This might well be repugnant and cowardly

Jay Carney, Mr Obama\’s press secretary, said: \”To go so far as to make the safety of the president\’s children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly\”.

Arguably so, certainly.

The challenge facing Mr Obama was demonstrated vividly on the eve of his announcement when the National Rifle Association (NRA) released a provocative television advertisement The clip, which accused Mr Obama of being an \”elitist hypocrite\” for trying to restrict public access to guns while protecting his children with armed officers, was sharply criticised by the White House.

\”Are the president\’s kids more important than yours?\”, the 35-second advertisement\’s narrator asked, in a deep, film-trailer-style voice. \”Then why is he sceptical about putting armed guards in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school?\”

Damned effective though.

Do note, the point being made is not that the Obama children are protected by the Secret Service. It is that the school that they attend has, completely separate from anything to do with the Obamas, some 11 armed guards on the campus. Something that does indeed leave the elite parents open to charges of something approaching hypocrisy.

13 thoughts on “This might well be repugnant and cowardly”

  1. I didn’t think it’d be long before the Left revealed their true colours and declared that, yes, Obama’s children ARE more important than yours because…errr…umm…

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    And yes, little Mattie did indeed say Obama’s children are more important than anyone else’s. Well done.

    I don’t see it as repugnant and cowardly. Obama opened the gate by exploiting the deaths in that school shooting. He is going to make his policy announcement surrounded by the parents of dead children. He can’t complain about someone doing what he does on a routine basis. It is just part of the general debasement of Western politics.

  3. I can’t stand Obama, but on this occasion…………

    The children of rich people are not more IMPORTANT, they are more VULNERABLE.

    Because kidnapping/ransom presumably?

    So armed guards might be justifiable for rich kids but not poor.

    Correlation is not causation etc.

  4. If the children of rich people are not more important, their vulnerability is not more important. Make the White House safer – make it a gun-free zone.

  5. “I can’t stand Obama, but on this occasion…………

    The children of rich people are not more IMPORTANT, they are more VULNERABLE.”

    Actually, you are far more likely to be stabbed/shot as a poor kid on the streets of London.

    It’s partly a statistics thing (there’s more of ’em) and partly an opportunity thing (you don’t have the wherewithal to move to less dangerous areas).

  6. Um. Yglesias was a bit crass, but the USA treats its president and his family as a sort of temporary royalty, hence ‘First Lady’, ‘First Dog’, bands playing ‘Hail to the Chief’, and so on. So the president’s children are more important in the sense that royal princes and princesses are more important. (Which, to me, is no sort of a sense at all, but I think I’m in a minority.)

  7. It’s neither repugnant nor cowardly, though Mr Obama may be both for all I know. Does he still have people assassinated, droned, tortured?

  8. @ Warren
    Rich kids may be more likely to be targets for kidnapping (which is why Prince Charles was shadowed by one police officer as a child and Obama’s children have a dedicated Secret service team) but they are not more vulnerable to loonies bursting into their/their former school with an AK47 – unless you think Obama chooses a school that expressly turns rich kids into psychos. The argument is not about kidnapping it is about stopping disaffected psychos.
    Personally, I’ld put in a couple of decent Glaswegians instead of an armed American to provide security, but NRA isn’t likely to think of that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *