USA NEXT calls anti-AARP ad just a test for Crazy Liberals

Crooksandliars has the video
Charlie Jarvis, chairmen of USA NEXT appeared on Inside Politics and tried to spin his way out of that disgusting ad.

Woodruff: ...is USA NEXT going to run this ad some more, and why'd you only have it up for one day?

Jarvis: We were testing to see if the left liberal groups would over react and they did. The hypothesis  was that they'd focus on one single, tiny image on one website ..

Woodruff playing along: It worked.

Jarvis: It worked. By the end of yesterday, to show you how crazy the left liberal groups are and that they have a death wish on Social Security. They were literally having people call (pause)television stations all over the country to pull the ad that didn't exist. Remarkable.

His rational that a scathing reaction to a sickening ad is a "death wish" is ludicrous. That death wish will ultimatley rest on the head of Jarvis, and USA NEXT.

Michael Tanner, from the Cato Institute was appalled.

TANNER : Well, we're very disappointed in this ad. full transcript ....We don't think that we should be going down the road to in essence a bigoted approach to gay rights or things of that nature in order to sell the very positive approach that we have for individual accounts.


When you put an ad on a website, it's real Charlie. This kind of sleazy, disgusting display reflects the  moral values that your company holds true and ultimately USA NEXT will be thought of not as an alternative to AARP, but as a bigoted, conniving company that will say anything to make a buck.


 Let's say we believed your bullshit excuse Charlie, that it was a tiny, little ad to trick the left wing groups(our influence is appreciated) What do you think the reaction of the right wing sites would be to an ad the AARP ran that said this Charlie?

"A starving, elderly couple with graying hair, homeless and in tattered clothes are scavenging through a dumpster looking for food. The Word "Hopeless" stencilled across the center in red / Flip side: A well dressed Wall Street executive is laughing, smoking a big cigar, drinking some champagne at a casino with a hot chic on his arm while throwing a pair of dice. The word "Jackpot" stenciled across the center in blue. The copy:

George Bush�s Social Security plan will deprive the elderly and the youth of our country the security  they might need to live and eat in dignity. While the fat cats at Wall Street will be gambling away the safety net that Social Security provides for their own personal gain. Thanks President Bush. We know who you really care about."

How do you thnk that one, tiny ad would play out?

•  Wow. I'm SURE they can do better then that.

  
  Hey, maybe we can create an ad promoting liberal causes by showing a picture of Bush slowly devouring a baby.  Then when the nuts come out to play... it's Gotcha!  Joke's on you.

  by anniest on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:18:56 PM PDT

•  Easier than that.

  Juxtapose some war footage with a couple of shots from the Inaugural orgy.

  *Hillbilly armor for a stunning mink coat. Sound like a fair deal to you?"

  by boadicea on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:22:50 PM PDT

•  this is Jarvis' talking point

  and he's sticking with it. Just heard the same drivel on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

  An ad that didn't exist. Tell that to the couple whose photo was used without their consent. Tell that to all of us who saw it. Tell that to the thousands of people who have seen it on the blogs.

  Didn't exist? Who is it that's divorced from reality?

  by compass rose on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:25:27 PM PDT

•  Calling Jon Lovitz!

  "We were testing to see if the left liberal groups would over react and they did."

  Yeah... that's the ticket. We were just testing! Haha! Merely acting, as it were! Yeah!

  by marisa on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:26:11 PM PDT

•  Jarvis tried this lame excuse on Tweety too

  Just saw Hardball (I never watch, honest.... left it on waiting for Olbermann).  Jarvis was interviewed with Charlie Rangel.  Jarvis tried to say that USANEXT just wanted a honest debate based on the facts, Rangel gave out a belly laugh.  

  Chris Matthews then pressed Rangel:  did he think that gay-baiting and accusing opponents of not supporting the troops was honest?  Were these really "facts" in the debate?  Jarvis then played the "drawing out the liberal bloggers" card, and Rangel laughed out loud again.  

  Matthews then pressed Jarvis on his connections to the publicity firm they hired, which had done the Swift Boat Smears job.  Jarvis said there was no connection between the two organizations, and that they were in different states.  After another couple of questions he admitted that USANEXT had OWNED this firm 4 years ago (but not any more....) and that they were in the same building in Fairfax, though they were 3 floors apart.

  Jarvis, in addition to being a poor and flagrant liar, comes across on TV as looking like the Grinch--pre-heart.

  by Dallasdoc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:26:51 PM PDT

  •  Let 'em eat a little derisive laughter.

    "Overreaction", huh.

    I guess we have different definitions, because bringing heat to the corruption and dishonesty of that ad seems completely appropriate to me.

    They propose dismantling the single most successful governmental program in the history of, well, EVER, when it's running in surplus and the eventual date it will go into deficit keeps extending out.

    Now, THAT'S an overreaction, Chuckles.

    by boadicea on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:33:11 PM PDT

    •  Sometimes derision is the only proper response

      When the wingnuts are being ridiculous, they ought to be made to appear so.  

      A well-placed derisive laugh or "You gotta be kidding me" can be an extremely effective debating technique, in the right setting.

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:41:18 PM PDT

  •  My god, you don't mean.

    An actual act of JOURNALISM was perpetrated on Hardball?

    How uncharacteristic.

    by boadicea on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:39:38 PM PDT

    •  I credit Rangel

      If Charlie weren't rolling on the floor listening to Jarvis' lies, I doubt Tweety would have found the balls to challenge him.

      by Dallasdoc on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:42:24 PM PDT

      •  I've been hoping for a reaction like Rangel's

        From somebody.

        I remember calling DeLay's campaign after some outrageousness. I threw the guy right off his spiel by interrupting him one time with "Do you even believe the shit you're spouting right now?"

        He regained his stride, but really, sometimes the best thing you can do to an argument is treat it like the ridiculous, hollow posturing it is.

        by boadicea on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:47:36 PM PDT

        •  at one point even Jarvis was smiling

          at the seeming stupidity of the whole thing.

          Of course, he's so evil-minded that it's like watching Jack Nicholson play the Joker.

          by compass rose on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:57:42 PM PDT

      •  to hardball's credit

         they left the split screen up so you could see Charlie's reaction to the (mis) characterization of the ad.
          The best part was when the AARP was portrayed as a bunch of real lefties.
          While I am a member of the AARP, my mother age 81 doesn't want to join because it's for "old" people, which apparently my mother doesn't believe is a group she would fit into!  Of course she still refers to myself and my cousins of the same age (around 60) as "kids".
         

        by Lunch Lady on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:29:07 AM PDT

•  Of Course They Were Testing

  Who says we're certain we know what they were testing?

  They could have been testing anything from their own side, to somethings completely unrelated to SS.

  by Gooserock on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:03:34 PM PDT

  •  No, *we* were testing *them*...

    ...by seeing how they'd react to our overreaction.  Or eating the wrong bit of cheese, as it were..
    

    by geedubbee on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:07:27 AM PDT

•  OK

  If it was a test, then how did we do? I want to see the grade book!

  by JohnInWestland on Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 10:21:22 PM PDT