*USA Next

A still of the ad can be seen here, along with this sweet quote from USA Next:

Great, we’re gonna dynamite Granny into acquiescence.

Just when you think things can’t get any uglier or nastier than the 2004 election, this comes along. I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around the concept of all those liberal, gay-loving, militant seniors citizens. The ad put out by this bunch is just soooo out of line.

Personally, I’d like to see all the people behind Swift Boat Veterans, etc. and USA Next sent back to the dank, steamy cesspit from whence they came, but the chances of that happened are slim and none, and Slim left town.

What has the AARP done to deserve the full-court press from the Bush hatchet men? Why, they had the temerity to criticize his plan for SS private accounts! Horrors!

AARP is an advocacy group for seniors, regardless of their political affiliation. It is non-partisan. In fact, they were the GOP darlings when they came out in support of Bush’s medicare plan and the Demo’s were screaming bloody blue murder.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Will the campaign backfire?

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Judging by the last election, the only way the Bush administration knows how to win is through smear tactics. They know they work and they are not ashamed to use them, off the record of course and with no knowledge of involvement.

And just as an FYI, you can find the image that was being run on the USA Next website as well as several right wing blogs over at Daily Kos.

I think this is of course highly inappropriate and shows a severe lack of class, but I have come to expect nothing less.

Will the campaign backfire?

It will, without a doubt. The Republicans are already sinking in the quicksand with this social security proposal and then they have the gall to attack the AARP? Seniors are the most active and powerful voting group in America. If they proceed with these attacks I can guarantee you that quite a few Republicans might just be getting kicked out of office in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Furthermore, it appears that the group used the image of the gay couple without permission - story at DailyKos. This could result in legal trouble for the group which would be extremely fitting and appropriate.

#1
USA NEXT does not represent the GOP or American Conservatives as a whole.

#2
Ellis Henican's (of Newsday) comments about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are pure rhetoric, as their comments about Senator Kerry were never proven to be false. Calling them names and insinuating that their campaign against Kerry was unscrupulous is completely non-objective and proves nothing.

#3
The AARP's stance is biased in reference to the current state of affairs of Social Security. They obviously have a vested interest in keeping social sec benefits consistent for the time being, regardless of the long-term ramifications. The President, along with most conservatives in Washington, believe that we need to do something to ensure SS benefits for generations to come.

The AARP is a non-partisan group, and obviously does many wonderful things for seniors. However, turning this into a republican bashing post is absurd.

In reference to elections and smear tactics CJ, need I mention all of the horrible things liberals did to try to get Lurch (John Kerry) elected? Afterall, at least the republicans didn't stoop so low as to enlist news anchors of major networks to fabricate stories... hmmm....

In reference to republicans losing elections over this, please come back to reality. USA Next is not a GOP spokesperson, doesn't represent the American Republican Constituency, and only polarizes liberal voters... whom need I say have been losing elections on a regular basis for years.

Really? Hmm, well it seems to me that when you say "conservative" that is pretty well connected in people's minds with "Republican". Furthermore, this group is pushing the Republican agenda on Social Security. I have already drawn one dot more than is necessary for most people.

The American people are not stupid Aevans, sure USA Next isn't an official spokesperson for the GOP but they don't need to be, they have already tied themselves to the GOP in people's minds and that is all that counts. I think that most people know this is attack politics plain and simple and the people working behind the scenes are the same ones that work behind the scenes in elections with push polling and things of that nature. That is actually proved out here since we already know that the people involved here were behind the Swift Boat Vets thing.

In the same way that you probably associate groups like MoveOn.org, ACT and the ACLU with the Democratic party people will associate this group with the GOP.

If they continue down the path they are taking and take on the AARP then mark my words, you will see Republicans losing office in the forthcoming elections. As I said in my previous post the AARP is an incredibly powerful group of voters and you mess with them at your peril. Seniors vote and Seniors organize, think about that.


Hmm, you wouldn't be referring to Gannon would you? Just checking.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Attacks based on fallacious rhetoric are never appropriate. Nonetheless, it is the modus operandi of political media campaigns.

Will the campaign backfire?

Probably; unless a new political meme can be seeded in the populace. I think the "personal accounts" meme is losing to the "privatization" meme. Since this seems to be a battle of catch phrases and not of actual, measurable data or problem resolution, whoever has the best catch phrase wins.

~~~~~~~~

Agreed. However, as I'm sure you're well aware, all it takes is the association with GOP for all the GOP to be painted with the same brush. This is true about the Democrats too: as you indicate with your broad brush of the Kerry campaign. You can't have it both ways, aevans176. You're either against fallacious reasoning or not. You can't distance yourself from fallacious reasoning against the GOP while at the same time promulgating fallacious reasoning by the GOP.


It's also never been disproved that 20 foot tall aliens with three eyes and long green tentacles are controlling the Earth from their planet 61 light-years away.


Ahh, you want to discuss facts. Sorry, politics today does not do that.


My, my... Defensive are we. So, in response to perceived "Republican bashing" you then proceed to bash Kerry (or is that kick)? Bleh...

Ever notice how the constant terror alerts disappeared after the election was won

USA NEXT is going to practice the worst kind of Goebbels approved propaganda-and hopefully willed be villified for their evil. Supporters of their tactics will be shown to clearly lack any decency or honor. To try and spread hate and prejudice like they have right out of the gate is despicable.

Will this hurt the GOP/ If they support it --hopefully they will indeed pay the price of such tactics. If they do then the 2006 elections are gonna be brutal. and their hold will probably be broken.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Will the campaign backfire?
No they are not and I hope so. Not out of distaste for the GOP but in the hopes that such hate will not be rewarded by America any longer. They are on the wrong side of decency.

Your statements about Moveon.org and the ACLU show our stark contrast in opinion and understanding of American Politics. The average voter in America has their mind up long prior to making it to the polls, and in recent years people have been apt to vote along party lines. I doubt a small ad on an obscure website is going to change the tide of elections. (Where as changes in SS might)

Seniors do tend to vote and the AARP has a similar influence to an organization such as the NRA. However, if you really think that a little USA NEXT ad is going to change senior voting, please take a look at the last election's voting statistics. What will really matter is what happens with the SS issue and how the party SPIN works (or doesn't).

Discussing the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and the ads against Kerry, in my opinion, is extremely near-sighted and desperate. The Swift Boat ads were on national television and directed and debunking Kerry "mis-truths" about his military service. Frankly, this was a small ad with little exposure.

I also believe that groups like Moveon.org, men like Micheal Moore, etc are not changing the outcome of American elections... please prove otherwise.

Hmm, you don't think seniors might be a little outraged that their group is being touted as anti-troop and pro-gay marriage when nothing could be further from the truth?

I think that if people make an issue of it then it will be an issue. Since you claim to understand so much about American Politics (and imply that I don't) you should at least know that. It appears that people are making an issue out of it right now, only time will tell if it has legs and is still around in a few weeks time. It has been in the NY Times and I'm sure the word is spreading amongst AARP members... time will tell.

But regardless of where it ends up, it was an incredibly stupid and classless campaign to run. I guess that is what happens when you consider the people involved.

But, aevans176, that's the whole point. The same people behind the Swift Boat ads are behind this ad, and their intention is to air it on national TV. This internet debut was supposed to be some sort of ad "test" before they aired it.

In my opinion, good luck to 'em getting it on TV with the current censorship atmosphere. Goodness knows the FCC's collective sphincter will pucker when they get a look at it.

It would be informative and enlightening to see whose money is behing Swift Boat Vets/USA Next, but wouldn't you know it, they don't disclose.

By the way, one of the same sources I cited in the original post (a seniors publication) says that the ad appeared first in a magazine.

Whoa... no one is pulling punches here.
The point I'm making is that perspective is drastically different.

Frankly, I'm confident that if something like this does make national television, there would never be a self-respecting republican that would claim to associate themselves with nonsense such as this.

You're absolutely correct daffy in that I sincerely doubt that something so awful would ever make it to the air. Look at what network censors did to the ad from the church of christ.

As far as the republican conspiracy theories, think what you like. The truth will probably never be known and frankly, associating USA NEXT to all republicans is awfully low and a lot like associating you all with Micheal Moore (of which I don't)...

Well, CNN Money characterizes USA Next as

This is going to be just as filthy and nasty as the election brouhaha and, if the past is any indicator of the future, slinging mud works, and works well, but the victim in this case won't be a professional politician, but every senior citizen in the country...but that's for another thread.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Attacks? What attacks? The ad shows me that the AARP is for love and peace, and against war and destruction. That's what I stand for, does that make me a pre-mature AARP member? Can I get some benefits? This is just stupid to me. This USA Next group is taking a group that has no official political standings or affiliation and making them out to be bad people. Also, I have a problem with using this "gay marriage is ok" thing to be an attack. Marriage should never be used to as a weapon and I'm sad that this group uses it that way. But this isn't the first time the GOP, or groups affiliated with the GOP/conservatives have used this disgusting act:



Previous AD Thread

I guess you gotta stick with what works. "Win at all costs, and cheat if you must."

Will the campaign backfire?

I'd hope so. I'd like to see the AARP make this an issue, but I don't know how they think about it. One thing to keep in mind here is that this was a test ad, which means there are probably more to follow.



They plan to attack (notice future tense) the AARP. So I guess we should expect more of this type of filth to barrage us. I hope most americans will be able to see through this stupid red herring.

edited for clarity

Will the campaign backfire?

There are a lot of seniors around and our population is getting increasingly older. Declaring war on the AARP, especially through the swift boat veterans, makes about as much sense as the Democrats pushing for Bush's impeachment.

I hope they do push the matter. It could mean the the first cracks in Republican ascendency. Sooner or later I think the Republicans will self-destruct, especially as people see that their policies don't really benefit them.

So, all I can say is "bring 'em on." Now where have I heard that "brilliant" line before.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

I get a chuckle out of the reasoning that yep, the attack ads are appropriate because that's politics.

Um, think again. I joined AARP two years ago after my 50th birthday, not a very happy one for several reasons unrelated to age, but entirely related to modern politics and most pointedly to the natural disaster of wildfire. But the point is that attacking AARP isn't just slapping grannies -- people from the age of 50 on up to, say 65 or so, come from a kick-tush political background that yanked Richard Nixon from power and honored the gonzo journalism of Hunter S. Thompson, who recently passed. We also brought Rolling Stone into the mainstream media, along with the actual Stones who still rock the house. The list is long and broad.

We don't take to slapping around without a major slap-back-take-down reply. We aren't your father's grannies -- although they started Grey Panthers, and by gosh, we will do this and more in return for little punks trying to push us around.

This technique is only appropriate for future losers. Think the Demos won't gain power? Think once again: They took the state of Colorado, and now the lobbyists are falling all over themselves to buy non-Republican political favors -- this after ignoring Demos for decades. Don't think Demos in this state are for sale.

Will the campaign backfire?

I am sure of it. This will actually be a lot of fun! As boomers retire, we will need something to do with our free time. Getting political will, I hope, become one of the more trendy retirement activities. Besides being a bunch of trouble-makers for the establishment, we are also a trendy generation, and now in our golden years, we see just how advertising pushed and pulled us this way and that.

How else could platform shoes get sold? Glam rock? Bottled water? With age comes wisdom, and with boomers comes trouble for the Powers that Be.

If SS needs fixing, we'll be the ones to do it -- not a bunch of suits who don't need SS. Never too late to getcher yah-yahs out, eh?

Biased because they take a stand? Or biased because they dare take a position against the GOP?

And guess what, the second this group went on the attack against Kerry is the second they laid in bed with the GOP. Forever linked until hey prove otherwise.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Of course not unless you're in the Our Boy Bush crowd. This GOP bunch amazes me, they drive conservative voters to the polls by getting the gay amendment in key states, use tasteless tactics like this by putting a gay couple next to soldiers in an ad, but some how a person with an alternate lifestyle is the perfect plant in the White House Press Corps.

Nothing is sacred with these people and their hypocrisy is numbing.

I have to look at the motivation of USA Next, what’s in it for them? Why are they risking an attack on the most respected demographic? They’re a faceless bunch doing the dirty work of the GOP. How brave.

Will the campaign backfire?

We can only hope.

No, they aren't...But as previously stated, these attack ads are not the work of "Bush hatchet men", to lable them as such isn't right. The Republican Party and Karl Rove [better nip this in the bud, I know someone is going to mention him] had nothing to do with this.

It depends. Will the media report it? Will the Democrats attempt to link this group with the Republicans? [Yes, yes they will], Does the public care? There are too many variables for me to say one way or another, but I'd like to hope so, but I think if it does, the Republican will take a hit, regardless of how innocent they are in this instance.

CP

Just as a point of information, this is already all over the media CP. The original article cited in Daffy's first post was from the New York Times. Daffy also cited a seniors journal. Additionally I have heard it has made the rounds on CNN too. I'm sure it is other places I am not aware of yet. You can bet the Democrats will latch on to this (they'd be stupid not to) and blame it on the GOP, in fact the blogosphere is already doing that.

Will people care? I guess time will tell. I didn't think people cared about the whole Swift Boat thing and apparently I was wrong, so I won't even make any predictions. However I will say that this type of thing effects people whether they want to admit it or not.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Yes, I took a look at the magazines a month or so ago after the Fox News Factor reported on it and sure enough they are a liberal left wing organization.

Will the campaign backfire?
No, thousands of repubs will dump AARP as I did.

Are the attack ads appropriate against AARP?

Well, considering the right to free speech exists I would say yes the are appropriate, regardless of my opinions on the ads themselves.

As for the AARP, the only issue I recall having with them we several years back. Seems, at least at the time, the AARP was the largest anti-gun lobby in the country, at least in the sense of contributing funds to election campaigns based on responses received when lobbying for tighter gun control. As you can imagine, this came as quite a shock to many members who also happened to be NRA members. Now I do NOT have a problem with the AARP spending money to lobby for anything. I do however have a problem with an organization that is supposed to be representing the interests of it's members not disclosing the fact that they were spending so much on gun control lobbying to their members, who's money they were spending. That said, I have seen some rather rough political crap from the AARP that was received by my parents over the years. This organization has never been above twisting or obfuscating the truth, so if someone decides to do it to them I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

Will the campaign backfire?

Perhaps. Everyone seemed to think the Swift Boat ads would backfire and look what happened there. We will have to wait and see how it all plays out. One thing is certain though, the AARP DEFINITELY has enough money to return the favor.

When it comes to the AARP and social security, all I have sen so far from them, in regards to what is sent to their members is that Bush's plan will cut benefits to everyone receiving them now. This is untrue. This tactic has been used for years by them. Someone mentions reorganizing social security and they send out flyers with pictures of a elderly couple about to chow down on some cat food.

They are quite guilty of twisting the truth to advocate their position. Now someone is returning the favor. Whatever happened to "turn about is fair play"?

Many news outlets are carrying the story. It's on the UPI wire. And now this:

Deja vu all over again. Anyone care to bet whether any denouncement is forthcoming?

In response to your post and the OP, I think it's a highly mistaken belief to equate the Republican Party with USA Next. That would be like equating the Democratic Party with Greenpeace. This will not backfire on the Republican Party because the Republican Party was not the one who did this.

The problem is, even if they GOP isn't behind this, the group is fighting for conservative ideals and goals; like the social security change and presumably banning gay marriage. So what this does is associate themselves with the GOP/conservatives, whether the GOP/reps. want it or not. It doesn't matter who's behind it, it only matters who people percieve is behind it. I think what the reps. should do is disassociate themselves with this group, but I doubt that'll happen.

Not quite so fast there, boys....This story just got reported within the last few days, and you are all giving unequivocal denials that the Republicans had anything to do with this, in any way whatsoever? You're sure? Because I can make at least a circumstantial case that the Republican politicos, at least, are in it up to their necks, and all I needed was Google and a few minutes time. Ready?

First, let's look at USA-Next's corporate structure, shall we?
(from Public citizen.org)
USA President and CEO Charles Jarvis served as deputy under secretary at the Department of Interior during the Reagan and Bush administrations, experience as legislative director for Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and campaign chairman for presidential candidate Gary Bauer. Jarvis was also the executive vice president of Focus on the Family.

USA board member Craig Shirley, long a Republican Party public relations powerhouse. Most recently, he co-founded Conservatives for Effective Leadership, an organization devoted to defeating Hillary Clinton in her Senate bid.

USA board member Jack Abramoff, The Republican Party has long relied on his fundraising prowess, and can continue to do so, as he boasted that he would raise $5 million and personally give $250,000 this past election cycle.

USA board member Jim Wootton is president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform where he advocates for tort "reform" a high priority of this administration, and the drug industry which is increasingly being sued for manufacturing unsafe drugs.

USA lobbyist David Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union, the nation’s largest conservative grassroots organization.

USA lobbyist Beau Boulter, is a former GOP congressman from Texas who served in the House of Representatives from 1985 to 1989.

USA's corporate counsel, Curtis Herge, served as a member of Reagan’s Presidential Transition Team.

Anybody here still think that this group has no ties to the Republicans? Give me a break.

Next, the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance, a rating and reporting bureau for public charities and nonprofit organizations, notes that one of United Seniors Association's (USA-Next) "affiliates" is O'Neill Marketing Company (OMC).

Apparently, it's a very tight affiliation since both are located at 3900 Jermantown Road, in Fairfax, vA (USA-Next lists Suite 450; OMC lists Suite 300).

O'Neill's front page lists its first selling point as: "We are a 'marketing' department for our clients, as if we were right down the hall." ( Ok, maybe not "just down the hall", but only one floor down).

So what, you may ask? Fair enough. Lots of organizations use direct marketing firms to get their message out. Absolutely correct. And USA-Next is not O'Neill's only client. Some of the other clients O'Neill touts on their website include:

Republican National Committee
Republican Governors Association
National Republican Congressional Committee
Empower America/Citizens for Sound Economy

Now, perhaps we can make no definitive conclusions from this, but I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if someone looks hard enough, we'll find that these organizations share their mailing lists rather freely amongst themselves. And if they are touting the same lies that appeared in USA-Next's first advertisment against the AARP, then indeed, while the administration itself may not have endorsed this ad, you better believe that the Republican party surely did.

Deja vu all over again. Anyone care to bet whether any denouncement is forthcoming?

I'll take that bet that a denouncement will come, since the odds of this happening are like one in a googolplex. Put me down for one cent. If I win this bet, might even dump AARP

And I could personally fix SS


This is starting to look like President Bush's first major political loss. That this sort of advertising has come out clinches the desperation that comes when a major liar has told the last whopper that people will believe. AARP rolled over on the drug prescription deal, and the membership got fully ticked off. This SS thing is just too stinky for anyone to swallow.

But I do know this about President Bush -- he is as bullheaded as, well, a bullhead. He has swallowed so many hooks in his life that it is impossible for him to turn back from anything. The SS deal is the most recent, and as he dives to the bottom on it, I'm fully confident that should anyone take my bet, I'll lose.

Regarding RNC sponsorship of the ads, all I can say is that soft money has this little problem with it -- technically, the cash doesn't come from the RNC, just influential Republicans. As one ages, tricks like this get very tiresome. Oh yeah, technically we are being attacked by private citizens who just happen to be Big Daddy Repubs.

Fine, whatever. Guess you guys really want us to vote Demo. 'K, you got it.

Meanwhile, Bush mumbled something about raising the income limit on SS withholdings -- much like the mumbling about allowing civil unions before the election. I really feel sorry for this hollow man.

Well, as someone who is...familiar with Jon Corzine, I can tell you that I was willing to bet everything I owned that he'd be the first one to get on this train. He's simply a self-righteous grandstander, in my, humble opinion of course

NiteGuy,
I'm sure it would be just as easy to link a Democrat to a MoveOn.org ad, yet I don't recall any Congressional Republicans calling for Democrats to denounce them. In addition, none of those people you mentioned have connections with this administration. So Bush hatchet men? It doesn't appear so.

CP

I really enjoy how boards like this turn into republican bashing as opposed to intelligent debate.

Frankly, the reality is that most republicans were not voting based upon amendments regarding "alternative lifestyles" in key states. If you read any polling data from recent elections, most conservatives don't even really worry about gay marraiges or alternative lifestyles.

The funny thing is that you must understand that there are quite a few conservatives in your midst, as republicans keep winning elections. It's not by accident....

However, USA NEXT is just like Moveon.org, or heck... even Dan Rather. They're zealots (like our buddies at CBS) that will do unscrupulous things to aid their party's agenda, but most of us don't associate ourselves with actions such as these.

I find it entertaining to read posts bashing all republicans and the GOP as a whole. It would be like us blaming the DNC for all the crud Micheal Moore puts out. Come on... really, you're better than that.

The sincere problem for democrats is that the AARP is non-partisan, so unless this controversy is in public view until the next election cycle... it's likely to be a non factor. I don't forsee a group like the AARP taking a permanent political stance.

Yeah aevans176 the Republicans are out riding the range in white hats. Yet this isn't a B grade cowboy movie, but important national affairs.

It seems to me the bashing is coming from the other side.

Apparently USA Next is a smear organization tied closely to Republican organizations. What else can you call it when they connect the AARP with a pro gay marriage and anti-military stances. It’s time to bring out the wolves of emotion. It worked against Kerry, so why not give it another spin.

Oh and, ConservPat no one can prove and may never be able to prove that Karl Rove had anything to do with it. Yet it has his mode of operation that we saw with McCain in North Carolina, Mac Clelland in Georgia and John Kerry last fall all over it.

So now the politics of smear and fear move from defeating candidates to crushing opposing oganizations and promoting Republican policy. Where will this gang stop.

This is from last night's Hardball.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024315/

Ain't it cool the way Republicans stick their noses in the air and pretend to take the high moral ground?

I found this interesting article on the head "playahs" in the Social Security scrimmage.

Similar backgrounds, different philosophies. I find it interesting that Santorum, a guy who grew up in VA housing (supplied by the government), whose father worked for the government, whose education was subsidized by the state, and whose employment is paid by the taxpayer feels that everyone should be responsible for themselves.

Novelli, on the other hand, feels that it is the duty of those who succeed to help out those who need it most. Since leaving the internationally respected Porter Novelli, he has worked for those less fortunate.

Novelli’s family truly did pull themselves up “by the bootstraps” without sucking at the government teat.

And it looks like the young folks are joining the old folks in the Social Security battle. Rock the Vote has teamed up with AARP to fight private accounts.

Rock the Vote

WOW. What a bunch of rhetoric. We're talking about USA NEXT as opposed to the GOP, all of American Conservatives, or the Republican party as a whole. I don't blame all liberals for the bologna that was included in Far 9/11, for the junk that made it onto Moveon.org or any other group of liberal zealots that don't represent the DNC as a group.

Bashing republicans is neither ineffective or fruitful. All it does is give us an avenue by which to discount your statements and if you had a chance of someone coming to understand your point... it probably won't happen unless they share your liberal fervor.

In this case, we haven't seen GW, John McCain, or any other republican leaders on the nightly news telling about how great this USA NEXT ad is.

The AARP, for obvious reasons, would oppose changes in Social Security regardless of long-term ramifications. The people making decisions for this organizations are apparently the ones receiving checks, why would they want to rock the boat?

This does not excuse behavior by USA NEXT, but it by far doesn't open the flood gates for conservative bashing as if it were open season... Think before you type.

Are you actually serious? You do realize they were key supporters of President Bush for the prescription drug bill he passed. I can guarantee you that passing that bill was not a "left wing" thing to do. So you'll have to pardon me if I can't take your claim seriously given the lack of evidence here.


Why would they aevans176? Doing so would only hurt them. However if they remain silent this group gets to work their agenda and they reap the benefits. It works the same for the Democrats and their various groups as well. This is just how politics work. If you expect that a politician would ever endorse a group like this on either side of the political aisle you aren't being very realistic.

So because this group has not been endorsed by Bush and company, does that mean that they won't still stick in people's minds as being tied to the right wing? Is that what you are saying?

Of course we haven't seen any major Republicans telling us how great USA Next is. That would defeat the purpose. Why do the dirty work of smearing AARP when someone else is doing it for you. I don't remember any great rush to embraced the swift boat vets, either. No, we want this to work, but we want to avoid any tracing of funding or support back GOP organizations.

Given John McCain's independence, it wouldn't surprise me if he were the first kid on the block to distnce himself from all this. I wouldn't, however, expect any denunciation from the likes of Tom DeLay.

It seems this is a movie one might call Swift Boat Vets II. How many more sequels will we have to endure?



Oh, I do think before I type. Maybe some of you should take off those specially made shades that filter out Republican shenanigans before typing.

Aren't Republican guilty on this and a few other threads of the whining they so love to accuse liberals of doing?

Wow.
Three sincere points to address... CJ and BOF please feel free to rebut with objective ideas.

1. There are/were few republicans that actually associated John Kerry with nut-job Micheal Moore or the mess on Moveon.org. Why should the world believe that all republicans are anti-AARP?
2. The funny thing about the Swift Boat Vets is that they had information that was never proven to be incorrect. Their tactics weren't particularly spectacular... but at least they were telling the truth. (Unlike people like D Rather)
3. I DON'T suspect that a professional politician will associate themselves to org's such as USA NEXT, or any other zealot based group. Those whom believe that USA NEXT speak for all right-wing (republican) Americans are destined to their cynicism. However, as a staunch republican and a regular part of AD, I can say that nearly all conservatives would rather not be lumped into the same pile as USA NEXT.

Great point CJ, although some would call that program pretty "liberal." At the time, they paid the price in terms of bad press and Michael Moore at one point said that they were "imploding" because like 10,000 AARP-ers quit in protest (out of 35 million).

In my opinion, the AARP are (mostly) liberal, having read some of their literature lately. They support big gov't solutions to health care, Social Security, etc. They advocate a "right to die" position on euthanasia, even filing briefs in the Terry Schlavo case.

But what in the world the deal is with that ad? Anti-soldier and 2 guys kissing = AARP? That's just weird. Of course, the only place I've seen it is on blogs, it must have been pulled so fast. Weird, tasteless and inexcusable.

Speaking of weird, Bob Schrum (Democratic consultant record holder for all-time lowest batting average, lifetime) on Chris Matthews sounded like the actual "swift vets" were going after the AARP - you could just see them, aging Viet Nam vets with their M-16's, charging the line of shuffleboard-playing grandparents...

Wow, my Democratic compatriots smelled a drop of blood and went to town. I think we're jumping the gun just a bit here.

I think everyone is in agreement that that ad was inappropriate. There is a reason the ad no longer exists.

USA Next is an interesting organization. I would hesitate to put them analogous to Moveon.org mainly from a lobbying-arm perspective (Moveon lacked one, to my knowledge). I would also be interested to find out how much of a role they played in the Medicare reform act in the previous Bush term. That legislation magically got AARP's support and man have they had egg on their face since. Though I suspect even AARP would have backed off supporting it if the GOP had come forward with the real costs of the legislation at the time of the vote.

I'd keep SBVFT and Dan Rather out of this. First, both of those events were interpretations/distortions of matters of a historical nature (ie, Kerry's Vietnam record vs. W's guard service). This pales in scale to those campaigns. Though I will disagree with Aevans176 about one thing; a story not being proven incorrect does not equate with it being "truth". What occurred in the USA Next ad I would characterize as malicious propaganda. And if it weren't for the media blowing it out of proportion it would be a blip on the national radar in comparison to the other stories it is being held up against.

USA Next's actions I doubt will backfire in this narrow context. However, if continued campaigning takes place along the ilk of the Chris Matthews interview quoted previously I think there is a risk of the "guilt of association" happening and could conceivably cause some short term damage to the GOP. There is too much time between now and Nov 2006 to project an impact on mid-term election fare at this time.

Whatever ads we're talking about, I haven't seen them and so can't judge them. However, IMHO the AARP is a fundamentally dishonest organization that misrepresents itself to potential members from the get-go, so ads that unmask what it really does would certainly be appropriate.

The AARP bills itself mainly as a benefits organization that provides all sorts of discounts and services to seniors, and they do provide them as advertised, but what they don't tell you is that if you're not a liberal Democrat senior, your dues will be used to lobby for causes you're against, and against causes you're for, and you won't even be consulted. That's dishonest. If the name were AALRP (American Association of Liberal Retired People) I guess it would be honest.

Will the ads backfire? Not if they're well done and they tell the truth, but as I said, I haven't seen them and can't judge.

I'm sure you wouldn't want to be lumped in that bucket, nor would I personally put you there. But the fact here is that this group is attempting to do the GOP's dirty work on social security. Of course no one ever wants to be associated with the guy that is doing the heavy lifting.

FACT: Bush has failed to present one iota of fact or hard numbers to back up his case for social security "reform". You disagree with that, please cite just one source that builds a case with something other than "social security is in crisis" rhetoric. We have a thread which talks about this here and in 9 pages of debate not one single person has been able to do what I just asked, because the information doesn't exist.

The tactic that has been observed over and over is to resort to dirty tricks when you don't have facts on your side. Therefore, to some smearing the AARP and trying to paint them in a bad light might sound like a good idea.

So while you have been protesting the association of this group with Republicans aevans, you still haven't actually answered the question for debate of whether you agree with their tactics or not.



Well you are in luck IZ, here is the ad - click here

So given that, would you say that ads saying the AARP is anti-military and pro-gay marriage are appropriate? Surely you wouldn't, since they likely do not have a position on either issue. This isn't about anything as noble as "unmasking" an organization, it is smear politics plain and simple.

Has anyone here seen the ad anywhere besides on liberal blogs like the Kos? My prediction - Karl Rove produced this ad, sent it to Kos for posting, and Kos will be blamed for creating a ficticious ad to smear Republicans. Sorry, a little levity.

We all agree that this ad is slimy and certainly out-of-context and inaccurate. Probably a mis-guided attempt to drive traffic, or perhaps as they said just a 'test' ad, but I doubt that one. What if USA Next ran an ad offering a "free iPod for bashing AARP" or "Free Red Lobster $50 dinner to debunk liberal lies" - would that be better or worse?

Wow! aevans176 who died and made you custodian of what is"objective" and from another post "intelligent" debate?



Do you have any information you can cite to back this assertion up? I don’t think anyone has said ”all Republicans" are anti-AARP. What we’re saying is that those Republicans who are anti-AARP stand to benefit from USA Next’s involvement. There are Republicans who let self-interest overrule ideology.



What you are implying is that John Kerry was “guilty until proved innocent.” These things happened thirty something years before the November election. We may never know the complete truth.



Again I don’t think anyone has suggested that all Republicans agree with USA Next. Your use of the phrase right-wing is in this case a self-inflicted label.

Oh come on Carlito, do you actually think I would be trotting a "fake" ad around? This was on the USA NEXT website until they yanked it because of the negative response. It was also on several right wing weblogs. It has been picked up by numerous news organizations, I think you have a pretty large burden of proof if you want to suggest it is "fake".

Must you resort to trying to discredit the ad because it is so classless?

"No one ever wants to be associated with the guy doing the heavy lifting"???
Really-
Would you associate yourself w/ Micheal Moore or Movon?
I think the fact that these organizations (people) are controversial alone gets them press, but I would hope that the majority of America disassociates themselves from their nonsense. (Which may not be true seeing how M Moore's film did at the box office...hmmm)

As far as answering the question, of course I don't agree with tactics like these. I would've figured that you all (y'all!) could've caught on by all the USA NEXT bashing in my posts...

In reference to getting off topic, we should start another thread about how ss reform is necessary and why...but not on this thread.

Finally, to bring this discussion full circle in reference to the Swift Boat Vets and their affinity for mud-slinging; I believe what was said about J Kerry as did many Americans. If there had not been some truthfulness in their statements, JK would've denied it... like it or not.

levity [levɪti:]
1 levity
feeling an inappropriate lack of seriousness
╚gaiety; playfulness
2 levity
lightness of manner
╚frivolity; frivolousness
╚flippancy; light-mindedness

Sorry Cube - was joking. I've posted my comment on the inappropriate ad above. And yes, I've seen it on right-leaning blogs as well, most of whom roundly condemn this stupidity. (at the risk of more levity - could be Karl Rove pulling a jedi-mind trick on them )

Okay, I'm gonna have to issue with this definition of liberal. While AARP may be liberal, it can't be because of the "big government" criteria. This is because Republicans are the ones growing government not Democrats. Now unless you're going to define Republicans=big government=liberal, I think you'll have to find a better definition. Besides, 1994 is calling: it wants its "big government liberal" catch phrase back.

Gov't solutions (vs. private sector) to problems is more of a liberal position, and AARP seem to lean that way. I didn't say anything about Republicans in any of my posts, except a facetious comment regarding Karl Rove. I don't care which party is growing government with what program - I want them all to stop it! Bush is a freaking HUGE government liberal in a lot of ways, but it doesn't make the AARP "not" liberal by comparison.

1) The attacks against AARP were inappropriate but in keeping with right wing strategy. Has anyone read the AARP article about Social Security? They seem to have their facts straight. I recently attended a town meeting regarding Social Security with Nancy Pelosi here in San Francisco. It was brought up how folks on the right, when someone speaks out against them, rather than debating the facts on which they do not have a leg to stand, they will discredit the messenger. Hence a Social Security article inspires a strikeback ad which references the war and gay marriage(???).

2) Another example of that strategy is MoveOn. MoveOn got their "zealot" status when a contest entry which compared GWB to Hitler was posted on their website without being screened, along with thousands of others. It was discovered by right-leaning folks and publicized by them as "The MoveOn ad." As soon as it was brought to their attention MoveOn immediately took it down and apologized. Unfortunately the effect of the incident remains. As a member of MoveOn I do find it embarrassing when I go to factcheck.org and see an article about misinformation in a MoveOn ad. I've written to them and told them as much. However, to describe them as zealots is wholly inaccurate.

You can call it bashing, I consider it criticism. But please understand I’m an equal opportunity “basher”, I didn’t have kind words for Howie on the recent Dean thread. I think our only difference is I’ll call a spade a spade regardless of party affiliation. I’ve only seen two Republican stalwarts on this board ever level criticism at the GOP and I find it hard to believe this party and their agenda is that perfect.


It’s equally difficult for me to believe that most conservatives don’t worry about gay marriages, every Republican I know and listen to is against the concept. The gay marriage amendment was on the ballot last fall in my state and in a very tight race we elected our first Republican governor in 32 years. I’ve been involved with local and state politics for about the same amount of time and my guess is that amendment was the difference. USA Next is trying to use the same scare tactics to push the Bush agenda on social security.


Count me and most of my fellow KY democrats amongst them. Although registered Dem’s outnumber Rep’s 3-2 in Kentucky, the GOP has carried this state in the last 5 out of 7 Presidential elections. But here’s what you need to understand: the gay amendment in our state, like most amendments, isn’t officially a partisan sponsored issue. But since Bush just happened to be pushing for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages it was absorbed by the voters as a republican initiative (if you don't think so then tell me the last time he spoke on this subject). This was further reinforced by the conservative talking heads and now by USA Next. I’ll be the first to admit, it was a very savvy political maneuver by the GOP that I’m convinced won them the election, both here and nationally.


You’ll have a hard time finding me saying anything positive about Moveon or any of these groups, again, I’m an equal opportunity basher. My criticism was aimed more at the overall hypocrisy of the GOP and these specific USA Next tactics.



When you’re on top of the hill you’re the only target, so you probably need to thicken that skin and get used to it. For the last 12-15 years the GOP has done an excellent job of branding Democrats as liberals and liberals as evil, and every time Democrats are mentioned that includes me (I’m a progressive conservative and certainly not evil). Generalizations work both ways my friend. NiteGuy did an outstanding job showing us exactly who makes up the USA Next organization, there’s no doubt in my mind (because it’s open) the source of their motivation.

I don’t’ know who told you AARP is a non partisan organization. They’re an organization that recruits members on the premise of offering benefits. As such they will direct their activities towards issues that potentially impact the interest of their members. USA Next is just the attack dog for the GOP, what do their members get?

Let's be realistic. This thread is discussing USA NEXT and their tactics in reference to the AARP.

If you really believe that the DNC is perfect either, or that any party's agenda isn't slanted in some way or another... I have a bridge to sell you. That is far from what this thread is about.

Criticism would include objective statements in respect to tactics, issues, members of organizations, etc. Obviously the people at USA NEXT have stirred up some liberal dirt, and peaked hopes. I find it funny that people on this board really think that a little USA NEXT ad might make a difference in elections. Understandably, SS reform might, but this ad is not going to tip any scales.

What I will say is that this hasn't even hit the mainstream media in a fashion that would be cause for any concern by republicans. I hate to tell you, but our opinions at AD aren't going to make any sincere strides in voting history.

I hate that you think that Republicans see Democrats as evil... because it's far from true. Don't make yourselves out to be martyrs, nor should you associate a fringe group to the whole. There are some sincere fundamental differences in the Republican party these days than there are w/ the DNC. That being said, regardless of how we feel about "alternative lifestyles" or SS benefits, no one would advocate stooping that low.

The GOP is a respectable organization that wouldn't put out ads in this fashion. The funny thing is that no one on this board or this thread have addressed my references to Micheal Moore. I think that he is no different than USA NEXT except that he made it to the silver screen w/ his bologna.

I’ll address the second part first…um, because Michael Moore has nothing to do with USA Next? Just a thought. MM is a writer, movie writer, etc., not a PR firm or ad agency. He and his moviemaking crew did not used to be, or work for, the Democratic party (as far as I know). On the other hand, USA Next is staffed with nothing but. Let me refresh NiteGuy’s post:


It’s a specious comparison. And, BTW, bologna is lunch meat, baloney is nonsense. Just so you know.

Liberal dirt? So does that mean you actually believe that the AARP is anti-troop and pro-gay marriage? Where is this liberal dirt that you speak of aevans? So far I only see completely unproven libel that the creators realized would come back to bite them. If you have some sort of evidence of... well anything, please do share.


Really, so are the NY Times and CNN Money not the mainstream media? I sure thought they were, in fact it doesn't get much bigger than the NY Times. So you might want to check your facts before making that statement.

However, to your point we'll have to wait and see if the story has legs and if USA Next decides to do anything else monumentally stupid in the coming weeks. If the press smells blood, I guarantee you the feeding frenzy will commence.


Do I need to start dragging things out of this thread from the 2004 election (not exactly ancient history quite yet) aevans? Please spare me this "the GOP is a respectable organization" garbage and kindly remove your rose colored glasses, they will do what it takes to win at all costs just like any other political group out there up to and including the DNC.

Edited to add: If anyone is interested here is an 87 page footnoted document with all of the dirt on USA next courtesy of BlogPAC Inteligence - link.

What does not being an ad agency or a PR firm have to do with the price of tea in China??? Really... you all are really stretching.

USA NEXT might be staffed with people that are REPUBLICANS, but wow, what did you really expect????

Micheal Moore, Moveon.org, etc are similar smear groups that sit on the outside of decency and objectivity. My reference was at least legitimate in that most liberals villified Micheal Moore even though his references lacked truth. Can you imagine what kind of reaction you'd have if you were in a grocery store line with someone that talked about how wonderful the USA NEXT ad was????? This happened all the time w/ Far 9/11.

You reference a fundraiser (as if Micheal Moore didn't contribute), someone tied to Reagan, a lobbyist, and someone that was in Congress during the 80's. GOOD LORD. You'd think Senator McCain was working a part time job there!!!! The simple fact that you mention a fundraiser but negate the fact that MM was no better (if not worse) pretty well negates any points that you might have had.

What I'm saying in a very easy to digest manner, is that both sides have zealots and that lumping all republicans into the USA NEXT pile is absurd. It would be like me stating that the moveon.org folks are holding the reigns to the DNC... just outlandish.

I know that you all really, really want to tie this to GW, or any other prominent member of our nation's gov't (that happened to be a Republican). That's not going to happen.

btw, we probably shouldn't get into correcting grammatical mistakes on this board as it could become cumbersome and unmeaningful.

Are you intentionally being obtuse? First you say the GOP wouldn't put out these kinds of ADS, then you bring up Michael Moore. USA Next is a PR and advertising machine - Michael Moore is just a filmmaker swith a point of view! USA Next's raison d'etre is PR and advertising; in this case for the Republicans. Hello????

And an interesting note about "experts":

* Interesting that they are affiliated with the same yahoos who think cartoons are an insidious plot to make children gay. IMO these people have some serious sexuality issues of their own they should be dealing with.