Paul Richardson posted in this morning’s Capital Fax Morning Shorts about 14th CD Republican Congressional candidate Chris Lauzen “winning” something called the Ben Franklin Award from a group known as the 60 Plus Association. 60+ is a self-declared “non-partisan” organization pitching itself as “the conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP).”
In reality, this “non-partisan” group can’t seem to get enough photos of Pres. George Bush up on their homepage. And, they’ve been labeled a Big Pharma front group in the past because most of their funding appears to be derived from pharmaceutical companies, not individual citizen members. In return, the group routinely advocates for the conservative partisan, Big Business side in any debates about health care, prescription drugs, social security, and more.
In fact, according to an AARP investigation the 60 Plus Association and other Big Pharma front groups had listed absolutely zero funds from membership dues on their tax forms as of 2001. That strongly implies they have few, if any, actual members. Go figure.
If getting funding from a major player in the political arena and advocating only one political philosophy in all matters (rather than encouraging bipartisanship and compromise, as AARP does) is what passes for “non-partisan”, then George Bush’s friends at the 60 Plus Association are about as non-partisan as Daily Kos or Illinois Review…
In other words, they’re only non-partisan in the strictest definition of the word since they are not directly affiliated with or funded by a political party. 60 Plus’ admitted bias toward conservative platforms, however, does reveal them to be partisan in more commonly accepted definitions of the word. Indeed, both their Pres. James Martin and honorary chair, Ret. Congressman Roger Zion (R-IN), are staunch advocates for “the conservative cause”.
It’s little surprise the highly partisan conservatives at the 60 Plus Association would give their meaningless award to a fellow anti-tax conservative such as Chris Lauzen.
That they named their MacGuffin trophy after Ben Franklin is demeaning to his legacy of forthrightness and intellectual curiosity and Mr. Lauzen ought to refuse to accept it.
If not, what’s next for Lauzen? A photo op bus tour of Potemkin villages in the 14th?
(Sorta cross-posted as a comment over CapFax’s Morning Shorts.)
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 26, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Mark Johnson
Your deluded if you think that AARP advocates a Bi-partisian philosophy. Oddly enough they supported the biggest issue that Democrats ran on in 2006, the Medicare Part D Program.
Read this for some insight:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=7702
November 26, 2007 at 4:26 pm
robnesvacil
Even more oddly enough, Mark, the head of AARP is a buddy of Newt Gingrich by the name of Bill Novelli. Mr. Novelli is a lifelong Republican. Hardly a Democratic operative… Oops.
Then again, if a given person is at one far extreme of the political spectrum then any group in the middle would appear to be off balance, wouldn’t they Mark? And when the AARP went against the Republicans’ plans to destroy Medicare and Social Security as we know it, all of a sudden this middle of the road organization looked “liberal” in the minds of radical conservatives hoping to overturn decades of progress.
(And since the Republicans screwed up Medicare with their late-night vote changing tactics, it wasn’t just AARP and Democrats who wanted to work toward fixing things.)
Sucks when the truth runs counter to your fantasyland, doesn’t it, Mark?
November 26, 2007 at 4:34 pm
robnesvacil
PS Mark, The article you link to references how AARP lined up with the Republicans,on the Repubs’ Medicare Part D shenanigans, albeit with several caveats which Dems favored.
On other matters, namely Social Security, AARP has opposed Republican efforts (hoping instead to reach a more middle-of-the-road approach).
Look up the definition of bipartisan. AARP hopes to bring both parties together to improve things.
November 26, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Mark Johnson
I know what article I linked to. I just thought you should know that the bloody shirt issue the Dems had in 2006 wasn’t where AARP stood as far as policy.
I don’t have a fantasyland, I just found it funny that you were propping up a group that ran counter to the exact rhetortic that you are expousing above.
November 26, 2007 at 6:19 pm
robnesvacil
Do you have anything to add with regards to Mr. Lauzen’s pointless award from this conservative front group, or do you wish to keep helping me prove my points?
My original point (and it was a minor, side-topic at that) was that AARP is bipartisan.
You haven’t shown that they are not bipartisan. Rather, your linked article helped prove they are bipartisan by working with both parties where it suits their interests — Republicans on Medicare, Dems on Social Security … encouraging politicians to find common ground.
This was presented in contrast to the main subject of the post, the highly partisan (despite it’s claims to be “non-partisan”) 60 Plus Association which gave St. Sen. Lauzen this meaningless “award”. Given their hard-line advocacy for conservative viewpoints up and down the line and their funding from pharmaceutical interests, 60+’s partisanship is clear. I simply highlighted the fallacy of their claim to be “non-partisan”. Heck, they directly contradict themselves by claiming they’re non-partisan in the same paragraph they say they’re a “conservative alternative” on their own “About” page.
November 27, 2007 at 11:52 am
Mark Johnson
I have met the founder of 60 Plus. He is partisian. No doubt about it. I posted because I was wondering what your thoughts were on your non-partisian group supporting something that I knew that you oppose which was medicare part D. As far as them giving Lauzen an award it’s a free country. Let the voters decide if it makes a difference. And you have a right to educate the voters that they are partisian. Seems like the the system of checks and balances is working. What you fail to miss is Lauzen is looking for a headline to get his name in the paper. I saw some press on this so mission accomplished. I would e-mail all the newspapers your post so maybe they won’t run an article like that in the future.
–MJ
November 27, 2007 at 3:19 pm
robnesvacil
When did I call AARP “non-partisan”?
I didn’t.
I said they encourage bipartisanship, which they do by working both sides of the aisle.
This is as opposed to 60+ which claims to be non-partisan but which is actually, as you even agree, partisan.
Mark wrote, “What you fail to miss is Lauzen is looking for a headline to get his name in the paper.”
That makes no sense. What does “fail to miss” mean? I do recognize that Lauzen wants to get his name in the paper. So do Oberweis, Laesch, Foster, etc.
That any in the newsmedia fell into the trap says more about them than it says about either your or I.
November 27, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Mark Johnson
My simple point was that you seemed bent on calling this group out, but when all a candidate wants is a headline they really don’t care about the group that can help them get it.
As far as non-partisian and bi-partisian I switched labels, my fault. My question still stands. How do you feel about a group like AARP that suppported the medicare change with Part D? Will you condemn them for that?
As far as your last sentance I completly agree.
November 27, 2007 at 4:44 pm
robnesvacil
Given that they’ve lost 60,000 members since promoting the Republican line on Part D, I would hope they’ve learned their lesson that they are a membership-based organization and ought to respect the wishes of their many, many members.
What’s done is done and it’s up to the Dems to fix the mess the elephants left behind.
–
My point with this post is that when all a candidate wants is a headline or a faux award, it is the civic duty of citizens to place their spin in context, even if the media does not have the time or resources to do so.