Reuters
Top NRA lobbyist: On second thought, that ad about school security for Obama’s kids was “ill-advised”
“I don’t think it was particularly helpful, that ad,” Baker told Reuters in a telephone interview. “I thought it ill-advised.”
“I think the ad could have made a good point, if it talked about the need for increased school security, without making the point using the president’s children,” he said. The NRA has advocated putting armed guards in schools
Baker was the NRA’s representative at a meeting with Vice President Joseph Biden on January 10 to discuss the administration’s plans to reduce gun violence in the wake of the school shooting.
He said he was not involved in creating the ad, and once it appeared, he had let others at the NRA know what he thought. “I got to say my piece,” he said.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Don’t back down now. For the love of God. It was an excellent ad. Don’t let your opponents define for you what makes a good ad or not.
JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 4:47 PM
If Obama had not shamelessly used children in his messaging, then I would agree.
OldEnglish on January 26, 2013 at 4:49 PM
Was this lobbyist named Mickelson?
SFH on January 26, 2013 at 4:52 PM
Other people’s children, including now deceased children, make excellent political props. But not Obama’s kids. Sure.
VerbumSap on January 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM
I thought it was badly phrased. If I understand the way the school works, they have eleven armed security people there above and beyond the secret service assigned to secure the safety of the Obama girls. That is what should have been emphasized.
Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Really?
I think having a snippet from when Bill Clinton proposed it would have been a better bit to include.
Dems vs Dems…glorious!
ProfShadow on January 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM
i think the ad was perfectly fine and made a great point.
Sachiko on January 26, 2013 at 4:55 PM
This is what’s wrong with movement conservatism writ-large. So many self-proclaimed “conservatives” have joined the greater Republican Party among the ranks of historical chickenshits.
gryphon202 on January 26, 2013 at 4:58 PM
What’s the problem with telling the truth and what everyone else was thinking, i.e., his kids can get security — but ours can’t. Screw him!
Blake on January 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM
Well IIRC bho is going to have families of those childern murdered at his sotu. This ad was spot on for what our elected demand but the citizens don’t have? I know that bho’s family needs extra security but his kids aren’t any more precious that any other American?
L
letget on January 26, 2013 at 5:03 PM
That’s exactly the argument that some libwits have made right here at HotAir.
gryphon202 on January 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM
lol, I think you meant “hysterical” but both certainly work.
arnold ziffel on January 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM
Who cares? He’s but one lobbyist. He got to voice his concerns with those above him. The brass are going to do what they feel is in their best interest, not what their lobbyists personal opinions may be.
ButterflyDragon on January 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM
No I meant historical. Left out hysterical, but I meant historical.
After the drubbing the Republicans took in the last election, Liberals are emboldened. Conservatives are cowed. Just look at the shit that’s coming from Salon, essentially running a column from someone saying I know abortion is taking a life. I just don’t care. Or that stupid trillion-dollar platinum coin scam. I could go on and on and on and on with example-after-example of liberal boldness and conservative cowardice just since the election last November.
Either conservatives will find their collective spine, or we will descend into the worst tyranny in the history of human government. I really don’t see a third way through all this.
gryphon202 on January 26, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Close your eyes and click your heels three times.
Posturing in no way, by any means, reduces the value of the truth the ad imparts.
ericdijon on January 26, 2013 at 5:13 PM
Are you suggesting I am a ‘libwits’ by my post? I don’t feel there was anything to say I am by what I said? Did I not understand what you posted?
L
letget on January 26, 2013 at 5:15 PM
NO NO NO! That was not directed at you, LG. I am just saying, there are libwits here who have made exactly the argument that “…Obama’s kids are more important than anyone else’s are.” Just another example of liberals emboldened by Obama’s ’12 victory. I did not mean to impugn you in any way shape or form, as I’m sure you find that argument as repellent and as ridiculous as I do. Just saying, there are folks around here who have seriously advanced it.
gryphon202 on January 26, 2013 at 5:16 PM
Thanks.
L
letget on January 26, 2013 at 5:21 PM
The NRA should fire this guy. All children are precious and should be protected. That was the point of the ad.
RedRobin145 on January 26, 2013 at 5:23 PM
I agree. Should have left out the Secret Service part of it. It just gave the libs a bone to chew on. It would have been better to use David Gregory’s kids as the comparison and leave out the Obama girls. Armed guards for children of privilege…..not an issue of national security.
a capella on January 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM
AND In the end the ad was the TRUTH.
CW on January 26, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Sounds like the NRA has a fragger in their midst.
Dusty on January 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM
And also consider the outlet this story was published in.
Del Dolemonte on January 26, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Obama’s kids are no more important than any of ours. The ad was spot on.
jawkneemusic on January 26, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Nah, the school is Quaker school and says the security guards are unarmed.
Exactly. The ad pointed out Obama’s hyprocrisy perfectly. The fact that liberals are whining just shows how it hit the mark.
sauldalinsky on January 26, 2013 at 5:45 PM
I’ve read that it’s incorrect that the guards at Sidwell Friends are armed. If so, we need to correct ourselves on the facts and be accurate in our statements. However, it’s true that if we ordinary citizens are disarmed, government officials and mega-wealthy people like Bloomberg will still have access to all the armed protection they want–and that is unjust.
juliesa on January 26, 2013 at 5:55 PM
I think Obama should pay for his own family’s protection
Why should we pay for his little brats while he takes away protection for our wonderful kids?
Plus, he needs to pay us back for his daughter’s vacation overseas that cost millions.
TexasJew on January 26, 2013 at 6:15 PM
NRA should do a little damage control and FIRE Baker.
The ad wasn’t “about” Obama’s kids, in any meaningful sense. To allow the left define the terms of debate is to concede it. Fire Baker before he digs the hole deeper.
petefrt on January 26, 2013 at 6:17 PM
Never apologize, It’s a sign of weakness. Gibbs’ Rule #26
“Sorry, don’t get it done, Dude.” John Wayne (Rio Bravo)
davidk on January 26, 2013 at 6:38 PM