Let’s cut the holier than thou antics. Every time there’s a mass shooting and politicians from the GOP offer their thoughts and prayers to the victims, the liberal media doles out the tired National Rifle Association donation talking point. Here’s how much money NRA gave to x congressman or x senator. Okay—what’s the issue? We have a Second Amendment. We have a constitutional right to own firearms. You don’t think organizations will spring up and support this piece of our Bill of Rights?
Yesterday MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle took a swipe at Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), who offered his condolences to the families of the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida. On Wednesday, Nikolas Cruz, who had been expelled for disciplinary reasons, ventured back onto campus with an AR-15 and shot and killed 17 people. Ruhle reminded Portman that he has received $3 million in NRA donations, though that figure is over the course of his entire career in public life. Also, should we be shocked that a midwestern politician supports gun rights?
Go on and mainline Think Progress right into your veins if you like, but leave me out of it.
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) February 15, 2018
Thoughts, prayers & $3mm in donations from the NRA. https://t.co/GguOJGIbnp
— Stephanie Ruhle (@SRuhle) February 15, 2018
“If only Sen. Portman hadn’t raised $3m from the NRA over the last *30 years*, about 10% of what he raised for his 2016 re-election alone, the senator *from Ohio* might not be so supportive of the rights of gun owners. Do I have this talking point correct?” tweeted Commentary’s Noah Rothman, who was formerly with Hot Air.
Via Mediaite:
The Ohio senator’s tweet apparently drew Ruhle’s attention, who responded by calling him out for donations he has received from the NRA.
“Thoughts, prayers & $3mm in donations from the NRA,” she replied.
Expressions of “thoughts and prayers” have become a reoccurring cudgel in the debate on enacting gun control in the wake of mass shootings, with those in support of gun control arguing that condolences are a poor excuse for inaction.
Recommended
The Dallas Morning News’ Jay Caruso, formerly of RedState, touched upon the fact that The New York Times’ NRA donation sheet appears to have included NRA PAC money.
So this NY Times piece is where @bessbell got the garbage figures of how much Senators got in “donations” from the NRA. https://t.co/SJtHVUaD58
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) February 16, 2018
Scroll all the way to the bottom and you’ll see the following disclaimer: For all Congress members, total includes both direct
campaign contributions as well as outside money spent on behalf of candidates from the N.R.A.'s Political Action Committees and directly from the N.R.A.'s 501(c)(4) social welfare arm, which does not have to disclose its donors to the public.
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) February 16, 2018
So they counted “issue ad”
spending as “donations” which is complete hogwash.
— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) February 16, 2018
Caruso questioned whether issue ads should be considered donations, as liberals continue to slam the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.
So, when Planned Parenthood was accused of trafficking aborted baby parts, where was the outrage? Oh, that’s right—this is a progressive organization. They get a pass. And the donations PP gives to its congressional allies are not even brought up. Still, if liberals want to try and shame Second Amendment supporters by trying to say gun control is about saving lives (because life is sacred), shouldn’t there be some pause about receiving donations from the nation’s largest abortion provider? For Democrats, yes, It’s all about saving lives concerning mass shootings, until the discussion moves to lives that are in utero.
Look—I’m not fan of Planned Parenthood, but they have the right to donate to candidates who support their agenda in the same manner that the NRA has the right to help candidates that will help their initiatives. Some say the NRA is too powerful. I say it’s just about right. I mean what's the point here? How dare the NRA, Planned Parenthood etc. exercise their right to support candidates?
In fact, why didn’t Democrats push through new gun laws when they had significant majorities in the House and Senate in 2009-2010? Allahpundit has some thoughts on that. Spoiler alert: it may have to do something with Obamacare being unpopular, red state Democrat issues, and the stimulus package. It proved to be a bridge too far:
Given the moral urgency of both problems, why didn’t St. Barack and his caucus of innocents in Congress do anything to solve them when they had the power to do so? They could have passed amnesty. They could have banned, ahem, “assault weapons.” They didn’t. Why?
They didn’t ban them because they cared more about getting elected than they did about these supposed national emergencies. The Virginia Tech massacre was just two years old when Democrats assumed power in 2009, which also happened to be the 10th anniversary of the Columbine shootings. Rampage killings at American schools were very much on the national radar. But Democrats had a problem: Having inflamed right-wingers by passing a massive stimulus shortly after Obama was sworn in and then driven the right crazy by ramming ObamaCare through, they worried that pushing any more big-ticket Democratic priorities would cost them control of Congress in the midterms. I remember them in early 2010 trying to talk themselves into believing that the poor polling for O-Care would turn around as voters got to know the new law better and that a midterm rout would be averted. But they were never sure enough of that to go all-in on gun control and amnesty too. They knew that, to maintain a sizable congressional majority, they’d need their red-state Democrats to get re-elected, and two major pieces of liberal legislation on top of the stimulus and ObamaCare was simply too much.
In all, spare me the holier than thou antics, left wingers. When I want to be told about the sanctity of life from those who get money or support an organization that aborts children, I’ll let you know. It's always the Second Amendment advocacy groups that get slammed for donating to politicians who support their agenda. It's just so tiring.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member