Jason Kander, a Democrat who is challenging Republican Senator Roy Blunt in this upcoming election, has released one of the best campaign ads ever made, one in which he assembles an assault rifle blindfolded. You can see the ad here:
Now - while this is a great ad - I think this is a case of winning the battle but losing the war. While Kander himself might be pro-gun or pro-assault rifles (I don’t know,) this ad is indirectly helping to promote AR-15s and assault rifles as a good thing. Even if this ad wins Kander the election and a Senate seat, it will have bolstered the image of assault rifles and guns in general, and the overall effect of it will have been to make its audience more pro-gun than before.
And also in a broader sense, some Democrats sometimes respond to Republican attacks by trying to out-Republican Republicans. Here we have a Republican (Blunt) who attacked a Democrat (Kander) on guns, and Kander’s response is to come back with an ad in which he demonstrates that he’s more proficient with guns than Blunt is - essentially saying, “You attack me on guns, but I’m more gun-ish than you are.” You rarely see Republicans trying to out-Democrat Democrats, but it’s more frequent for Democrats to try to out-Republican Republicans - be it, “I’m pro-military, I’m tax-cutting, I’m tougher on crime, etc.”
It’s a personality ad – showing that Kander’s a real patriot, and a real soldier, and someone with real experience with guns, and Blunt’s not. It highlighted Kander’s support for background checks. It wasn’t really so much about gun issues as introducing and highlighting Kander’s personality and character and military experience.
Very, very good ad. And Republicans aren’t any more “pro-military” than Democrats.
Yes, but the ad, overall, casts guns in a good light, whatever its intention may be. Its overall effect is to benefit the pro-gun faction, even if that wasn’t the original goal.
It casts military experience in a good light. Guns are “good” when it comes to the military – the military has an excellent track record of handling guns safely and appropriately inside the US, in general.
But this conflicts with your earlier point – Democrats aren’t trying to be “more Republican” – they’re trying to portray themselves, correctly, as supportive of the military and veterans. That’s not “more Republican” in the least.
Who cares? Even on the issue of gun control, assault rifles cause only a tiny proportion of deaths. I’d be far more concerned about a Democratic candidate denouncing cartoon frog memes while touting the support of Henry Kissinger (coughcoughcough).
I think the military voters are the best judge of that.
But otherwise you’re right. Kander looks like a strong candidate and the ad is much better than the usual Democrats pretending to be Republican lite ads. Blunt’s one of the bad guys too, one of the Republicans we’d be better off without even if it costs us the majority.
I don’t understand you point. The guys is basically saying he’s more competent than Republicans. But that’s played out in many different scenarios. The Republicans have accomplished basically nothing it he last 8 years. How can you out-Republican that?
You’re assuming that Kander isn’t part of the pro-gun faction. Yes, yes, he’s a Democrat, but the party is not monolithic. In many largely-rural states, nearly everyone is pro-gun (which is of course the reason the ad is effective in the first place). If the majority of voters in Missouri are pro-gun, why should it be surprising that a politician is, too?