Earlier this week, I got a fundraising e-mail from Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group running emotional ads calling out politicians on their positions on guns. They were triumphant about Republican candidate Martha McSally turning around on prohibitted possessors of firearms:
But keeping our communities safer from gun violence is a raw and emotional issue. And like Gabby said, we will use “every means available” to ensure we have a Congress that “puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s.”
And it turns out, we’re already making a difference. Late last night that Arizona congressional candidate reversed her position on the issue and came out in favor of adding convicted stalkers to the prohibited purchaser list.
The cynic in me wonders why it took McSally so long.
I don't know if McSally's reversal will give any second thoughts to the media outlets that issued faux high minded tut-tutting about how tough the ad was. The Arizona Republic, for example found it "vile" and noted that "McSally had nothing to do with these deaths." Politico happily echoed the sentiment noting that the Republic was a left leaning publication (they obviously did their homework).
The trouble with that is that the policies she supported (and now she says doesn't) has a lot to do with stalkers, the violently mentally ill and felons acquiring firearms. The very fact that she changed her mind says that she herself acknowledges that.
The trouble is, whether you are talking about finger wagging journalists who demand campaigns be Chautauqua seminars or Politico writers who cover campaigns like they are football games, there are too many folks covering politics who believe themselves immune from the day to day consequences of the decisions that our legislators make. An ad like this that presents the results of decisions that are made is uncomfortable. Couldn't we just talk about poll numbers and earth tones? Thanks.
Post script
I saw something else this week that gave me some of the same thoughts. Yesterday, Eric Holder resigned. This brought out some outright stupidity from many conservative outlets, most notably the Cato Institute, who compared Holder to George Wallace.
They took it down quickly. Someone realized that it was ridiculous and possibly offensive, not least of which because Holder's sister-in-law, Vivian Malone, was one of the students that Wallace personally and physically blocked from applying to college.
The piece demonstrated something about the place of the civil rights movement. For Holder and his family, it is personal. It's a struggle and a reality they live with every day. For the Cato Institute and groups like it, it is a prop and a way to score cheap political points. It doesn't matter. It's all a game, right?