Mayors Against Illegal Guns still can’t seduce the presidential candidates

I mentioned about a week and a half ago that Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” coalition was having trouble getting the presidential candidates to notice them and their survey. At that time, every candidate had missed the mayors’ original Jan. 2nd deadline, although one (at the time unnamed) candidate had asked for an extension.

None answered the questionnaire that Bloomberg’s anti-gun coalition released on Dec. 9 and paid $22,200 to publicize last week in full page newspaper ads in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post said no candidate responded by the Jan. 2 deadline; one asked for an extension, so the new deadline is Jan. 14. Post declined to say which candidate wanted more time.

With the extended, Jan. 14th deadline now come and gone, the “mystery candidate” who wanted the extension is now known–but according to New York Daily News blogger Elizabeth Benjamin, he missed the new deadline, as well.

John Edwards had asked for an extension until Monday (that’s yesterday [this was written on Tuesday, Jan. 15th], not next week), according to Bloomberg spokesman Jason Post. But the day came and went, and still nothing has been received from the former senator, who is gunning for a win in his native South Carolina to keep his campaign alive.

It would certainly be tricky to come up with a way of appeasing a gaggle of rabidly anti-rights mayors while simultaneously avoiding alienating South Carolina voters (although it may be time for Edwards to consider South Carolina a lost cause for him, anyway).

The next part particularly amuses me.

Ron Paul was the only other candidate to offer his opinion. He submitted a prepared statement on the Second Amendment, which the mayors’ coalition does not consider a sufficient response, Post said.

My guess (and this is only a guess) is that the prepared statement referred to is this. If I am correct about that, I’m not sure what Post means about the response not being “sufficient”–I think the statement makes Dr. Paul’s position crystal clear. Perhaps Post meant “not sufficiently tyrannical”–it would certainly be that, by the mayors’ standards.

“The more than 250 Republican, Democratic, and Independent mayors who make up the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition are disappointed that none of the people who want to lead this country are paying attention to an issue that kills 12,000 Americans each year,” Post told DN City Hall Bureau Chief Kirsten Danis.

Face it, mayors, the candidates don’t want anything to do with you because going along with your agenda would be political suicide. What do you suppose that says about what the American people think of that agenda?

By the way, this is only very tangentially related to the rest of this blog post, but while we’re on the subject of “Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” I couldn’t help but notice this little tidbit about their financing:

At one point, Mr. Bloomberg said that “as far as I know” the city was paying for the Web site of the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” coalition, which Mr. Bloomberg played a leading role in founding. The coalition has brought significant national attention to Mr. Bloomberg.

So New York City taxpayers are helping to fund Bloomberg’s national anti-gun crusade (and potential presidential aspirations?). One might think that with his billions, he’d have the decency to pay for that himself. One would apparently be wrong.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Mayors Against Illegal Guns still can’t seduce the presidential candidates”

  1. Don Gwinn Says:

    I enjoyed their phrasing on Ron Paul–his prepared statement wasn’t “sufficient.”

    Do they really think they can imply that Ron Paul tried to curry favor with a group 180 degrees opposed to what he stands for, and he came up short? Like he failed some test he was trying to pass?

    It’s pretty clear he told them to pound sand. I’m sure his statement was “sufficient” to that purpose.

  2. Yuri Orlov Says:

    I’d love to see Fred Thompson’s response, although I take some pleasure in the fact he’s not even bothered to respond. Like you said, it would appear none of the candidates wants anything to do with Bloomberg and his anti-gun mayors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: