UPDATE: We’re sorry to report it gets even sillier:
Real Americans (see: Boebert, Lauren) don’t need any stinking stock photos of their guns.
Even Jeb! Bush has Eli Bremer beat.
Earlier this month, Republican Eli Bremer formally announced his intention to seek the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate in 2022. Bremer made his announcement with a weird online video that largely only targeted a right-wing audience. He didn’t do any sort of event IN COLORADO, and we haven’t seen or heard much from him since he made his candidacy official.
We haven’t been clear on how serious to take Bremer’s candidacy; after all, he is relatively unknown in Colorado and has had trouble winning even minor elections for official Republican Party positions. But Bremer clarified how his campaign should be perceived with this Tweet today:
You absolutely should be offended that a candidate for U.S. Senate is hinting that Americans should basically take up arms and attack “leftist politicians.” You’ll get no argument from us that this is gross and irresponsible.
From a strategic political perspective, however, our take is a little different. This, in a word, is silly.
This is the kind of base level mouthbreather pandering that we would expect from someone like that Erik Aadland guy, whom nobody would consider a serious candidate for U.S. Senate. This is a “look at me!” Tweet designed to attract low-information, small-donation Republican donors. This is not a message from someone who is thinking at all about how they can appeal to a broad swath of voters in Colorado. Politicians who do this sort of thing are basically saying, “Don’t take me seriously.”
In short, real candidates with plausible political ambitions beyond winning a Republican Primary in a bright-red district don’t casually suggest armed rebellions. Eli Bremer just maced himself in the face.
If I recall correctly, this is “the smartest guy” that somebody knows?? . . .
You do indeed recall correctly, and that there somebody is looking kinda dumb – maybe even Eli Bremer dumb – at the moment.
Yep, Eli Bremer is one of the smartest people I know. And I know quite a few really smart people.
Look, I get that Alan – or whomever is writing this piece under the ColoradoPols handle – doesn’t find Eli’s ad convincing. The ready response to that is simple: Alan isn’t the target audience.
Presuming that somebody isn’t serious because they didn’t write a piece that appeals to you when you are not only not the target audience but in fact probably won’t even be voting in the primary in question – is a major stretch.
Eli is going to have his issues getting the nomination and winning the general. No question there. But those issues do not include failing to make ads that appeal to the ColoradoPols readership.
Seriously? Do you think this ad is going to appeal to the average Colorado voter? Based on the last 16 years, I'm going to say no.
You are missing it: this isn't the general election. It is pre-primary.
Remember all the teacher union fights during the 2018 governor democrat primary? I didn't agree with that stuff. BUT I WAS NOT THE TARGET AUDIENCE.
Same concept here.
Yeah. But many of these Republicans have been unable to pivot to the general election, and I don't see that happening here with this rhetoric.
Demonizing those who don't agree with you will not go over well, especially after January 6.
Look, first off guns is not as polarizing as you'd think. I don't own a gun but I'm hardly turned off by this.
Second, by the time the general comes around (assuming Eli wins the primary), I simply don't see this as being an issue Bennet is going to use. For a simple reason: nobody outside of the Dem echo chambers will care all that much. Just as nobody outside the GOP echo chambers cared all that much about issues geared to the Democrat base in 2018.
Remember: neither you, nor I, are the target audience here.
What you're choosing to ignore is that it's not a "guns" issue in the sense of owning them, but the thinly veiled threat in your smartest guy's messaging. That's the unsmart part, to say the least, Elliot. Or, at least, hopefully the unsmart part you might consider recognizing — the growing cadre within the target audience that will choose to view this, and this candidate, as an invitation to further vigilanteism?
Eli’s tweet (I mistakenly put “ad” above) doesn’t call for violence. It doesn’t call for people to engage in heroic vigilantism a la My Hero Academia. It doesn’t encourage people to engage in civil disobedience or ignore laws that Eli dislikes. It simply calls for people to VOTE for Eli or policies he supports on guns.
That you dislike this makes this neither outside the bounds of acceptable discourse let alone stupid. Especially when you are not the target audience in the first place.
Well, so much for, “hopefully” . . .
. . . oh, and your argument that only those in a “target audience” have standing to critique the message, is unadulterated nonsense . . .
The issue is that when you aren't the intended audience and you are attempting to critique an advertisement or other messaging, you need to think carefully – without using your own prejudices – before calling it stupid.
For example, an ad targeted towards my daughter to encourage her to buy a toy may strike me as ridiculously stupid, but I would not be the intended audience so I would need to ask her – or others in her age group – how it appeals to them.
Same concept here. You are letting your own biases cloud your judgment.
If you do happen to get around to rechecking this thread, there’s only one who’s using the word “stupid” (repeatedly), and it isn’t me. (And lest you adduced that from my writing “unsmart,” consider that my intended meaning was, and still remains, as in the sense of risky, unsafe, unwise, ill advised, provoking . . .)
And, sure, you and your buddy can always hide behind that tried and true childhood defense that, “Gee, that’s not what I intended!” — and we all know it’s a weak deflection of responsibility. (As in, remembering that Orange guy, and never intending any responsibility for listeners uncivil actions?)
Not in a literal sense does Eli Bremer call for attacking leftist politicians. But his call to "remind them we've had a permission slip for freedom since 1776", together with the large gun and ammo belt , carries a subliminal threat. From one tribe (gunheads) to another (liberal politicians). As it is intended to. Like Boebert's or Empty G's tweets sporting firearms, shotgun loading sounds, targets with Pelosi or AOC's face targeted.
You've been around politics enough to know this. I know as a lawyer you deal with literal precise word meanings, but context and image carry most of the weight in these ads.
No. It does not in anyway call for violence against the government. Not explicitly. Not implicitly. Nor is it intended to. This is clearly a call to vote for pro-gun policies and candidates.
If you are interpreting the other way, the fault there is on you for reading things into that are not present. And reading things into it that the typical Colorado voter will not see. Because they are simply not there other than in your imagination
I’m with kiwi on this one: Eli’s team knows exactly who the targeted audience is, and the (not so) subliminal message for said audience. It’s wholly consistent with every single candidate running as a non-CHB Republican.
Oh, for the days of Bev Bledsoe and Bud Moellenberg. Hank Brown, Bill Kaufman.
Replying to Elliot’s comment below since we are now out of reply boxes:
If you want to see what a non-threatening pro-gun ad looks like, see the early NRA ads. Red Ryders. Gun safety. Hunting gear for forests, not urban streets
In my past married life, we got the NRA mag at home – full of ads for safe hunting, how to cook venison, and yes, guns and ammunition – but in the context of marksmanship, sport, killing varmints, and providing meat. My high school still had a “Riflettes” club.
Only a few years later, in the late 80s, the whole tone changed, became much more political – conflating criminals and “permissive” liberals, lax gun laws with danger, government regulation with Nazis. That trend has accelerated exponentially to its present ridiculous heights. Mother Jones has a good timeline here. Washington Post has another.
Bremer’s ad belongs in the latter time frame,when guns were politicized. It’s pure dog whistle to the MAGA base, and it will probably hit that target and appeal to them. Bremer might even win a primary with it. But not a general election.
Remember Sarah’s “Target List” just before Gabby Giffords was shot?
Elliot nailed it. Eli’s job right now is to appeal to the GOP base without offending general election voters. The shotgun is a sportsman’s icon. An AR-15 would have rightly offended general election voters since its primary use is slaughtering school kids and churchgoers.
I have a double-barrel shotgun I inherited from my grandfather. It is the choice of pheasant hunters because you can vary the choke, using a narrower spread of shot for the second shot, as your bird has moved further away.
Mine is an old farmer’s side by side. Eli’s tweet is an over-under, which is usually a much more expensive gun, typically $1,O00 plus, with engraving.
To “own the libs” you would buy an 8 shot Maverick for $ 240 from Mossberg, a pump gun with a short-barrel, ideal for settling disputes with your bridge club or living next door to Rand Paul.
Eli’s choice of the high-quality over-under (a Browning, maybe?) makes good sense, appeals to the base and offends no one who would conceivably vote for a Republican in the general.
And by average I think you mean those that aren’t the architects of the Polis recall charades?
My understanding of the state of the GOP (admittedly vastly diminished from a few years ago given I am currently persona non gratta due to my family friendship with a certain high ranking democrat office holder and vocal support for NeverTrump stuff) is that the people who have supported the recall shams are those that are going to be the ones opposing Eli.
But, like I said, I don’t know as much about what is going on as I used to know.
We may have our differences but I enjoy your legal analysis on issues (and that you support Polis). As a (once) 30 year member of the GOP who is surrounded by family largely in the MAGA camp, it’s a healthy dose of both amusement and sadness as the state party circles the drain.
Thanks. As for supporting Jared, the guy is a solid friend who has been there for my wife and kids and is also really smart. Plus, I respect the fact that in spite of having successful parents he’s ultimately a self-made dude that isn’t in his position based on favors like some other politicians that we all know. That enables him to be able to often do what he thinks is right as opposed to what other people tell him he needs to do regardless of his beliefs.
The way I look at it we are lucky to know some really interesting and good people. I got Jared on that list. I got Eli on that list.
And I got a few others on that list too. Makes life more interesting when you know smart and informed people that can largely be honest with you even if you might disagree with them on a few – or a lot – of things.
Turning back to my other friend, Eli, I think people need to remember that unlike Jared, he isn’t going to have a set of beliefs that are going to appeal to a lot of people posting here. But that doesn’t make him dumb. As I have said again and again, Eli is one of the smartest people in Colorado politics I know. You all underestimate him at your peril, even if he ultimately doesn’t win this race.
I’m in the Bennet camp this cycle. I have little doubt the upcoming primary (or whatever they’re going to call it) will run rife with alternative facts, amnesia, and a very large clown car (this is by no means an exhaustive list).
To quote my favorite liberal redneck, Trae Crowder, “they just can’t not.”
Yeah, there is a lot of insanity going on in GOPLand. Not that the Dems are immune to it. Wokeism has gone a bit far there, but that is still a long ways away from a lot of the "stolen election" and coup justifying apologism we are seeing emanating from Mar a Lago and beyond.
On that note, does anybody have any idea how to unsubscribe from all of the Jim Jordan and pro-Trump lists? Somehow they got my info and keep sending me emails one by one. I unsubscribe from one candidate but then another emails me. I swear, it is a game of whack-a-mole.
No big deal, don’t let ’em bother you — just try to ignore ’em . . .
(. . . It’s unlikely you’re in the intended audience?)
Spam is annoying regardless of whether you are the intended audience.
Sorry, but you misspelled "Gym" Jordan's first name.
Choices as far as I can tell:
1. keep playing whack-a-mole
2. block email from specific senders or that include specific words (see 1.)
3. change your email
Sorry to tell you, but there really ISN'T a way to unsubscribe from a whole branch of the political community. Once you are included on a list, your record will continue to be sold as part of that list until the screening conditions take you out. And for fundraising campaigns to a national list that want to go broad, the screen-out conditions are pretty extreme. Showing up on the Social Security list of deceased people PROBABLY would work — but as the last address tied to my father-in-law, I think the last charitable appeal to him came last year — and he died in the early 1990s.
One friend sets up an email address and internet phone number for each Presidential cycle and uses it when volunteering or donating to the campaigns, forwarding the contacts to his continuing address. He then cuts the links when the cycle is done. So far, there aren't too many campaigns that have sussed out the continuing address.
We had a 2nd Amendment in 1776?
And, why not allude to the Battles of Lexington and Concord in 1775?
And, does mean that only double barrel shotguns are allowed in the quest for freedom?
Because photographs with today’s penis compensators might make him look insensitive, unable to reach the hearts and minds of Colorado independents he’ll so desperately need?
This ad is for the Schitters Grill crowd.
Some of us hold the opinion the 2nd Amendment was written to preserve slavery – not freedom
Others of us know there was no individual right to guns until the 2008 "originalist" analysis of Justice Scalia in his majority opinion in the Heller appeal.
The founders and those who voted on ratifying the 2nd Amendment would be appalled at what it has become. In their day, casualties of 59 killed and 600 wounded happened occasionally, between uniformed armies. A lone shooter in a rented room dealing that much destruction in a quarter hour would be a moral disaster.
Lawrence Tribe, long before Heller, argued that the Second Amen dment DOES confer an individual right, though obviously not an unlimited one.
Sadly, originalism is mostly judges playing bad amateur historians, like Scalia did in Heller.
Yes Dave, the bill of rights was ratified in 1791, but you know that because I am guessing you are well educated, which puts you well outside of this target market.
Barnes got a gold star in “Today is…” class 🤣
Too bad he couldn't work Nazis into his ad. Gun nuts looking to shoot liberals always believe that their victims are Nazis'. This ad is meant to invoke violence as a remedy for political differences. This is why the guy is such a putz.
I guess that pandering to the gunheads and liberal-haters in Colorado is a “smart” approach to clearing a Republican primary?
Not ethical or truthful or morally sound, but “smart” in a con-man sucker-born -every-minute way. I’d guess that Bremer is no longer particularly concerned about corruption or running aclean campaign. Sad to see.
Maybe the campaign had one too many interns or volunteers who, of course, goofed the photo.
You mean like Bob Schaffer's infamous Mount McKinley photo shot? Or Bob Beauprez' notorious horse's ass faux pas?
Kinda wondered if one reason not to take him seriously is that his stock photo looks a little, shall we say, limp.
Though Pfizer has a little pill that can help with the droopy-droop, whether or not any of its other products are safe or effective…
The stock photo is ridiculous, a hand wearing a riot glove (note the built-in knuckle dusters) bearing a long barrel double gun suitable for pheasants, sporting clays or skeet but not a "street sweeper" as the Boebert posse would demand. Whoever picked the photo is ignorant and the posse will laugh at it.
“Every man, an
armyarmed elections-monitor of one.”
If you think this message is seen as ridiculous by, what Elliot points out is, its intended audience, you’re kidding yourself.
Since Bremer talks about "leftist politicians," should we assume that he's OK with the far right wing militia thug groups like Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, 3 Percenters, etc.?
Yes, at least through the GOP primary/assembly/convention/lottery/short straw nominating process.
[Carrying MB’s comment down, and responding:]
. . . Yeah, but in Palin’s (and Elliot’s) defense, you gotta’ remember MB — Giffords wasn’t in the intended target audience of that message, . . .
. . . she was an intended audience target.
Apparently, it’s a very important distinction for some? (And, somehow at the same time, an irrelevant distinction for others.)
Find someone who stans for you like Fladen stans for his friends.
I see that Bremer is using the fighter/warrior image quite a bit. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if his 14 years of active/reserve service included any deployments to one of two exotic locations? His service dates put him in the thick of combat operations and I'm curious to see if he successfully avoided deployments by choice or if it was just coincidence.
Don’t know if Bremer saw combat during his years in the Air Force Reserves. His campaign bio doesn’t mention it. He was a commissioned officer.
I thought well of Bremer for standing up to Holy Hypocrite Ken Buck in a recent primary election conflict. On the other hand, he did represent Shaklee, the fake-healthy products pyramid scheme company.
My take on this is that Bremer wants to survive the primary ( hence the stupid obligatory gunzo memes) and up his name recognition for future statewide office runs. He doesn’t have a serious chance against Bennet in the general; so Pols’ basic premise is correct.
So he likes guns. Meh. Lot's of people do.
I still want to know if he likes voters electing the president or would he be willing to overturn the election because it didn't go his way. How would he have voted on January 6, 2021, had he been in the senate?
Frankly, there is no bigger issue facing any candidate for federal office.
Eli Bremmer for Senate, with the "i" being a torch… momentum is obviously building. He now has an instagram account
I am a bit curious about one tile there … It has Bremmer in military camo at left, Eli for Senate logo in the middle, and Eli running in his USA Olympics gear with the Olympic rings and his number 25. Anyone know if Eli has started using the required disavowal language for the military photo? And is there an equivalent ban on using Olympic rings as part of a political campaign?
That looks like a pretty decent O/U shotgun there. Two triggers don't 'ya know. That said, some idiot has mounted a bullshit "rear sight" on it. Must be some rightwing gun nut that knows nothing about wing-shooting. Just lost my dove hunting spot of many years. No place to go this September 1st.