Where to begin. I sent my mom a link to Jerry Brown's blog and she wrote back, "Check Daily Kos today to see how AARP is under attack."

My mom reads blogs?!

So I checked out the Kos link, and it was pretty funny, actually. It didn't seem like an effective ad -- apparently the real AARP agenda is to paint red X's on our troops and green checkmarks on two gay guys getting married.

But a little reflection shows that it'll be a fabulously effective ad. The message is The AARP is liberal. I know -- duh. But actually, it probably bears mentioning. Some fraction of AARP members/supporters are conservative especially on the gay marriage issue, and emphasizing that AARP takes a pro-gay marriage stance will be effective at separating these people from AARP. And the very fact of the surface silliness of the ad, not to mention the controversial topic, ensure that it will get buzz from big names like Atrios and Kos. Neatly done. And very very dirty pool.

The next thing I did was check out the sponsor's site, usanext.org site (something that I would surely never have done were it not for the ad). There was an item on there somewhere about the AARP receiving federal funding, so I researched that a bit, and it turns out that they do get some federal funds in grants programs to employ seniors, provide tax advice, etc. (Heritage Foundation press release on the subject) Not terribly surprising, not necessarily a conflict of interest. But this is what effective attack advertising should do-- raise questions, promote distrust of the attacked organization, generate buzz.