Is Chris Christie Overreacting Over the NRA’s “Reprehensible” Ad?

Posted: Jan 18, 2013 11:30 AM

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is apparently up in arms because the National Rifle Association released an ad asking simple yet important question: If President Obama’s kids are protected by professional armed guards -- why can’t yours be, too?

I agree with the governor on a number of substantive points, but here are two things to consider:

1. The NRA -- at no point during their advertisement -- explicitly attacked Sasha and Malia Obama by name. Yes, they imply that the “president’s children” -- because of who they are -- have certain privileges. But in no way, shape or form is the NRA “going after them” in any meaningful sense. The organization was simply trying to shed light on a double standard that exists in American society. What’s more, this is a perfect example of a sitting Republican governor (in a blue state, natch) expressing faux-indignation over a perfectly legitimate question from a pro-gun rights organization. And while this is not to say that the ad isn’t misleading -- what ad isn’t misleading these days? -- I see no reason for the NRA to apologize for merely making a larger, more general point by highlighting Democrats’ flagrant and stunning hypocrisy.

2. Via Allahpundit: The Big Man had no issues excoriating New Jersey’s teachers’ union for using kids as puppets to influence state elections. But apparently when the president uses children to push his agenda, it’s totally acceptable. Shouldn’t Governor Christie be more -- or at least equally -- outraged about that? Hmm.