I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Presidential children

The President put some children behind him when he made his report on the Biden study about the killing of the children in Connecticutt.

For this or some other reason the NRA thought that they had been given an exemption from the rule about not using presidential children in the political discourse.  They proclaimed in an ad that the President was opposed to protecting your children with guns and yet he used guns (secret service) to protect his children!!

I think that they looked bad and the reason is that they tried to make the President look hypocritical which doesn't work because:  1.  All recent presidents have done the same thing and 2. there are clearly reasons why presidential children need more protecting than other children.

They would have done a lot better to have focused on the fact that all of those presidents, whatever they claim, recognize that guns are useful in protecting (their -1-18) children from the crazies.

1 comment:

  1. The “ad” was not appropriate. I think that, overall, the NRA has damaged their image by their actions regarding the Connecticut event. Very poor media management.

    On an evolutionary note: Following the Connecticut shooting the NRA President suggested more armed personnel in schools and the left went ballistic. Now (5 weeks after the event) some are suggesting federal funds to do exactly that.