Obama's Kids Used as 'Bait' in NRA Ad, Claims Hallucinatory Ed Schultz

This from a man who loves to fish, so presumably he knows the purpose of "bait".

Liberals are reacting with predictable histrionics to a new National Rifle Association ad slamming President Obama as an "elitist hypocrite" for dismissing the NRA's suggestion of armed security in every school while he sends his children to a school with armed guards. (audio, video clips after page break)

In daring to utter such impertinence, NRA leaders are clinging to the delusion that they live in a country where both the First and Second Amendments remain securely in effect.

Here's a clip of Schultz on his radio show yesterday venting about the NRA ad after playing live audio of Obama describing his executive orders on gun control (audio) --

SCHULTZ: The National Rifle Association has taken out an ad that calls the president a hypocrite and also ropes his two young daughters into it. Here is the ad that was posted on the NRA website yesterday --

NRA AD: Are the president's kids more important than yours? Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school. Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.

SCHULTZ: You just heard a sound bite from the president saying that he is going to allocate resources for schools to develop plans of safety. But the big picture here, and drilling down on it, is that the National Rifle Association has now done what no other organization has ever done in the history of this country and that is attack and involve politically children of a first family and using them as bait.

Is it my imagination or is Schultz suggesting that the NRA ad "using" the Obama children as "bait" leaves them more likely to be attacked? If so, he's not the only liberal spouting such nonsense; so did Michael Tomasky, a writer with the aptly-named Daily Beast, as described yesterday by NewsBuster Ken Shepherd.

A more plausible explanation is that Schultz is just plain sloppy and reckless with the language and doesn't comprehend its subtleties. On Monday, for example, Schultz characterized a question directed at Obama in his news conference as asking whether the president has become too "isolative" in office.

Through all the gnashing of teeth on the left in response to the NRA ad, I've yet to hear any liberals say their children are less important to them than the Obama children are to their parents.

Jack Coleman
Liberated ex-liberal from the People's Republic of Massachusetts