In an interview on Monday arranged by Republican strategists...

It was Sandy Hook Promise, a nonprofit formed by the families afterward. If only someone was brave enough to look at the political affiliation of some of the people behind it.

Beyond their personal efforts, however, Sandy Hook Promise has enlisted some very high-powered help. Los Angeles public relations firm Griffin-Schein, which helped launch the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, is advsing the group. Last month they helped SHP launch an initiative in Silicon Valley to develop and fund new gun safety and background check technologies by matching venture capitalists and angel investors with promising tech start-ups.

They have also enlisted the counsel of Ricki Seidman, a long-time Democratic operative whose experience includes running the famed "War Room" of the 1992 Clinton campaign and, more recently, helping to guide Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination through the Senate. Most recently, SHP has hired the heavyweight lobbying firm Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti to represent them. Bruce Mehlman is a Republican who served in the Department of Commerce under President George W. Bush. Alex Vogel, another Republican, was chief counsel to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. David Castagnetti, a Democrat, is a former legislative strategist and a veteran of Secretary of State John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Also reported to be providing guidance to SHP is the centrist Democratic group Third Way, which has itself advocated for stronger gun safety measures.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/34683/gun-control-debate-how-sandy-hook-parents-are-turning-grief-into-action

 

I just don't remember. I would assume, frankly, that "strategists" of either party are gilding the lily and hurting their own causes by getting involved in news stories like these because network bookers go frantic trying to land interviews when there's a big story. The reason John McCain is on the Sunday morning shows every other Sunday isn't because of his political stature, it's because he's willing to do it.
PS: Also, knowing a few "strategists" of both parties, they flit back and forth from political campaigns to issues-based organizations on a regular basis. Oddly enough, most are idealists driven by their ideals.

 

Sandy Hook families worked in concert with a sitting Democratic president.

Are you really going to argue that no one reported on the politics behind it?

 

Are people really so dense that when this dude's parents were at the White House, they didn't think said White House had something to do with it?

 

In another thread Tuesday arranged by a Republican strategist ...

 

The name Bowe Bergdahl looks vaguely like Benghazi, but it could use a little more oomph.

Guessing Fox News will start calling him Bowe Z. Bergdahl.

 

... did Sergeant Bergdahl's case distract Obama from Benghazi?

 

Taking Bergdahl out of the argument, the fact that the deal gave
Mullah Omar something to cheer about and hold over us is unforgivable.

That guy was 1A with Bin Laden when this all started.

 

Unless we've turned one of these monsters and they're a sleeper cell to take out Omar. Works on TV, right?

 

Like how they turned Reggie Jackson to take out the Queen.

In the end of one of these guys leads us to Mullah Omar then I will be the
first to say it was a good trade.

Maybe prisoner trades are like the NFL draft. You have to wait 5 years to
evaluate them.

 

I don't know. I'm not real sold of Bergdahl's upside.

 

Someone humor me. Find me one instance of the Times describing any interview as being arranged by Democratic strategists.

Just one.

Because, if they haven't, then you have to believe either they've never conducted such an interview, or that they didn't think it was necessary information to provide its readers.

But, if they thought it relevant here, why isn't it always relevant? Does the Times have a policy regarding this? If so, what is it? If they don't, should they?