Saturday, January 26, 2013

NRA Senior Lobbyist: Attack Ad Was "ill-advised"

Yahoo News reports
One of the National Rifle Association's senior lobbyists said an ad by the nation's leading gun-rights group after a school shooting in Connecticut that refers to President Barack Obama's children was "ill-advised."

Jim Baker, head of the federal affairs division at the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, said he had made his views known to others at the powerful gun-rights organization.

The ad, which cast Obama as hypocritical for having expressed skepticism about putting armed guards in schools, when "his kids are protected by armed guards at their schools," drew widespread criticism when it first became public on January 15.

"I don't think it was particularly helpful, that ad," Baker told Reuters in a telephone interview. "I thought it ill-advised."
Too bad the level-headed NRA board members are outnumbered by the extremists.
The White House has called the NRA ad "repugnant and cowardly," while New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said it was "reprehensible" and undermined the NRA's credibility by bringing the president's children into the debate. Christie is considered a possible Republican presidential contender in 2016.

Susan Eisenhower, the daughter of the late President Dwight Eisenhower who had Secret Service protection as a child, wrote in the Washington Post that she was "disgusted" by the ad.

The NRA's president, David Keene, objected to the White House criticism earlier this month, saying "We didn't name the president's daughters ... What we said is that these are people who think that their families deserve protection that yours don't."
Now that's an intelligent defense, don't you think?

Please leave a comment.


  1. Yes, anyone with half a brain could see that it is "ill-advised." Obviously, the children of high-profile national politicians are at greater risk than your standard (gun guy's) kids.

    Lots of reality checks were ignored in making this one. I'm glad. The NRA is losing lately, and in the future, and they just keep digging themselves deeper with sh*t like that.

    1. It was not only a bad judgment call, it was an attack that was factually inaccurate.

      The school attended by the Obama daughters does NOT have armed guards:

  2. Would that be more or less ill-advised than parading children out to promote gun control? More or less ill-advised than saying that a shooting skills program for children is child abuse?

  3. The idiot from Oregon said: Obviously, the children of high-profile national politicians are at greater risk than your standard (gun guy's) kids.

    Why don't you go to Newtown and tell the parents of those killed there what you think. Dumb ass.

    orlin sellers

    1. I don't need to ask them, dumb ass Orlin. They've already spoken out in support of stricter gun regulation. In fact, many of the parents were in the march in D.C.:

      A number of the parents have also formed a group called Sandy Hook Promise, which is lobbying for stricter gun regulation right now:,0,3056178.story

      And the superintendent of the school has testified to Congress, requesting help to prevent it from happening again "without creating fortresses" of schools:

      And the mother of one killed child is calling out for gun control and advising the President:

      So, idiot, how about getting on board with people who have actually been the unfortunate victims and witnesses of gun violence, myself included, instead of spouting your nonsense.

    2. Oregonian, how about you stop trying to take away the rights of the millions of gun owners who do no wrong? But we know the answer already. Your comment about the president's children makes it clear. You're a sheep. You're a lickspittle. You're the kind of person who is thrilled to obey.

    3. You're the one blindly following the NRA playbook, Greg. Call me names, dude, it just weakens your position and shows your desperation.

    4. Hey, Orlin, see my post here for a plethora of examples of Newtown parents and families calling for stricter gun regulation: