Frum wrote. “As the makers of the NRA ad should know, and probably do know, the First Family has come under years of racially coded attack for their ‘uppityism,’ as Rush Limbaugh phrased it. This latest attack ad looks to many like only one more attempt to enflame an ancient American wound.”

Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, added, “Generally speaking, a president’s family should not be subject to political criticism. That rule was honorably upheld in the case of the Bush daughters, who grew into fine young people, and the rule should be same for the Obama daughters - especially if it’s true, as has been widely reported, that this first family has faced a unique degree of threat.”

Twitter reaction also took off after the video dropped.

CNN’s Piers Morgan, who has taken heat from gun advocates for his position on gun control, ripped the video in a tweet.

“This new @NRA ad is just disgusting,” he tweeted, linking to the clip.

Kathleen McKinley, a conservative blogger for places including the Houston Chronicle, bashed the use of Obama’s children in the ad.

“Here’s an idea. How about the NRA and Obama NOT use children at all to promote their agenda?” she tweeted.

“This is not an SNL skit. This is a real NRA Ad,” tweeted actor Zach Braff, linking to the clip.

“Trying to figure out what NRA is thinking with web ad targeting Obama girls. Who thinks that’s appropriate? #mitchellreports,” offered MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.

Ron Fournier of National Journal group called the ad “low” in a tweet.

In a follow-up tweet, he added, “”Has the NRA Finally Gone Too Far?” My take: Hell, yes.” Fournier included a link to a post that further took the NRA to task. “The ad is indisputably misleading, and is arguably a dangerous appeal to the base instincts of gun-rights activists,” he wrote.

“@thedailybeast: NRA Ad Targets Obama Daughters http://thebea.st/U0y119 . Tasteless, mean spirited and totally out of bounds. Agree?” tweeted Democratic strategist and commentator Donna Brazile.

John Dickerson of CBS News said on “CBS This Morning” that the video “makes a larger argument. It’s not just about guns,” he said. “It’s going into… negative views about the president. It uses all the emotional — presses all the emotional buttons for those people who don’t like the president and the NRA is making this about hypocrisy, not about safety.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/new-nra-ad-comes-under-attack-86268_Page2.html#ixzz2I9xatjud

[ILive4This]

Is that possible?

They're panicking.

Quoting Ms.KitKat:

 The NRA does need a serious b*tch slap. Just makes them look (more) stupid

[Happymamax2]

Quoting ethans_momma06:

Quoting Happymamax2:

Quoting ethans_momma06:

I think it's a fair question, though I usually oppose the use of a politicians child to push a political agenda.

The fact is, Obama has espoused a very anti-gun pro gun regulation policy. His party has greatly opposed gaurds in schools- even though there have been several school shootings.

So. Why aren't other parents afforded the same "rights" that he is?

Most other parents don't have crazy folks, by the thousands, making death threats on their kids.  The secret service is a little different from a school guard who is armed.

So, it's a matter of numbers? BTW- I'd love to see the claim that his children are being targeted by "the thousands" to be backed up with something substantial.

The fact is that other parents do have to worry about the protection of their kids. The fact is, that parents are now forced to face the fact that they do have to worry about their kids dying in school. This is not the first school shooting. I'm not disputing whether or not his children should have protection. I absolutely believe that they should.

I'm just wondering - if it's fine for him to understandably protect his kids- why isn't it fine for me (or any other parent who feels the need to) to do so in the same way? With, a gun.

I think it's fine for folks to protect their children in any way they want.  I never said I was anti gun in any way.... I'm not sure that arming guards in schools is the answer, but I'm not sure it isn't....  It might be the only way.  Honestly, I wasn't aware that president Obama is against schools having armed guards if that is what they decide to do.  im pretty sure he wouldnt want them armed with serious assault weapons!  I think we all need to do what we need to do to protect our children.  The thing is, I think president Obama thinks he is doing the right thing for all of our kids.  That doesn't make him a hypocrite.  IMO.

[LoveMyBoyK]

The armed guards were at the school long before Obama's kids started There, I do believe

Quoting rfurlongg:

While I adore my kids I realize they are not the target of nutjobs. The O girls are, hence the need for greater protection.



As far as the ad itself, I think it failed to make its point. It has become a firestorm of whether or not children should be used in ads instead of how guns should be handled / viewed.

[PurdueMom]

Adam Lanza brought children front and center into this debate.

[LoveMyBoyK]

Obviously many other kids need protection, too, Or Have You missed all the school shooting that did NOT INVOLVE politicians children. That is the POINT. Nobody is saying O's kids do not deserve protection, They are saying ALL KIDS DO.

Quoting ILive4This:

He's the president, duh...seems obvious why his kids have protection.  Doesn't even make sense...like most things NRA.  Extremists.

[Ms.KitKat]

 even when one hits "bottom" there is always another new low LOL

but yeah- they are panicking which just goes to show how stupid truhy are. If they were smart about it- they would not let others "see them sweat"- which has worked very well for them in the past.

Quoting ILive4This:

Is that possible?

They're panicking.

Quoting Ms.KitKat:

 The NRA does need a serious b*tch slap. Just makes them look (more) stupid

 

 

[rfurlongg]

Perhaps. There are armed guards at my children's school as well. I believe it was  implemented in our district in 2005(?).While I have heard O discuss restrictions in gun control, I have not heard him discuss stripping armed guards of their weapons. 

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

The armed guards were at the school long before Obama's kids started There, I do believe

Quoting rfurlongg:

While I adore my kids I realize they are not the target of nutjobs. The O girls are, hence the need for greater protection.



As far as the ad itself, I think it failed to make its point. It has become a firestorm of whether or not children should be used in ads instead of how guns should be handled / viewed.

[LoveMyBoyK]

Why is it not the same thing. Private schools across America use Armed security guards, why should public school kids not deserve the same protection?

Quoting motha2daDuchess:

this is not even the same thing. anyone that thinks there is a point is stupid.

[momtimesx4]

LOL Politico and Morgan

[jaxTheMomm]

The school the Obama girls go to has professional security.  One would assume that comes with the high price tag.

If you would like your child to have that same security (and I'd bet they are highly trained, top notch, and vetted in everyway), then pay the tuition.