Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Earlier the hour we told you about a controversial new ad from the National Rifle Association.
It criticizes President Obama for accepting armed protection for his daughters at school.
Obama recently questioned the need for using police to step up security at schools across the country.
Earlier today the white house Press Secretary Jay Carney called that -- repugnant and cowardly.
Here's some of the ad which is currently running on the cable network the sportsman channel.
-- the president's kids more important than yours.
Then why is -- skeptical about putting an armed security helps us win these kids are protected by armed guards at their school.
Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share taxes.
-- he's just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security.
Protection for their kids and gun free zone.
Joining me now Monica Crowley radio talk show host.
And -- -- ski a former political advisor to New Jersey democratic senator Frank Lautenberg both -- Fox News contributors.
So you know we had we -- here yesterday when it broke that the president was going to be using children his announcement today and we had an impassioned discussion about whether.
The use of children to make a political point on an issue as controversial as this is appropriate.
We got -- -- a mix of opinions.
What about this -- have the other side doing it in a different way but doing it clearly.
Any time you used to launch an -- to make political points always a very Dicey propositioning you have to be really careful about doing it on either side I think.
That being said this president has used his daughter's in campaign appearances.
He I used and beautiful child when he was signing Obama care the health care bill so he has been known to use children for our political props when it suits his purposes.
In this case today the use of these children.
In the audience as he was making the announcements on gun control.
I find particularly inappropriate because you are dealing with an issue that involves violence health care bill didn't involve violence -- -- this actually does said the use of those children I think went over the line.
The point I think that the NRA was making -- again you have to be very ain't that very very careful especially -- -- -- president's children.
But the bigger point that they're trying to make here at the president's children do not go to school in a gun free zone.
They are protected they have secret -- are accusing him of hypocrisy totally fine.
But yes what is actually saying is his children are more worthy of -- protection than yours.
The thing is obviously the president's children are in a special circumstance.
-- they they are under threat at all times sadly because they are the children of the president of the United States.
There's a reason why they have 24/7.
Secret Service protection and it's something that.
We in the media don't often highlight we tend to stay away from whom went -- -- should be discussing this -- security situation.
Of that Obama girls but now we are because this ad -- and I I understand the point they're trying to make -- -- but.
Is it appropriate to talk about the security that these two little -- And and this should not be -- partisan issue that Harry was reprehensible to do this of this -- the bush girls or Chelsea Clinton I would have -- the same thing.
There is no excuse to be dragging.
Little Sasha little Malia Obama were minors -- to not ask by the way.
To be the president's daughters are in a special curious social circumstance because they are under threat and if you know I certainly don't know the situation is the Secret Service I suspect and their threats against them on a daily basis.
Because -- who they are as good kidnapping is exactly right and so daughter.
To drag them into this and to discuss their school and inevitably this needs to which school they attend so you know it's public where they go to -- but now I -- about it they just I think and -- didn't this this is leading us down to discuss slippery horrible slope which I believe we'll probably endanger those girls more than their endangered already and that's reprehensible generation pull that -- Frankly I would who would stop talking about it because it is just inexcusable to -- and and it's like.
I mean I don't know you tell me whether date they ceded their own opportunity.
To -- the moral high ground -- matter now but.
You know -- present Obama using those children today.
Was a controversial -- right and I asked one of the panelists yesterday -- -- for Republican president went out there with a bunch of children and said.
These are children that these are children like the ones who could have been born if they hadn't been aborted -- all the women out there who took advantage of Roe vs.
-- I'm doing this to protect the children that I it's it's fair for -- -- children because I'm trying to protect children.
You know that's how the White House feels about the use of children today.
It would be extremely controversial and -- and be huge uproar and what are what -- -- American president who was pro life had done something like that.
Again any time you put children in a political contacts.
You're really sort of playing with fire -- these children today actually wrote to the president they had their parents -- -- that's a different -- it -- to get the parents' decision in the -- it's the parents' decision to let their children be a part of it is a different issue than whether the president in eight states should have agreed to that here's why it's so cynical to be using children in this context number one because of the violence part of the gun control debate which is what we're talking about.
But secondly because it's it is.
It puts the opponents of any of these gun control measures have been very difficult box I understand why the president did it in some could say he was very Smart to do it.
But -- very very tough if not impossible to argue against children you saw those kids -- they're beautiful angelic children not unlike the ones who were gunned down in the new -- NASCAR.
Very difficult -- argue against children.
That's why they -- but I find that use of kids really -- wouldn't -- a remake of the presidency it in and pick up on my I had my question about if a Republican abused children can make -- pro life.
Point you know I'm not a fan -- -- and actually Monica and I agree and -- I.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Because their parents are comfortable with it.
What I do have to say -- that area I think to your earlier point -- to overplay their hand they have a lot of allies in the democratic side Harry Reid Jon Tester others.
More sympathetic to that -- cause.
Would they did today think is so overplay their hand by using the Obama girls is and speed.
For lack of better word.
That they are now probably going to alienate a lot of supporters and democratic side that probably would have been with them before they -- I see this -- -- if you read the blogs that are.
Is that they're making is not -- ready -- out there like why does the president why the president's family they get gotten protection and why can't my family got protection mean you know if they're not there.
Another not under special threat but now all children under threat in the wake of new tennis the argument so who is he -- -- I can have it.
It but it's one favorite bloggers to talk about it and it's another thing for the NRA.
Hugely powerful group to come out of an ad like that.
I think they're most powerful line in the ad that was their calling the president in the lead an elitist hypocrite.
Not just him they're ready to Gregory -- -- there are other the whole collection of people there are random collection and and that is a powerful line because if -- set aside did the use of the Obama girls and that is debatable but the bigger point here since so many of these people who are arguing for stricter gun control.
They all have their own either private security but -- you talking about the president and and and I'm not taking way they're right obviously the president needs security obviously his family does as well.
But what were arguing for is law abiding citizens to be able to continue to have the right and freedom.
Protected under the Second Amendment and so when there's hypocrisy here whether it's Hollywood celebrity or a leftist politician or the president arguing to you bitch can't.
Or -- that -- -- should be curtailed that there is a huge element of hypocrisy and I think that's at the end you know nobody in -- in nobody's nobody's taking away anybody's right to bear arms first and foremost secondly can with -- with -- but I think there are good free zones around schools well and if you look at the president proposed today he's actually -- -- trying to allocate money to schools to for security.
Since -- resource office doesn't care if that's opposite more police officers as well if schools want them -- -- and I frankly don't want my child going to school with guns but that's my decision to sentence that's cool.
So look better rate not into everything else is making erroneous and kind of specious argument I think it's not a patient and keep it.
Filter by section