Join 3,557 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Move On's new working retirement campaign
February 1, 2005 12:32 PM   Subscribe

I wasn't sure what Move On would do after the election and inauguration, but it appears they are coming out with guns blazing over Social Security. Tomorrow they'll take out a full page ad in the NYT (pdf) and start spreading a new commercial (wmv) that is reminiscent of the "working kids" Bush in 30 seconds ad (I assume they hired the same director).
posted by mathowie (51 comments total)

 
The NYT ad? Concise. Good.
posted by kozad at 12:36 PM on February 1, 2005


I smile.
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:37 PM on February 1, 2005


I'm not sure I understand why the bottom is a "give us money" coupon. Wouldn't it be more effective to have some kind of information about contacting your representatives, or other things you can do that may have a directly Good(tm) effect? Nice ad, though.
posted by odinsdream at 12:43 PM on February 1, 2005


Sorry, after those MoveOn nut jobs compared Bush to Hitler, I will never trust them again.

Now watch this drive...
posted by felix betachat at 12:45 PM on February 1, 2005


I like the commercial, but think the newspaper ad is lame, especially framing the Social Security "disaster" as another WMD claim. It just seems to play on old anti-war themes, which were in the minority a year ago.

The commercial doesn't have that baggage and looks fine. There are plenty of basic facts you can present for the case of "Social Security works ok." The big WMD in the print ad seemed silly and a diversion from the real issue at hand.
posted by mathowie at 12:48 PM on February 1, 2005


The Bushies' war on Franklin Roosevelt.
posted by homunculus at 12:50 PM on February 1, 2005


after those MoveOn nut jobs compared Bush to Hitler, I will never trust them again

Two people submitted entries into their open video contest pool, which were quickly removed. But everyone that didn't like the contest made a big enough stink about those two entries out of a thousand that not only is the whole contest about comparing bush to hitler, but the organization that coordinated the contest. Great.
posted by mathowie at 12:55 PM on February 1, 2005


I think felix betachat forgot to raise the satire flag Matt.

Now watch this drive.
posted by nofundy at 1:04 PM on February 1, 2005


*ducks*
posted by felix betachat at 1:07 PM on February 1, 2005


I'm wondering when MoveOn.org will.... move on...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:07 PM on February 1, 2005


I'm not sure I understand why the bottom is a "give us money" coupon.

You really don't understand that this is a fundraising effort?
First George Bush said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a “mushroom cloud” was imminent.
::rolls eyes::
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:16 PM on February 1, 2005


That link, homunculus, is laughable: The economy FDR inherited in March 1933, delivered to him by 12 years of Republican laissez-faire rule, was a shambles.

Herbert Hoover and the Republican party of the 1920s deserve all the derision one can muster, but they had little to do with laissez-faire.
posted by trharlan at 1:16 PM on February 1, 2005


matt beat me to it. It bugs me to no end when I hear even Democratic friends of mine say "I just can't get over how moveon had those hitler ads..."

There are facts about this thing that can't just be ignored, especially by people who aren't already hell-bent on hating moveon.org.
posted by odinsdream at 1:17 PM on February 1, 2005


MetaFilter: STFU, now watch this drive.

Steve, when MoveOn's no longer got a reason for being, they will move on. But they are a voice of opposition against an administration that is absolutely shameless in its promotion of loyal yes-men and women without regard to qualifications as well as this little thing in Iraq.

I'm glad MoveOn's still around. We need more voices calling out, not less.

And good recap of the Bush = Hitler flap, Matt. Did anyone ever figure out who put the two bits up on MoveOn's site? Not saying they were plants but perhaps they were.
posted by fenriq at 1:20 PM on February 1, 2005


For 70 years, conservatives have been telling us that the American economy—whether it's in recession or whether it's booming—is laboring under the shackles of the burdensome taxation and misguided regulation placed upon it by FDR and his successors. Somehow, stocks would do better if the SEC were weaker and we'd all be wealthier if seniors weren't guaranteed a minimum income, funded through payroll taxes.

Thanks for the link, homunculus.
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:21 PM on February 1, 2005


I agree with Steve_at_Linnwood that Bush should be impeached over the WMD issue.

Not that I think the MoveOn Hitler ads were a good idea; They were a very bad idea. The goal is to change people's minds, not alienate them in order to make yourself feel better.
posted by Justinian at 1:22 PM on February 1, 2005


after those MoveOn nut jobs compared Bush to Hitler, I will never trust them again
posted by felix betachat at 3:45 PM EST on February 1


The Bush campaign, outraged by the mixture of Nazi images with images of an American politician, has decided that the best response to this offense is to repeat it. The Bush video's opening white-on-black graphic says, "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party. The Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Next comes a parade of angry speakers: Al Gore, Hitler, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, Hitler, Gore, and Kerry.

posted at Slate, June 28, 2004

After those Bush nut jobs compared the Democratic party to Hitler, I will never trust them again.
posted by googly at 1:29 PM on February 1, 2005


fenriq: I'm not saying MoveOn should go away. I just find it amusing that they themselves can not practice what they preached.

I love MoveOn... the longer they are the voice of the Democratic party, the better.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:31 PM on February 1, 2005


I'm wondering when MoveOn.org will.... move on...

Steve, who do you think you are? Witty?

And why are you rolling your eyes at your dear leader like that? You're not in the White House press corps.
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:34 PM on February 1, 2005


I, too, agree with Steve_at_Linnwood that Bush should be impeached over the WMD issue.

I love Steve_at_Linnwood... the longer he is the voice of the Republican party, the better.

And, if one reads the link, one would find that MoveOn.org HAS moved on, to the issue of Social Security.
posted by Floydd at 1:40 PM on February 1, 2005


The NYT ad is also idiotic because it's stunningly easy to show that prominent members of both parties have long characterized social security as being in crisis, or in need of "saving," including but not limited to Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Gephardt, Boxer, etc., etc. Not saying either side is necessarily right or wrong, just that the current rhetorical party line that this is a "manufactured crisis" seems doomed to end in embarrassment.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:41 PM on February 1, 2005


Steve, yeah, its terrible that they're bringing a spotlight on lots of ShrubCo's misdeeds, lies and questionable ethics. MoveOn is alienating many, many people by spreading the truth around.

Justinian, reread Mathowie's comment above, the Hitler ads weren't made by MoveOn.
posted by fenriq at 1:42 PM on February 1, 2005


Oh thank god! I was wondering when I would be saved from having a decent retirement. Thank you, Moveon.org!
posted by gsh at 1:43 PM on February 1, 2005


re: moveon.org. I clearly remember signing up the day I heard about the organization, back when it was, in fact, concerned with convincing Congress that the public wanted it to "move on" and quit wasting time on Blowjobgate. Ah, those were simple times!

Obviously, an organization can do whatever it wants, but it does strike me as somewhat strange that they never changed their name, and just morphed into this big Bush-bashing juggernaut.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:46 PM on February 1, 2005


I love MoveOn... the longer they are the voice of the Democratic party, the better.

Osama Bin Laden, safe and healthy and happy and warm in his (Pakistani?) home, loves Bush... the longer he is the voice of the USA, the better -- for Bin Laden.
posted by matteo at 1:47 PM on February 1, 2005


Floydd you are so clever, repeating what ever I say!

I guess I'll never disagree with you again, for fear of you so smartly turning my own words right back at me!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 1:50 PM on February 1, 2005


Not saying either side is necessarily right or wrong, just that the current rhetorical party line that this is a "manufactured crisis" seems doomed to end in embarrassment.
posted by pardonyou? at 3:41 PM CST on February 1


Oh, it's already starting to get embarrassing, pardonyou?

On preview: Heh. Yuppers! Ctrl C will get you every time!
Love ya, Steve!
posted by Floydd at 1:53 PM on February 1, 2005


S@L, just appreciate that all these twisted people are funneling their energies into efforts that made them feel good, are REAL annoying, but ultimately leave them LOSERS.

On the other hand, I'm not clear on what to do anout Social Security. Last week's New Yorker quoted stats suggesting there's no emergency in site.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:03 PM on February 1, 2005


To me, it seems like one party sees a crisis and wants to fix it, whilst the other party sees a crisis and wants to get rid of it. The bit that amuses me is that president Bush has just `realised' this is a crisis? Did he not at least read the first four budgets, or is this some cruel second term humour?

In the UK, the government and the business `leaders' appear to have unofficially raised the retirement age to 70 in the last few months. I guess this is the `seeing the crisis and trying to delay it just a little bit longer. '

What ever happened to John Rawls and the veil of ignorance? Or those damned New York liberals back in the day with the Federalist papers.
posted by Maxwell at 2:06 PM on February 1, 2005


" That link, homunculus, is laughable: The economy FDR inherited in March 1933, delivered to him by 12 years of Republican laissez-faire rule, was a shambles.

Herbert Hoover and the Republican party of the 1920s deserve all the derision one can muster, but they had little to do with laissez-faire."

So now, having lost the 2004 battle of the 1960's-70's, MoveOn.Org is reaching back even further, to see if it can lose the battle of the 1920's-30's?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:07 PM on February 1, 2005


Yay! I'm all for not trying!
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:10 PM on February 1, 2005


There is no crisis.
posted by Floydd at 2:21 PM on February 1, 2005


PP, do you do birthday parties?
posted by odinsdream at 2:23 PM on February 1, 2005


On the other hand, I'm not clear on what to do anout Social Security. Last week's New Yorker quoted stats suggesting there's no emergency in site.

Just ignore those stats. Don't let the truth get in the way.
posted by Dean King at 2:26 PM on February 1, 2005


Dean King, I am not in favor of Bush's Social Security proposals, at least how I currently understand them. But that does not mean I can think MoveOn.Org is assholic.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:36 PM on February 1, 2005


(that does not mean I can't think...)
posted by ParisParamus at 2:37 PM on February 1, 2005


"PP, do you do birthday parties?"

Yes, but you need to provide the hats and cake. Send me an e-mail if you're interested.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:43 PM on February 1, 2005


So now, having lost the 2004 battle of the 1960's-70's, MoveOn.Org is reaching back even further, to see if it can lose the battle of the 1920's-30's?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:07 PM PST on February 1


Hmmm ... Compare to Daniel Gross' theory in Slate last week:
Why are today's Republicans so hellbent on changing Social Security? Clearly they're not driven by concern over government deficits. After all, they've engineered a taxing and spending regime that intentionally created record deficits. And it can't be that they oppose entitlement programs as a matter of principle. Medicare has an unfunded liability larger than Social Security's, and they just expanded it a couple of years ago with the prescription drug benefit.

Maybe it's because Social Security is an opportunity to refight—and perhaps win—a series of arguments the Republicans lost badly 70 years ago. To put it another way, it's a chance to knock down Franklin Roosevelt, finally. "For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win," Peter Wehner, Bush's director of strategic initiatives, wrote in a memo to supporters in early January.
posted by pmurray63 at 2:47 PM on February 1, 2005


I really don't think Republics give a hoot about 1970's battles. The priniciple of Soc Security reform is probably good, but the proposals for doing so are dubious. The biggest flaw in logic: that the financial markets could absorb huge, huge, HUGE inflows of new money without prices falling. When there's more supply, prices fall. So stocks will go down, interest rates would go down, and assumptions about average rates of return wouldn't be met.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:54 PM on February 1, 2005


You realize, pmurray, that the article you link was linked upthread?
posted by trharlan at 2:55 PM on February 1, 2005


No, I didn't. Sorry.
posted by pmurray63 at 2:56 PM on February 1, 2005


folks! blibberty flabberty liberal handouts bubberly flubberly commie welfare liberal liberal tupperware! [/flustered rush limbaugh voice]

i agree with matt - the print ad is eye-catching, but it quickly loses my attention. the tv ad is pretty decent, though. i like that it invokes feelings about labor in general. whatever happened to worker's rights?
posted by blendor at 2:59 PM on February 1, 2005


whatever happened to worker's rights?

walmart.
posted by odinsdream at 4:20 PM on February 1, 2005


Metafilter: Blibberty flabberty liberal handouts bubberly flubberly commie welfare liberal liberal tupperware!
posted by armage at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2005


On the other hand, I'm not clear on what to do anout Social Security. Last week's New Yorker quoted stats suggesting there's no emergency in site.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:03 PM EST on February 1


So you're saying what? Bush might not have the right intelligence...

...again?


/old habits
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:04 PM on February 1, 2005


that is reminiscent of the "working kids" Bush in 30 seconds ad (I assume they hired the same director).

It worked so well the first time. Oh, wait...

Steve, when MoveOn's no longer got a reason for being


No they won't. Once formed, groups like this will fight to live. Even if a dem is elected in 4 years, they'll "find" an issue, a reason, to stick around.

It really seems like the dems would realize the approach of groups like moveon doesn't work. Yet here we are again. If I were bush, this would give me hope.
posted by justgary at 5:32 PM on February 1, 2005


It really seems like the dems would realize the approach of groups like moveon doesn't work.

What would you have them do? Buy stock in Astroglide?
posted by felix betachat at 6:15 PM on February 1, 2005


It really seems like the dems would realize the approach of groups like moveon doesn't work. Yet here we are again. If I were bush, this would give me hope.

You need to catch up on some reading. MoveOn.org exists because these tactics already worked for the Republicans. MoveOn is just the evolution of direct mail.
posted by eyeballkid at 6:24 PM on February 1, 2005


Social security reform needs serious debate ... so I wish that MoveOn would stay ten miles away from it.

Bush won legislative battle after legislative battle in 2001-2004 by characterizing the opposition as illegitimate or irrelevant, which had the effect of closing the ears of 90%+ of Republicans and an often-big pool of frightened or ambitious Democrats. Sometimes the policy was bold and the results delightful -- dividend tax cuts. Sometimes the policy was bold and the results debatable -- Iraq War Resolution. Sometimes the policy was a mess and the results the same -- No Child Left Behind. Social Security ought not face those odds.

MoveOn, being the leftist loser whiners that they are, basically pre-discredit whatever battle they try to get in, in terms of the Congressional debate.

As I see it, solving social security basically requires three things: indexing retirement age to life expenctancy, creating incentives to work past retirement age and defer benefits, and making benefits pari-mutuel, i.e., not a claim on a specific dollar amount, but a claim on a certain proportion of whatever the payroll taxes and trust fund maturities happen to generate, with payroll taxes not increased as a percentage of wages, although the cap should continue to rise with inflation.
posted by MattD at 6:34 PM on February 1, 2005


creating incentives to work past retirement age and defer benefits

Aren't we all waiting for the baby boomers to fuck off so some of us younger folk can get in on that upper management shit? That is, I could forsee bad things as a result of this one. Just remove the cap on taxable income but keep it on the maximum payout. Then again I am socialist taxes-lover.
posted by dame at 7:43 PM on February 1, 2005


I can't think
posted by ParisParamus at 2:37 PM PST on February 1


Who would have thought it? :-)

On the SS debate, didn't Saint Raygun and Sir Greenspan of Aynrand solve that little problem once?
Or is Bush telling us that the debts Treasury owes Social Security will never be repaid? (Hear that, rest of the world, Treasury reneges on debt!)
Damn!
Wish we had that lockbox Gore talked about now!
posted by nofundy at 8:32 AM on February 2, 2005


« Older Playground Finder...  |  Stand Up, Speak Up -- Against ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments