NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign

[wojownik]

Pretty blunt and direct message, about Bloomberg and his agenda

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-campaign-targets-michael-bloomberg/14296467/

The NRA ads are supposed to start running today. Has anyone seen one yet in their area?

NRA put $500,000 into the ad campaign - not sure how wide play they can get nationally with that budget. (TV ads running locally run about $1000 per 30 second spot, a national ad during prime time can run north of $450k).

 

[wally]

I'm not sure this is wise, Bloomberg is a media company and this is playing to his strengths, on his turf.

Hope I'm wrong here and its not a waste of resources.

I think targeted local ads would be more effective and not so straight up on Bloomberg's turf.

 

[hso]

I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.

 

[TRX]

Since that's the same amount they spent to buy themselves a NASCSR sponsorship, I assume they only intend a minimal level of commitment.

 

[Theohazard]

Hso, I agree 100%. I can't understand why anyone would want to alienate a huge group of potential allies by mis-using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". Sure, a liberal is more likely to be anti-gun than a non-liberal, but that doesn't mean they all are. I have plenty of liberal friends who are either pro-2A or at least not anti, and intentionally alienating them is a terrible idea (besides showing a complete lack of political nuance).

 

[wojownik]

Agree with HSO as well - there are other word choices out there for those who seek to restrict rights (whether 1A, 2A or 4A).

This seems to be a targeted ad, using a couple of standard themes - conservative vs. liberal, rural vs. big city, middle America vs. "New York".

That might explain the modest ad budget - to play the ad in specific geographic areas (probably in the West and south) - not national, and not big-market advertizing.

 

[stonecutter2]

I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.

Agreed. I think that part of the ad is insulting. The rest, I like.

Supporting 2A doesn't mean it rules your entire political outlook...I wish more organizations, like the NRA, understood that and really took it to heart.

 

[cologuy]

The article mentioned that the ads will run in several states that are considered important for Senate races, including Colorado, not nationally or regionally. They might get a decent amount of air time by concentrating in just a few spots, and I have the feeling that here in CO they'll get a positive response - the laws passed last year and the resulting recalls really caught people's attention, which I think is the first, important step in educating them. I've got my fingers crossed, anyway.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Except for the "liberal" reference, I love it. But I'm not sure what I would have used in place of it. "NorthEast Elitists"?

NRA put $500,000 into the ad campaign - not sure how wide play they can get nationally with that budget. (

The NRA will spend about $500,000 on the first round of ads, and officials plan to expand the campaign in coming weeks.

 

[jerkface11]

Liberals vote for anti gun candidates so they have a point.

 

[Walkalong]

One of the important things I have learned over my years here at THR is that you cannot paint all members of any one group with the same brush. Not all liberal voters are anti gun. In fact, many are not. We really do need to use anti in place of Liberal or Democrat, despite the averages on how they vote. We need to stand with all pro gun voters and against all anti politicians.

That said, I am sure the NRA picked their words carefully and think it will be effective.

There are some very staunchly pro gun Liberals here who must want to pull their hair out sometimes over some of the broad strokes we make here. I have been guilty in the past, but try to be more fair and inclusive these days.

It is us against the antis. Plain and simple. And "us" includes all kinds of folks.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The antigun people have identified gun control as "the litmus test of liberalism", and they clearly identify gun control with the Democrat National Party, regarding local Democrats against gun control as red state rednecks and not true national Democrats.

Try discussing gun control in Washington Post comments without the anti-gun people knee-jerk calling you conservative, right-wing, Republican and racist to boot, finding clever ways of working KKK into the comments too.

Back in the 1980s, the curmudgeon on the staff of the local Mensa newsletter labeled me (on other issues) a "bleeding heart liberal" and I had to point out that I could never be a liberal because I didn't believe in gun control. One of my reference books for gun control debate is Don B. Kates "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" 1979. So there are a lot of liberals skeptical of gun control. Plus there are a lot of Dixiecrat conservatives who support gun control too.

I have not seen the ads. While the USA Today coverage quotes extensively from the ad, I used "Find:" to search for "liberal" which found no match in the USA Today article, Fredreka Schouten, "Exclusive: NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign", USA Today, 19 Aug 2014.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Waste of money. Bloomberg is his own anti-Bloomberg advertising and will spend his own money to make the point far more effectively than the NRA can.

 

[Speedo66]

Using terms like "liberal" and "NY" in a negative connotation begins an "us against them" theme, which I find deplorable.

Certainly not all liberals are anti gun, and certainly not all of NY is NYC. Even if it was, there are plenty of gun owners in NYC, and probably many of them are liberals.

Making blanket suppositions and stereotyping is just wrong. In this day and age, do they really believe no one outside their target area will see these ads? Are they trying to appeal to a certain audience by trashing other parts of the country? Wrong, wrong, wrong!

 

[george burns]

Let him waste his money. This will do nothing but make people want more guns. He is such an ass that he doesn't realize this. Insulting 90% of the population was never a great political move. The guy is just an idiot. An idiot with a lot of money, but still and idiot never the less.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Found someone quoting the ad's use of the "L" word.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-nra-ad-campaign-targets-michael-bloombergs-gun-advocacy/
Jake Miller, "New NRA ad campaign targets Michael Bloomberg". CBS News, 20 Aug 2014.
NRA Ad is quoted: "Liberals call this flyover country. It's an insult, but nobody insults your life like this guy: Michael Bloomberg - billionaire, elitist, hypocrite. Bloomberg tries to ban your snack foods, your soda, and most of all, your guns."

CBS says also: "Last month, though, Bloomberg dismissed the recall elections in Colorado, saying the communities that voted were "as far rural as you can get. I don't think there's roads" there, he said. Opponents deemed the remarks condescending, a characterization echoed by the NRA's ad."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

And Post#13 is probably right.

 

[CLP]

I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.

Very true. Inclusive vs. exclusive. The more numbers you have, the more votes.

 

[X-Rap]

I'd like to see honest numbers of so called 2a friendly liberals who vote for 2a candidates and causes regardless of party or union affiliation.
I don't believe that they could be counted on in a crunch so bowing to their sensitivities in hopes for their support is doubtful.
Bloomberg personifies the liberal/progressive attitude toward Middle America and his quote about roads in CO prove it to me.

 

[Theohazard]

I'd like to see honest numbers of so called 2a friendly liberals who vote for 2a candidates and causes regardless of party or union affiliation.
I don't believe that they could be counted on in a crunch so bowing to their sensitivities in hopes for their support is doubtful.

Even if that were true, so what? What advantage is there in using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". There's not a single one: It only alienates potential allies and also demonstrates that you don't understand the complexities of politics, especially on the state and local levels. And when trying to convince someone to see your side of the argument, it's not a smart strategy to start off the conversation by alienating them and showing your political ignorance at the same time.

 

[X-Rap]

As one of the unsophisticated "ignorant" residents of "road-less fly over country" I've learned that someone espousing the liberal agenda while saying he/she supports my 2a rights is most certainly full of crap or disingenuous at best.
We do have some liberal gun owners and they for the most part fall under what's good for me and my security team isn't whats good for you commoners and hold a much more European view of gun ownership.
I would have been much more offended if the NRA would have colored the Libertarians with that broad brush.
For the targeted audience I think they are on the mark.

 

[Theohazard]

As one of the unsophisticated "ignorant" residents of "road-less fly over country" I've learned that someone espousing the liberal agenda while saying he/she supports my 2a rights is most certainly full of crap or disingenuous at best.

Read what I wrote in post #20 again, because it applies to this also.

 

[Cazadores]

I can't agree with delineating firearm rights along partisan lines. Liberal and conservative, particularly to younger voters is meaningless and often offensive.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and gun rights drive my voting decisions, unfortunately those people around me, urban, educated, pro gun rights voters are more difficult to influence when our side paints ourselves as alligned with seemingly inconsistent values. All supporters of gun rights, gay, straight, urban or rural, pro choice, pro life, wealthy or on public assistance, atheist or devout, should be able to find a home in the NRA. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and if we insist on making it one we will lose.

 

[X-Rap]

What happens when the tent gets to big and tries to be everything for every body is that the whole movement gets diluted to the point that it means nothing.
We also live with different demographics which are not one size fits all. I believe I know what they are in my neck of the woods and the lines are pretty clear. Those who ride the fence from either side can't be counted on.

 

[lxd55]

Hso, I agree 100%. I can't understand why anyone would want to alienate a huge group of potential allies by mis-using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". Sure, a liberal is more likely to be anti-gun than a non-liberal, but that doesn't mean they all are. I have plenty of liberal friends who are either pro-2A or at least not anti, and intentionally alienating them is a terrible idea (besides showing a complete lack of political nuance).

well another political thread.
these people know who they are
saying liberal will not sway them.
pass the hoppes#9 please.