Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NRA responds to ad outrage: Obama children ad not about Obama children
NRA responds to ad outrage: Obama children ad not about Obama children
by Steveningen
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam responded to the outrage over their despicable ad bemoaning President Obama's children receiving Secret Service protection while your children get nothing.
<...>
Right. That had absolutely nothing to do with the President's children, nor was it a personal attack on President Obama. We are just taking the ad out of context and using it as a distraction for our own ends.
These people are about as craven as they come. Good luck convincing anyone that criticism of this reprehensible message is a distraction.
Not even Joe Scarborough is buying it.
From the link at Media Matters:
When the NRA loses someone as wingnutty as Joe Scarborough, you know they are backed into a corner. And now that we have them backed into a corner, it's time to push them back under that rock they crawled out from under.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179446/-NRA-responds-to-ad-outrage-Obama-children-ad-not-about-Obama-children
by Steveningen
NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam responded to the outrage over their despicable ad bemoaning President Obama's children receiving Secret Service protection while your children get nothing.
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. And the President said he was skeptical about the NRA proposal to put policemen in all schools in this country. Yet he and his family are beneficiaries of multiple law enforcement officers surrounding them 24 hours a day.
That's the real issue. Anything else is an attempted calculated distraction.
<...>
Are the president’s kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? 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.
Right. That had absolutely nothing to do with the President's children, nor was it a personal attack on President Obama. We are just taking the ad out of context and using it as a distraction for our own ends.
These people are about as craven as they come. Good luck convincing anyone that criticism of this reprehensible message is a distraction.
Not even Joe Scarborough is buying it.
From the link at Media Matters:
Scarborough, who as a Congressman was a strong supporter of the NRA, responded to the ad, asking "what's wrong with these people?" He continued, pointing out that once Obama decided to run for president, his children "have targets on their backs." Scarborough also said that the NRA is now a "fringe organization with millions of mainstream members." He concluded by saying the ad was "frightening and over the line".
When the NRA loses someone as wingnutty as Joe Scarborough, you know they are backed into a corner. And now that we have them backed into a corner, it's time to push them back under that rock they crawled out from under.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/16/1179446/-NRA-responds-to-ad-outrage-Obama-children-ad-not-about-Obama-children
18 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
The disrespect they show to this President is a daily occurrence. 
That ad we made about Obama's daughters isn't about Obama's daughters.
But should that be a surprise?
Of course they do. They're just ASSHOLES.
its focus, not specifically Obama's children. The NRA gets a special boost from mentioning Obama, simply because there are a lot of NRA racist mouthbreathers.
If their argument had been presented as 'why do the family members of presidents get such protection,' does anyone honestly believe that this argument would fly at all? Anyone with one brain in their heads realizes that presidential families face specific, potentially horrific acts of violence simply because of their unique position in public life.
Why didn't the NRA use the Bush family in this very same ad? I leave it to you to suss out the reason.
