As the W Turns (and the Bush Burns)--a story of love and hate for the AARP

Overview

I have not written anything about the current Social Security imbroglio because 1) other sites (Talking Points Memo and Political Animal among them) have been covering the issue in depth, and 2) the whole thing gives me an extreme case of tired head. Nonetheless, there is one aspect of the story that I find rather fascinating. The AARP has come out against privatization, and the Republican attack machine has gone into high gear. Oh, what a difference just over a year makes. Back in December 2003, the White House and Republicans everywhere were praising the AARP for its support in the Medicare restructuring. And now, the AARP is being demonized because it is not in lock step with the Bush administration on Social Security.

Late 2003: "We love you..."

On December 12, 2003, Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. You know, that was one of the big victories for Bush in his first term. At the signing ceremony, Bush thanked a bunch of people who helped get the bull passed through Congress. And then Bush said this:

But the groups that speak for the elderly did fantastic work on this legislation. See, there was a lot of pressure not to get something done -- for the wrong reasons, I might add. But Bill Novelli, the CEO of AARP, stood strong in representing the people he was supposed to represent and he worked hard to get this legislation passed. And, Bill, I want to thank you for your leadership. (Applause.) You were joined by Jim Parkel, who is the President of the AARP. Jim, I want to thank you, as well, for doing what was right, for focusing on the needs of the seniors of our country. (Applause.)

Wow! George his own self said the guys running the AARP stood strong, did the right thing, and focused on the needs of this great nation's senior citizens. And George thanked them for working hard to get the bill passed. What a great couple of guys.

About three weeks earlier, the AARP endorsed the White House's plan for Medicare prescription benefits, and boy howdy, Republicans were damn sure happy about that, as evidenced by these excerpts from a Washington Times article:

Republican leaders said the endorsement will help secure votes for the bill and fend off Democratic arguments that the legislation will undermine Medicare by giving private plans too big of a role in providing seniors with the new drug benefit.

"AARP gives you the 'Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval' when it comes to seniors' issues," said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican. "They care deeply about the future of Medicare, and they wouldn't endorse something that would lead to the end of that program as some critics contend."

Another GOP Congressional leader expressed similar sentiments in an AP report:

Republicans for months had yearned for AARP's endorsement as a foil against Democratic allegations that the GOP is out to gut the government-run health insurance program for 40 million older and disabled Americans. They believe the group's seal of approval will put pressure on Democrats to support the bill, however much they dislike specific provisions.

"AARP is a vitally important group, not because they swing votes necessarily, but because they do represent seniors, 40 million seniors," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

Just how important was the AARP's endorsement? According to a December 30, 2004 New York Times article, "Lawmakers of both parties said the Medicare bill might not have passed without a last-minute endorsement by AARP[.]" (emphasis added). And for you wingers that just cannot bring yourself to believe anything in the New York Times, check out this assessment from the Wall Street Journal: "As the Medicare fight showed, the Republican president can prevail without much support from Congress's Democratic minority. But few think he would have won that battle without AARP." (emphasis added).

So, the AARP was a big reason why the Medicare prescription bill got passed. The AARP was a major reason why Bush got his most significant domestic policy win to date. That's why back in December 2003, Republicans loved the AARP.

But what about now?

Present day: "We hate you."

• White House
  

In an article in this week's Newsweek, Howard Fineman wrote the following:

A pioneer of grass-roots lobbying, the group finds itself under attack from a new legion of well-funded, Web-based foes who have decided that the Bush plan will fail if a leading critic—AARP—isn't bloodied. "The AARP is an ossified bureaucracy that isn't always responsive to its membership," said a top White House official.

(emphasis added). Oh, my...first Bush said the AARP was representing its membership well (in the Medicare effort), and now someone from the White House says the AARP is not responsive to its membership.

I must say that I have not found any similar quotes from White House officials, and the fact that this quote is from an unnamed source does not exactly give it the highest degree of credibility. However, there are other identified Republicans speaking out against the AARP.

• Rep. Bill Thomas
  

On January 23, 2005, Rep. Bill Thomas, a Republican from California and Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, took a shot at the AARP on Meet the Press: "Frankly, I've been upset with some of those senior groups, frankly AARP with the tens of millions of dollars they're spending to simply scare people."

• The GOP in general and spokesman Brian Jones in particular
  

On January 24, 2005, the AP published an article about a poll conducted by the AARP which showed

deep public skepticism about President Bush's plan for personal accounts. The Republican Party immediately criticized the study as flawed.

*******

In a two-page rebuttal, the Republican Party said the AARP's survey relied on slanted wording, misleading questions and an unrepresentative sample of the nation as a whole to come up with its findings. "Nonetheless, the survey still reveals overwhelming concern about Social Security and support for finding a solution now,'' the GOP added.

*******

“While the president and members of Congress are starting a dialogue on how to secure Social Security for future generations, it's unfortunate that a third-party group would look to muddy the debate with a survey laden with half-truths and significant methodological flaws,'' said Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican Party.

(emphasis added). This causes me to smile demurely. First of all, the GOP mischaracterized the results of the survey. Here's what the AARP said in the Summary of Findings in the published survey:

When asked about their perceptions of the current Social Security system, 8 in 10 agreed that: Social Security should be strengthened not replaced (80%). This strong preference extends across all age, race/ethnicity, and gender groups.

Similarly 9 in 10 Americans of every age, race/ethnicity and gender group agree that Social Security’s problems can be fixed and should be fixed sooner rather than later.

The survey shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans are concerned about Social Security, but their concern is that it be strengthed. The survey also shows an overwhelming majority wants the problems with Social Security to be fixed sooner rather than later, but the GOP claimed that the survey showed that people wanted a solution now. The second reason the GOP response makes me smile is that the GOP claims that the poll is flawed, slanted, misleading, and not representative--but only to the extent it shows people do not like the private accounts idea. However, to the extent the survey shows "overwhelming concern and the desire for a solution now," the survey is accurate and representative. Make up your minds, you disingenuous putzes. You can't have it both ways.

• The Bug Man
  

Then there's the Bug Man, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. As the Washington Post reported on March 3, 2005,

At a closed-door meeting of Republican members yesterday morning, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (Tex.) told them they need to be more aggressive in promoting Bush's plan. "Our job will take guts and time," he said, according to attendees.

After the meeting, DeLay lashed out at AARP, the seniors group that has led opposition to the Bush plan. "It's incredibly irresponsible of the AARP to be against a solution that hasn't even been written yet and running ads trying to convince people that personal retirement accounts is like going to Las Vegas and playing the lottery," he told reporters.

I have three responses: 1) While Bush's plan may not yet be written, it is beyond discussion that he has repeatedly talked about private accounts and that what he has been advocating is the eventual replacement of Social Security as we know it with private accounts. Anyone who says otherwise just might be high. In DeLay's case, maybe all the chemicals and pesticides he used in his former career have warped his fragile little mind (kind of like an animated Texas Bug Man, Dale Gribble of "King of the Hill"). 2) Could he possibly use correct grammar? "Accounts is" is incorrect. "Accounts are" would be correct. 3) You know, Tom, there is a chance that many people (and I was one of them) were not even aware of the AARP ad to which you refer, but thanks to you, now a lot more people know about it. Here's a tip, Skippy: if you do not want people to know that someone is comparing your plan to gambling away your money, don't mention it to national reporters.

Well, I seem to have strayed a bit from my original point. The point is that the Republicans have now decided that the AARP is horrible and must be stopped.

• USA Next
  

Which brings us to the truly fine folks of USA Next. This is a group that fancies itself as the alternative to AARP. These people claim to be a grass roots organization, but in truth they are what Josh Marshall calls an "astroturf organization." Astroturf is, of course, artificial grass. Astroturf groups try to look like true grass roots groups, but they are in fact front groups for other groups. Such is the case with USA Next. For an explanation, check out this general description of USA Next, then check out the detailed version.

In the meantime, here's an overview. As Fineman stated in his Newsweek article, about a month ago, USA Next was known as the United Seniors Association (USA--ain't that clever?). And here is an interesting fact about "USA" from this May 2004 Washington Monthly article:

USA claims a nationwide network of more than one million activists, but, just like Progress for America, listed zero income from membership dues in its most recent available tax return. USA does, however, have plenty of money on its hands. During the 2002 elections, with an "unrestricted educational grant" from the drug industry burning a hole in its pocket, the group spent roughly $14 million--the lion's share of its budget--on ads defending Republican members of Congress for their votes on a Medicare prescription-drug bill.

Grass roots. Yeah, right. And one more fact you should know: a major contributor to "USA" is Bob Perry, the Texas businessman who is a close friend of The Bug Man and the money behind the lying sumbags known as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

With all that in mind, let's get to USA Next's approach to attacking the AARP. USA Next paid for an ad that had a picture of a soldier in desert combat gear with a red "x" on it, and next to it was a picture of two gay men in tuxes kissing with a green check mark on it. Underneath the pictures was the caption "The REAL AARP Agenda." You can see the ad here. That link also provides this further analysis from Kevin Drum:

By the way, (Charlie) Jarvis (the head of USA Next) claims the ad is a legitimate attack on ARRP because "they do not take a position on veterans and combat veterans health" and because they opposed the Ohio gay marriage ban. The first charge is ridiculous and the second is mendacious. AARP clearly stated that they opposed the Ohio law—and only the Ohio law—because it was so broadly and vaguely written that they were afraid it could affect things like power of attorney for unmarried older couples both straight and gay.

What a bunch of assholes.

Now I know what you wingers are thinking--USA Next is not connected to the White House, so Bush cannot be blamed for this ad. Indeed, Jarvis and other USA Next officials have expressly denied having any connection to the White House. Jarvis made such a denial to the New York Times, and then he said the following: "We don't like asking anyone for permission to do anything. We totally support the president's boldness on Social Security, but we don't coordinate with the White House or the Hill. We know the people at the White House agree with us and we agree with them." (emphasis added). Agree on what? These types of ads and tactics, perhaps?

Conclusion

Whether the White House is directly involved or not, there is no question that the Republicans have now turned on the AARP. The lesson here is that no one should ever think that supporting the White House on an issue will ever get you anything other than an insistence that you give your support blindly to every other position the White House takes. Another lesson is that that is how the Republican party pretty much operates these days.