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.