Attack on AARP, Like 'Religious War,' Built on Either/Or Fallacy

"Of the 10 Congressional districts with the highest percentage of Social Security beneficiaries, seven are held by Republicans; five of those seven are in the Sunshine State. . . . approximately two-thirds of the 25 districts with the highest percentage of people on Social Security are currently held by Republicans, according to calculations done by TechPolitics, an Internet research site."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook28feb28,1,4741916.column?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

RONALD BROWNSTEIN / WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
Attack on AARP, Like 'Religious War,' Built on Either/Or Fallacy
Ronald Brownstein
Washington Outlook

February 28, 2005

As synonyms for the word "vile," my thesaurus offers some of the following: offensive, objectionable, odious, repulsive, repellent, repugnant, revolting, disgusting, sickening, loathsome, foul, nasty, contemptible, despicable and noxious.

Any of those words would aptly describe the advertising attack launched last week against AARP, the largest advocacy group for seniors, by the conservative interest group USA Next. But there's one word that unfortunately can't be applied: surprising.

The salvo against AARP crystallizes trends developing both in the debate over Social Security and more broadly in the competition between the parties in Washington. On both fronts, the news isn't good.

USA Next, which envisions itself as the conservative alternative to AARP, previously made its biggest splash by using drug company money to help fund an ad blitz promoting the Medicare prescription drug plan backed by President Bush and the pharmaceutical industry. That led critics to accuse the organization of operating as a front group for the drug makers.<snip>

But the organization has never ruled out supporting individual investment accounts as an addition to Social Security. And in a recent speech, its chief executive, William Novelli, left open the door to "possibly adjusting benefits" — which means cutting them — in an overall reform package.<snip>

<snip>The USA Next attacks on AARP so spectacularly set back the cause of restructuring Social Security that they deepen suspicion that conservatives are less interested in striking a deal than provoking a stalemate they can use as an issue in the 2006 and 2008 elections.<snip>

Does anyone of have picture of him meeting with the Democratic Black National Caucus?