Jacob doesn’t think too highly of this particular NRA Ad:
While I am sympathetic to the fact that 15 second spots are cheap, and that’s not much time to get the message through, what is the message here, other than our Second Amendment rights are under attack? And we don’t get to that until we cover a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
And why is NRA having such a difficult time this election talking about the real issue, which is who Obama will put on the federal bench, particularly the Supreme Court? Do focus groups show no one cares about the Second Amendment this election? Even among people who supposedly care about the Second Amendment? Do they show that no one understands or cares about the courts? I’ve heard Court arguments coming from Chris Cox, the head of ILA, but I don’t hear it coming from anywhere else in NRA. It’s like we’re “All In” this election, but only that Obama is bad. And why? Well, you’ll just have to take our word for it. It wouldn’t convince me if I wasn’t already convinced.
UPDATE: Here’s the 30 second spot:
Wow. About the most thoroughly useless ad this year. Not bad, not good, just…useless.
I imagine a group of NRA execs sat around and decided to “hitch a ride” on the overall train of debt, international intrigue and general malaise towards this President. They figured they could get a “me too” rejoined in without looking to “extreme”. In ohter words, they decided to mitigate risks and create a spot that is redundant to all others.
If the NRA thinks it not wide to take too tough a public stance on the election, then they should work in other ways. Just getting something our there for the sake of getting something out there is silly.
I disagree that they should focus on the Supreme Court. Few people actually know about that. No need to energize the other side. My preference would be to see them stand up and say, “The Supreme Court says our right exists, and Obama would remove your choice on whether you exercise it.”
You could do that in 15 seconds.
Hell, massive grammar fail up there. Sorry. Edit doesn’t work for me. My corrections:
rejoined == “rejoinder”
to extreme == “too extreme”
ohter == “other”
wide == “wise”
I will stop posting anywhere today. I suck.
Yeah, I’m kind of iffy on whether the Court is an issue most people really get. I think people have a vague idea what’s going on, but I’m not sure they get how bad it really is, and how much we need to improve the courts. Almost certainly, we need to prevent them from going backwards.
But how much the average NRA member or gun owner understands that? I’m not certain. I’d have to say a primary concern is, if your average NRA identifying voter takes a look around, what’s happened to their 2nd Amendment rights?
At what point do you just need to level with people about what’s really at stake, instead of just feeding the ignorance? I almost think if NRA members are this uninformed, that NRA needs to do a better job of pounding home what’s really at stake. I know that’s hard, but Wayne has given a lot of speeches before we hit election season, and I’ve heard a lot of talk about vague Obama conspiracies, but not a lot of talk about what the real issues are.
I will not be renewing my N.R.A. membership, instead giving my money to J.P.F.O. The endorsement of Romney by the N.R.A. did me in. Of course gun owners are going to vote for Romney. There was no reason to come out and endorse him after having made comments such as his remarks about those evil assault weapons “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.†If you are going to endorse that guy without waiting for some actual penance on that comment you will not retain my membership.
Bush said much the same things. So did his father. Even Reagan once out of office said it. The issue has changed a good bit since those things were said.
There’s too much at stake with the courts to blame NRA for not staying out of this one. I don’t think anyone in Fairfax is under any delusion that Romney is something other than a less than ideal candidate, but through the sausage grinder of the primaries, he’s who we’re stuck with.
Romney isn’t going to push the issue, and hasn’t been pushing it despite ample opportunity. If the endorsement buys NRA more influence with a Romney Administration on court picks, fine. If we win a broad right in court, we can set a floor our opponents can’t easily overcome, and fix a lot of the things wrong with the states that like to treat gun ownership as a privilege. It’s literally the only way we’re going to save states like California and New York, and Romney doesn’t have to be perfect to get us what we need to accomplish that.
You sent me down memory lane, as I remember the first time the NRA endorsed a candidate for president, Reagan in 1980, including the cliched smiling-handshake-on-the-cover-of-the-American-Rifleman. I remember thinking “trouble brewing.”
Not that I had anything against Reagan — I voted for him in 1980 — but I instinctively knew the endorsement process would become corrupted and abused in the future, to the detriment of the credibility of the organization.
Check out the following, but don’t shoot the messenger:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbUB4RobXR0&feature=youtube_gdata
Sebastian is right. The NRA would have been better off pitching the “SCOTUS endorsement” argument while stopping short of an endorsement. Every time the NRA pulls out the stops for some gun grabber, it loses its credibility with a few more of us who remember of have access to real history.
That belatedly reminds me that higher ups in Carter’s administration squashed efforts at gun control (this was at the peak of the nation’s gun grabbing hysteria, I think), because they were from the South and knew it was a politically bad idea.
Not sure what basis the endorsement was made on. Hopes that Reagan (focused on minor details like the wrecked economy and actually defeating instead of “containing” the Evil Empire) would reign in the BATF, then an existential threat to us? Well, he did sign the FOPA in his second term, we can’t say how things would have gone if Carter had gotten a second term although many realistically feared the Republic would not survive that.
the notion that few people understand or care about the courts is a horrible excuse for not addressing the issue. It isn’t rocket science, explain it to people. Would much rather make the case and only get a few people to see the light than to run ads that are a total waste of time and bring nothing new to the table. Maybe the reason so many people don’t care or understand is because the groups that should be explaining it to them have done such a crappy job at doing that?
“Obamacare has shown us how important and powerful the supreme court is when it comes to making laws. Those nine justices ultimately decide what is law and what is not, and their authority is untouchable. Barack Obama has already selected two judges who will gladly take away your right to keep and bear arms if given the chance, how many more pro gun control judges are you willing to help him put on the highest court in the land?”
couple images of frustrated people filling out endless paperwork to buy some rounds of 22 or a scared farmer standing at the door handing over his rifle to a couple of offical looking folks mixed in with some pictures of the supreme court…. go over the top with it… who cares…. make the point!
In terms of getting it across that one vote difference on the Supreme Court might mean all the difference in the world for the Second Amendment, the NSSF #gunvote ads are much more effective. They always emphasize the theme of One Vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6a3LdjojVs&feature=share&list=ULU6a3LdjojVs
“While I am sympathetic to the fact that 15 minute spots are cheap”
You meant 15 SECOND spots?
Oops… yes. In 15 minutes you could read them a good bit of the Heller decision :)