Support NeoGAF

[Drinky Crow]

Seems the Swift Boat crew is sternly pressing out a new attack for our little monkey arch-conservative pals to gobble down. The AARP (American Association of Retired Persons, one of the biggest lobbies in America), according to Rove and his tools, hates the troops but really digs the hot dude-on-dude action.

How is this relevant?

Well, the AARP doesn't want to see Social Security cannibalized by private interests as per the Bush Mandate. Basically, the logic is as follows:

1. The AARP wants to keep Social Security intact and buttress it with additional funds.
2. Social Security is something only lazy hippies want.
3. Lazy hippies hate soldiers and like crazy gay sex in the streets.
4. Therefore, supporting the current Social Security framework is a victory for the terrorists as well as an implicit signature on the new social contract that forces every man to put his doodle in another man's bottom.

More about it: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_02_20.php#004857

GO AMERICA

 

[Escape Goat]

doodle in another man's bottom

Doodle?

 

[fart]

i'm speechless, drinky.

ok not really, those two lovebirds are cutex1000

 

[Drinky Crow]

Doodle?

Look between your legs. Lift yer belly if you have to.

 

[Drensch]

Karl's boyfriend Jeff Gooker likes guys in camo making out.

 

[Drinky Crow]

More importantly, does the AARP hate or endorse the White House approved hotmilitarystuds.com?

I CAN'T TELL WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO THINK, KARL. (((((((((((((((((((

 

[etiolate]

Doodle?

It sounds like they were playing Wario Ware Forbidden Touch.

 

[Escape Goat]

Look between your legs. Lift yer belly if you have to.

Its so....so....big.

 

[Dilbert]

That ad is incredibly disturbing, to say the least.

I read some of the articles on the page the ad linked to, and there was no mention of gays anywhere within...although there were some gratuituous handjobs handed out for the true American patriotism of "those Swift Boat guys."

 

[teiresias]

So basically you're evil and depraved if you put love over war.

 

[bishoptl]

GAY love. That's a missile crisis this country doesn't need.

 

[Drinky Crow]

Oh, and let's not forget the corrollary:

1a: FDR didn't have polio; he had AIDS! AIDS he got from making sweet, sweaty LUV to Josef Stalin himself.

 

[whytemyke]

:lol :lol :lol

 

[videogamer]

AIDS he got from making sweet, sweaty LUV to Josef Stalin himself.

So the reason why FDR needed help walking wasn't because of polio but because of Stalin's, uh, brutal style?

 

[Drinky Crow]

Now you're thinkin' like a Swift Boat Veteran for Truth!

 

[Macam]

This was reported in the NY Times earlier today as well as by Daily Kos yesterday. Essentially, the a lobbying group has hired some of the same consultants behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to attack the AARP. The group, called USA Next, can be found here http://www.unitedseniors.org/. They just changed their URL from www.usanext.com to www.unitedseniors.org apparently. I'm not against privatisation, but Bush is selling the real costs and options for reforming it short.

 

[videogamer]

Some parody images:

why they may be choosing this angle:

Like Michigan's proposal, the "marriage amendment" in Ohio went far beyond simply outlawing same-sex marriage. The language was vague enough that it's likely that it also outlaws civil unions, may imperil some domestic partnerships, and--this is what caused the AARP to get involved--it will probably "deny rights of property ownership, inheritance, pensions, power of attorney and other matters of vital interest to the health and well being of unmarried older couples."

Couldn't find anything on way the AARP may have problems with "guys in camo" though.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/21/185140/081
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/21/164929/948

 

[etiolate]

The AARP magazine recently did a piece that was like "Sexiest Retired People in America" and I think it was all girls. Like retired hollywood actresses. So

uh

AARP IS LEZBO.

 

[Crandle]

As irritating as the partisan hacks who make up the Swifties are (I hoped, apparently in vain, that they would have the decency to disappear forever after fanning the flames of 2004's most inane campaign "issue") the AARP aren't exactly sweetness and light either; recall that their support was essential to getting Bush's gigantic waste of a Medicare bill through. The organization puts me in mind of those crabby old people who are damn well going to get their way, no matter how many others' interests need to be pushed aside.

 

[Dilbert]

The organization puts me in mind of those crabby old people who are damn well going to get their way, no matter how many others' interests need to be pushed aside.

Doesn't that describe EVERY special interest group...sans the "old" part?

 

[Crandle]

Doesn't that describe EVERY special interest group...sans the "old" part?

Sure, most of the time. You're much better off getting information from even a partisan think tank than a lobbying group of any kind.

The thing about the AARP, though, is that they're the largest such organization in America and thus have massive political clout.

 

[videogamer]

Sure, most of the time. You're much better off getting information from even a partisan think tank than a lobbying group of any kind.

The thing about the AARP, though, is that they're the largest such organization in America and thus have massive political clout.

Do you guys have an AARP equivalent with the same kind of clout in Canada?

 

[videogamer]

"USA NEXT" guy goes on TV to try to squirm his way out (with the host giving him an easy time):

http://movies.ziaspace.com/Inside Politics--3.wmv
from http://www.crooksandliars.com/

Also, there is word on the internet that the two kissing men did not give permission to have their picture used for the ad. The ad creators may have just stolen it off the Portland Tribune. I haven't seen independent verification of this though.

http://dailykos.com/user/RickyMonet

 

[Mandark]

the AARP aren't exactly sweetness and light either; recall that their support was essential to getting Bush's gigantic waste of a Medicare bill through

Yeah, that's one of the more mind-boggling aspects of this. The AARP supported the Bush admin on a really major bill that probably wouldn't have passed otherwise, and this is how they're paid back. Maybe Grover Norquist was right about bipartisanship.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Republican bipartisanship lasts only as long as it takes to get their bill passed. There is no sense of reciprocity or ethics within this administration or Congress. So yeah, that's pretty much the legislative equivalent to date rape, from what I can gather.

The entire social security debate is going poorly for the GOP. They've failed to get bipartisan cover in the Senate (the body that will make or break the bill), parts of their own congressional representation are balking and a larger part quietly wish the whole thing would go away, and they have been very unsuccessful at getting thte 55+ crowd to believe that their benefits would not be affected, and, more importantly, that future generations would get the same benefits to boot.

The latter part is key here-one of the things they were hoping for (and they were hoping for a lot-the entire social security reform is like trying to make small slam when you barely have game) was that they would be able to factor out the 55+ crowd and focus on the under-40 set, people who have been conned into believing that Social Security is in danger of not being around when they retire, which is pretty silly given the economic realities of the program and the relatively simple changes that can be made to extent its life for another 50 years. If they could indeed isolate the debate to that under-40 crowd while getting a pass from the 55+ crowd, then they might be able to smokescreen the whole thing by declaring the program in crisis.

It didn't play out-the Democrats have stayed united to make it a partisan issue, the GOP is, for once, losing the language war, and the polling is terrible in even the reddest of areas. AARP got involved early, and has been a major player in the whole debate despite Democratic hesitation to work with an organization that helped pass No Big Pharma Left Behind.

That's where USA Next comes in. They are employing the same strategies that SBVT did in the Presidential Race-beat down on the strongest aspect of the opposition by attacking their motives and credibility. At best, you can permanently taint their record and have many people question their motives whenever they do something. At worst, you've gotten enough airtime to expouse your BS that the "the side says this, this side says that" media will invite you to the table to debate the other side, thus getting your talking points and Orwellian neologies out for general consumption. SBVT was inbetween those two extremes, but it appears that USA Next may very well get torpedoed before they even start because of this ad and the fury that it's caused.

SS reform is DOA provided that a Democrat in the Senate doesn't cave in. The whole thing is a test of party unity-if the GOP is given any measure of bipartisan cover, they will implicity get credibility that the program needs reform or crisis, meaning that SOME legislation is required. Then, it's a lose-lose situation for Democrats, support and see one of the finest and fairest public programs we have in place gutted and dismantle, or oppose it and then get Roved in 2006 in the midterms, at which point there won't be enough Democrats left to oppose it in the Senate.

 

[Pimpwerx]

The AARP can eat shit as far as I'm concerned. They played along with the MC prescription scam. And they convinced a lot of seniors to go along with it. Fuck 'em. I agree with their stance on SS, but they dropped the ball in a big way with the prescription thing, so they've lost my support. PEACE.

 

[videogamer]

The AARP can eat shit as far as I'm concerned. They played along with the MC prescription scam. And they convinced a lot of seniors to go along with it. Fuck 'em. I agree with their stance on SS, but they dropped the ball in a big way with the prescription thing, so they've lost my support. PEACE.

They don't have to really "support" them. Just work with them when necessary. The AARP remains immensely influential, and it wouldn't hurt to keep in good terms with them. The left should not lose too much by defending the AARP against that ad... I mean it was obviously outrageous.

Fragamemnon: Nice wrap up of what's been going on. The media has already started to play along. Just check out how Woodruff just let the USANEXT guy get away with the blogger comment. Even if USANEXT has tripped up on this issue, they still have a lot of money from the pharmaceutical companies to spend. I'd like to see USANEXT drown in negative publicity, so I'm with AARP on this issue.

Mr. Jarvis said donors have included food, nutrition, energy and pharmaceutical companies, which have given money to support various advertising campaigns.

In previous years, and often during elections, the money was used to saturate the airwaves with advertisements. In 2002, for example, the group relied partly on money from the pharmaceutical industry to spend roughly $9 million on television commercials and mailings supporting Republican prescription drug legislation and the lawmakers who backed it.

The group spent more money than any other interest group on House races that year, according to a study by the Wisconsin Advertising Project, and drew charges from Democrats that it was a stealth campaign by the pharmaceutical industry to support House Republicans. The group denied the allegations. Critics contended that the group was a front for corporate special interests. In a 2002 report, Public Citizen's Congress Watch denounced it, calling its leadership "hired guns."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.confessore.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/21/politics/21social.html?pagewanted=2

 

[Drinky Crow]

Frag, since I have your attention:

Could you explain to me what the ulterior Republican interest in privatizing SS is? I know the "privatization = good because uh somehow less government overhead might be involved and free market morality yadda yadda invisible hand of supply-side jesus" Randbabble, but who specifically among the many, many corporate lobbies that tongue conservative ass benefits the most? Banks? Market analysts? Investment firms? That nasally dude on NPR's Marketplace? HALLIBURTON????

 

[Fragamemnon]

My last repsonse got ate by a bad connection, so short and simple:

1) Weathly stockowners benefit from rising stock values due to significant increase in investment.
2) Investment firms get huge amounts of corporate welfare because they, not the SSA, will administer the private accounts. Someone's got to pay for that administration, and that someone will be the American taxpayer and the federal government.

 

[ge-man]

Yeah, that seems to be one part of the Social Security plan that hasn't been well advertised. However, I don't think the Republican party is looking at re-imagining the program for financial gain. I think the main goal is an ideological one--the program was created by democrats, and the neoconservaties really want to tear down everything that party has erected.

 

[Pimpwerx]

I think it's bigger than that. They're just trying to dismantle the welfare state. It's what they've been trying to do for years. The tax cuts were a major attack on it. Afterall, you're not gonna win too many arguments by suggesting a hike in taxes to feed these social programs, right? That's why I think we're lucky the cuts were not made permanent and I hope they are someday repealed. By cutting the revenue stream, they know they can continue to fund the other socialist cancer in the budget, the military, without much complaint. "In these post-9/11 times..." security is the big buzz word, so the notion of cutting the biggest pork barrel scam running would be impossible. So what's gotta give. Ah yes, the non-destructive social programs like SS and MC. Welfare reform has been a war cry for decades now. How is it that SS has even been allowed to get this bad? Why would the government allow it to get to a point where it would actually need to be replaced in the first place?

There's really no sense behind it, it's all just ideology. What's funny is that most of the people against SS are probably gonna benefit from it more than the privatized system. But far be it from common sense to get in the way of a good old-fashioned partisan rally. This is ignoring the obvious catastrophe awaiting us if Bush's plan was to actually succeed (and hell hasn't frozen over just yet). But whatever, the plan will fail, and I don't expect a compromise to be reached either. I expect the system to teeter on the brink of collapse for a couple more decades, before someone eventually convinces the Congress of the future to pass a useful bill. But then we'll be sure to get it pork barrelled with more military spending, so it'll all be a wash.

I got a simple fix for SS. Cut military spending in half. So we'll only outspend the next 10 countries combined (or whatever ridiculous figure there is). God forbid we couldn't have laser-guided ass warmers updated each fucking year. PEACE.

 

[Mandark]

Austan Goolsbee (General School of Business, University of Chicago) finds that "Creating individual accounts in the social security system would lead to a massive increase in payments of financial fees to private financial management companies. Under Plan II of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS), the net present value of such payments would be $940 billion."

Details.

I don't need to tell you that this will be one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times. If we succeed in reforming Social Security, it will rank as one of the most significant conservative governing achievements ever. The scope and scale of this endeavor are hard to overestimate.

...

The debate about Social Security is going to be a monumental clash of ideas -- and it's important for the conservative movement that we win both the battle of ideas and the legislation that will give those ideas life. The Democrat Party leadership, the AARP, and many others will go after Social Security reform hammer and tongs.

...

For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win -- and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country. We have it within our grasp to move away from dependency on government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals.

Josh Marshall thinks this is the first part of a phase-out plan. I remember a few months ago Brad DeLong pointed out that people will inevitably demand access to their private accounts before they retire. It says something that the people behind this identify with those who were fighting against SS "six decades" ago.

Another possibility is that it's a screen for cutting beneifts. "Well, with higher returns on stocks, you won't need this level of guaranteed benefits," etc. Bush is openly floating the idea of cuts, but that's been treated as a secondary issue so far.

If Bush tries to default on the trust fund, I'm going to use caps lock until people start confusing me with Willco.

 

[Father_Brain]

Update: The gay couple pictured in the ad are considering suing USA Next and have issued a press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 28, 2005

Contact: John Aravosis
john@wiredstrategies.com
Spokesman for Richard M. Raymen and Steven P. Hansen

“USA NEXT” MISAPPROPRIATED COUPLES’
IMAGE FOR ANTI-GAY AD CAMPAIGN
Couple: Image Stolen for Campaign Against AARP

WASHINGTON, DC - Conservative front organization USA Next was accused today of illegally using a gay couple’s wedding photo in an anti-gay ad campaign supporting President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

The couple in the photo, Richard M. Raymen and Steven P. Hansen of Portland, Oregon, have come forward through an attorney to demand that USA Next stop using their image, and that the organization publicly apologize for using their image in a homophobic and libelous way. The demand, contained in a letter sent today to USA Next Chairman and CEO Charles Jarvis, references the couples’ right to seek damages for the misappropriation of their image.

In one version of the USA Next advertisement disseminated widely on the Internet last week, and aired repeatedly by television news programs nationwide, the couple’s image, superimposed with a green checkmark, is side-by-side a picture of a US soldier with a red “X” across it. Below the photos is the phrase “The REAL AARP Agenda.”

A copy of the ad can be viewed online here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/21/164929/948

"In 2004, our clients allowed their picture to be taken at their public celebration, as couples getting married do every day,” Christopher Wolf, a partner in the Washington, DC office of the New York-based law firm Proskauer Rose LLP and counsel for Raymen and Hansen. . “They did not volunteer to be models for a 2005 right-wing hate campaign, and never would have consented to having their images plastered in an ad of any kind, much less the one USA Next chose to run. USA Next has violated the law and must take responsibility for the consequences. Tort law is quite clear that USA Next acted illegally.”

“The USA Next ad communicates the false message that gay marriages generally, and our clients specifically, are the antithesis of supporting American troops during wartime,” said Wolf. “Gay marriage, and our clients’ ceremony, have nothing to do with support of the troops. Our clients are patriotic Americans who strongly support our service members.”

USA Next’s ad campaign has generated heated debate about the organization.. Ramen and Hansen have been the subject of hate-filled messages and ridicule as a result of the ad campaign, and have suffered a significant invasion of privacy.

“We never signed up to be Harry and Louise for a hate-mongering group,” Raymen said, referring to the fictional couple used in television commercials to scuttle then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal. “USA Next is illegally using our photo to portray us as a threat to American values. How would any citizen like having their image stolen and broadcast for the purpose of tarring our troops and suggesting that you’re un-American?”

On behalf of Raymen and Hansen, Wolf wrote USA Next today demanding that the organization immediately stop using photos of the couple and that it publicly apologize for the ongoing harm it is causing.

“As our clients contemplate their full legal remedies, we are writing to demand that you immediately cease and desist using any photograph of our clients and that you publicly apologize to them for the use you already have made, and the harm you have already caused,” Wolf wrote to USA Next.

Wolf said his clients seriously are considering filing suit against USA Next but, regardless, use of the photo must stop.

 

[videogamer]

Good for them. They should sue. It's not kosher to use someone's picture in an ad/ commercial product without permission in any case, but it's even worse that it was used in that hateful way.

Not only that, the USANEXT people seem to have forgotten to ask the newspaper about using the photo they took. Then again, what can you expect from their kind.