We've previously covered how anti-gun groups are spending big to try and get some anti-gun candidates elected. That's not really a surprise, but since they're not exactly being honest, or at least accurate about things, it's worth looking at.
And we've got a glimpse of just what they're spending that big money on specifically.
In particular, what kind of messaging they're engaging in, because that's an important aspect of all of this. Let's start it off by looking at Paige Cognetti. Cam looked at one claim, linked previously, but there's more.
“Paige Cognetti wants to ban politicians from trading stocks,” a narrator in the Everytown ad said. “Rob Bresnahan made more stock trades than almost anyone in Congress. She got millions for police and cut violent crime by eighty percent. He voted to cut Medicaid to give billionaires another tax break.”
Unlike Everytown’s pro-Cognetti ad, which does not mention firearms at all, one of Giffords’ two ads attacking her opponent features a chemistry teacher talking about “lockdown drills” that teach students “where they can hide if a shooter comes to the door,” before repeating the line about making it easier for criminals to obtain guns. The other anti-Bresnahan ad is more generic, featuring that contention and the one about taking money from the gun lobby.
The Everytown ad backing Christina Bohannan over Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks in Iowa’s first district, on the other hand, does at least mention firearms. It claims that as a state legislator she “fought to block domestic abusers from getting guns.” But it folds that into a broader “public safety” pitch.
“Now, she’s running for Congress to put public safety first,” the ad said. “That means working with both parties to secure our border. Hire more police officers. And keep illegal guns and fentanyl off our streets.”
The gun-control groups have another candidate in common: Christina Hines, who is running against Republican Michael Bouchard in Michigan’s 10th district. That’s another place we can see Giffords’ approach.
Giffords’ ad for Hines features a retired state trooper lauding her record as a prosecutor, and doesn’t mention her opponent or firearms. The trooper calls Hines “a great partner to law enforcement” because of her commitment to pursuing gun crimes.
“I investigated cold cases that Christina Hines prosecuted,” the trooper said. “Gun traffickers, domestic abusers, and murderers. I was always relieved when prosecutor Christina Hines was assigned to a case.”
Maybe it's me, but I find it skeevy as all get out when a single-issue organization makes an ad buy for a candidate, then talks about literally anything other than that single issue. It's like they know their own pet issue isn't a winner, but they don't care so long as they can trick people into backing the correct horse in the race.
Yes, both sides do it and no, I don't approve when my side does it, though like so many other things, they almost have to out of a sense of self-defense.
As for this whole public safety schtick, though, I'm a bit perplexed.
It was only a handful of years ago when we had the whole "Defund the Police" movement and cashless bail popping up all over the country. That corresponded to a massive spike in violent crime, only now the same party that welcomed and celebrated that stuff is now trying to convince the American people that they're the law-and-order types.
The question is whether the American people have a either a short memory or are gullible enough to believe there's been a meaningful change from the same people who want to let illegal aliens run around on our streets, hurting innocent people, then release them back into the communities after serving a prison sentence, rather than deporting them to their country of origin.
Then again, a lot of people actually think gun control should be part of a law-and-order approach, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised if it works.
