January 16, 2013

David Frum weighs in

on the NRA's ad attacking the Obama family:
the NRA's sneering references to the president's family are beyond the pale. As the makers of the NRA ad should know, and probably do know, the First Family has come under years of racially coded attack for their "uppityism," as Rush Limbaugh phrased it. This latest attack ad looks to many like only one more attempt to enflame an ancient American wound.

And Tomasky agrees:
Let’s start with the ad’s broken logic. A, the Obama family has Secret Service protection; B, other American families do not; C, because of this, Obama is an elitist and a hypocrite. It’s pretty ludicrous. Malia and Sasha Obama get lots of things because their father won the presidency. They also have a chauffeur; get to ride on a big fancy airplane free of charge and don’t have to endure any TSA-related indignities; live in a beautiful big house rent-free; and so on. By the ad’s logic, all of these are instances of hypocrisy.

Both men point out that the President's kids should be off limits.  


steves said...

Let's continue with Tomasky's broken logic:

1. The ability/right to self-protection.
2. Ride around in car.
3. Ride in a big fancy plane.
4. Live in a free house.

Which of these things is a right and which is just a nice perk? Again, I don't even think the NRA thinks his kids shouldn't have SS protection, but by law and by the President's own statements, my kids should not. I know that his kids are way bigger targets than my kids, but even without the SS protection, his kids go to a school with 14 armed guards!

I like how Frum throws race into the mix. There are plenty of racist Obama critics, but I have a difficult time seeing how this attack isn't motivated solely by Obama's stance on gun rights.

I also find it ironic that the President's kids should be off limits, but it is a-ok for him to exploit children in his speech on gun control and talk about the letter that a kid wrote him to do something about guns.

Streak said...

Since you ignored my comments on this yesterday, no reason to address the issue of armed guards in schools.

"I also find it ironic that the President's kids should be off limits, but it is a-ok for him to exploit children in his speech on gun control and talk about the letter that a kid wrote him to do something about guns."

Seriously? This is the same argument that Rush Limbaugh made--that is how bad this is. "Exploit" children? Fucking kidding me? This entire thing was precipitated by dead school kids. Any photo op with a kid is somehow exploiting them? And now hypocritical because he doesn't want his own fucking kids politicized?

You are usually better than this. I don't get it.

Bob said...

The whole NRA ad would make sense if we were talking about disarming law enforcement. We aren't. That is why even in gun-free school zones, the cops have guns. Its a stupid fucking arguement.

The President receives 43,000 death threats a year. I think his family needs excellent protection.

Quit defending the NRA steve, you lose your credibility.

Bob said...

BTW - I did not see it as an attack on his kids as it was just a dumb argument.

Streak said...

Fair enough. It was certainly politicizing the Obama kids in a manner that we have historically discouraged. We discouraged it with the Bush girls and unsuccessfully with Chelsea.

steves said...

FWIW, I think they could have made a better point if they left out the stuff about the SS and focused on the private armed guards that protect the families of top gov't officials.

Sorry, but I think it is exploitation. This entire thing was not precipitated by dead kids. The bill introduced by Dianne Feinstein is the same thing that she has been introducing for the last 10+ years. Would you feel the same way if Wayne Lapierre's conference was with a bunch of school aged kids? If he wants to speak in honor of the families, I can understand that, but he had them there for the sole purpose of pushing an agenda.

Streak said...

I still disagree. This was not about Feinstein, this was about Obama and the White House's response to the shooting at a school. As someone on the webs noted, these children actually wrote the president and are political actors in this situation.

what is more, this is part of the visual of these kinds of events. Bills or proposals about women's health include women, and civil rights bills include people of color. This was no different. It wasn't holding those kids up for mockery, but a simple reminder that this shooting was the precipitating event for this discussion.

And yes, I would hate the fucking NRA doing that because I consider it to be run by sociopaths. As I have said, you are losing ground with me defending this organization. I don't understand why you keep doing it while at the same time insisting on a rational debate. Kind of like someone defending Rush Limbaugh and wanting to have reasoned discussion on women's issues.

Streak said...

The Children at Obama's Speech