Stunningly ... STUPID ~ ~ Sooz

NRA ad: Obama ‘elitist hypocrite’ because of Secret Service
By Eric W. Dolan
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 22:31 EST


The National Rifle Association released a television advertisement Tuesday night that claims President Barack Obama is a hypocrite because his children are protected by the Secret Service.

“Are the president’s kids more important than yours?” the narrator of the ad wonders. “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. Protection for their kids, and gun-free zones for ours.”

In the wake of the tragic Newtown elementary school shooting, the NRA called for armed guards to be placed in every school to prevent mass shootings. Obama recently said he was “skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools.”

The ad was uploaded to YouTube and will also air on the hunting and shooting-oriented Sportsman Channel, according to CNN.

The ad was released less than 24 hours before Obama plans to announce his proposals to reduce gun violence.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube by NRANews, below:


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/15/nra-ad-obama-elitist-hypocrite-because-of-secret-service/

"Vile" is a good descriptor ~ Sooz

TPM Editor’s Blog
NRA Is Simply a Disease on the Body Politic
Josh Marshall January 15, 2013, 10:02 PM

It takes a lot for the NRA to shock. But this is just beyond disgusting. The NRA has launched a new ad campaign calling President Obama a ‘hypocrite’ for allowing armed Secret Service agents to protect his school aged daughters.

There are so many vile things about this ad. But one thing to note is the ad is really only designed to appeal to people who have a deep — really deep — animosity toward the President. The sort of people who don’t think he and his daughters should be in the White House and wish him the sort of ill citizens should never wish upon a freely elected head of state.

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns tells TPM: “At some point the NRA’s Washington lobbyists may realize that this kind of thing is making them irrelevant. It does nothing but offend the reasonable people who make up the bulk of their country - and the bulk of their own membership.”

The White House is declining comment on the ad.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/01/nra_is_simply_a_disease_on_the_body_politic.php?ref=fpblg

The ad is stupid.

YES, actually. hate to break the news to you, but killing the president or his immediate family is actually an important issue for 315M people.

and maybe they are a little more at risk than I am too....

The President and his family are indeed deserving of the highest degree of security.

So are public school children.

Quid quo: while the ad was indeed offensive, the NRA was right on spot in promoting responsible further conversation re armed LE at public schools.

Probly there were other ways, but somehow points often get lost in the rhetoric...the point of the ad was not really hypocrisy, but what is the most efficient means of protection...and that point came across loud and clear.

I personally can't see how adding more guns in more places can possibly lead to better prevention of violence.

Violence is an attitude. Guns are just a tool. I violent person will still be violent with or without access to guns. Take away access to the types of guns that allow the violent to perpetrate greater violence seems to be a good step toward controlling violence. To add more guns to the mix just makes the violence that much easier to commit.

I disagree with your take, Cannalee ~ I see the ad as intentionally geared to incite fear and anger and is both typical and a tried-and-true tactic from the NRA and other extreme media types [a la Fox] ~ "live links" to more/corroborating info at original ~ Sooz

Maddow on new NRA ads: Trolling a key aspect of conservative media
By Eric W. Dolan
Wednesday, January 16, 2013 23:25 EST

On her show Wednesday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said the National Rifle Association was simply “trolling” with its latest ads, a tactic employed throughout the conservative sphere.

“Trolling is a key part of the conservative-entertainment/media business model,” she said. “These guys say stuff all the time that they do not intend to be persuasive. They’re not trying to explain something, or bring people along to their way of thinking, they’re just doing something to attract attention, and hopefully condemnation and outrage from the mainstream, and particularly from liberals. They want to offend you. They seek to offend you. That is the point.”

Maddow said that “trolling” was a “tried and true schtick” for conservatives. Not just for media figures, but for politicians as well. She described Rep. Steve King (R-IA) as a “permanent troll.”

The new ad released by the National Rifle Association was a prime example of trolling, according to Maddow. The controversial ad said that President Barack Obama was an “elitist hypocrite” for having the Secret Service guard his two daughters while being skeptical that placing armed guards in schools was the only answer to mass shootings.

“Trolls have a purpose in our politics,” Maddow said. “They help niche, unpopular positions and people fund themselves and promote themselves as pseudo-political actors by tricking people who ought to know better into punching down at them.”

The liberal MSNBC host said that the NRA’s “trolling” was proof of their political impotence. She noted that only 0.83 percent of the $10,536,106 spent by the NRA in the 2012 elections ended up achieving the desired result.

Watch video, courtesy of MSNBC, below: [Sooz comment: clip accessible via end link]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/16/maddow-on-new-nra-ads-trolling-a-key-aspect-of-conservative-media/

Very well stated, Sid ~

Sooz

Like the point that Obama hasn't prohibited armed guards in public schools in the first place? Or the point that the plan he put forth actually provides for doing exactly that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

A slashing attack like this has an especially high threshold to get its facts straight. The ad gives the impression that a phalanx of armed police are guarding students, such as the Obama and Gregory children, at Sidwell Friends.
But that is completely false. Far from being elitist, the relatively small force of unarmed security guards at Sidwell is not unusual for a school of its size.
Moreover, the ad also suggests that Obama rejects out of hand boosting security at schools, when in fact his proposals include provisions that would provide funding for more school security.
If the NRA is also trying to count Secret Service protection for Obama’s children as part of that force of armed guards, that’s even more ridiculous. As we noted, such protection is mandated under federal law — and only exists for the president’s children.

50 bucks say that the republicans will not vote for such spending unless it's offset with deep cuts to medicaid or such. Perhaps throw in some tax cuts for capital gains and they'll deal.

It seems to me that there have been enough of these mass murders by mentally ill people that anyone who encourages arming the mentally ill, as the NRA does, could be held at least partially responsible for the killings - maybe not in a criminal sense but in civil court.

There may be an opportunity here for NRA to branch out. They could offer their members a mental health 2nd Amendment insurance policy. If you're a member, for a slight increase in your annual membership fee, you get coverage for liability resulting from you going off your nut and shooting somebody. Would cover personal liability and property damage, and would cover defense counsel costs for up to ten murder charges.

i almost took you seriously, gramps. until the last line.

They do provide insurance for their members. Liability insurance.

Until it comes to a vote - then they'll be against it.

This ad was a really cheap shot and the NRA should have known this but they probably do and don't care. I would hope they lose membership over their attitude but time will tell.

My apologies--guess I'm losing my edge--i just didn't study the ad that well but took away from it that they were indeed "trolling" to get across the point we need armed security in our schools--of course I don't think the President is an "elitist hypocrite --far from it. And I'm glad one of his goals is to "increase security at our schools" but I am in firm agreement with the NRA that the security must be armed...in a pure utopia it would be great to live in a gunless society, but that isn't realistic in today's society....catching bullets barehanded isn't either.