The National Rifle Association gave a disgusting performance the other day with its ad that used President Obama’s daughters to make its point in favor of putting armed guards in schools.
In case you haven’t seen it, the NRA accuses Obama of being a hypocrite for allowing armed guards for his daughters at their school but opposing them in schools nationwide:
Not only is it abhorrent to unnecessarily bring these innocent children into the debate, it doesn’t make any sense.
I think it may be a good idea to put armed guards in schools. With the proliferation of violent video games that inure children to violence, these attacks are going to get more frequent.
But the arguments against putting armed guards in schools have to do with whether it makes things more dangerous to put a gun in a school than not to, and whether the policy is affordable.
Sasha and Malia are protected by trained Secret Service agents because they in particular are potential targets, whereas the chances of anything happening at any one school somewhere in the nation are extremely low.
That said, the Obamas themselves have invited this kind of irresponsible focus on their kids by constantly highlighting them for political purposes. Obama refers to them in remarks, they appear in official White House photos, and a picture of the family was even used during the campaign to promote the president and raise money.
This is because the White House knows that a source of Obama’s political strength is his likability as a dad. The White House made a cold and irresponsible decision to use the Obama children.
The Clintons and the Bushes made it clear that their kids were off limits, and they didn’t talk about them or use them for political ends. And I don’t remember their children incurring any of the kinds of nonsense perpetrated by the NRA.
Hopefully, with the election past them, the Obamas will keep their children off the stage.