Bordering on parody: 'Grassroots outrage' prompted Obama's juvenile 'Big Bird' ad

Atlantis50

The ad has been widely panned by journalists* and is backfiring on the Obama campaign. Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki gave this response to journalists who questioned her on why the campaign was focusing so much on Big Bird:

"There's been a strong grassroots outcry over the attacks on Big Bird. This is something that mothers across the country are alarmed about, and you know, we're tapping into that".

The Onion couldn't have put together a better political parody.

*Examples below: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/09/obama-big-bird-attack-ad?newsfeed=true

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/big-bird-small-politics-137878.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/silly-season-obama-unleashes-big-bird-ad-media-not-impressed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/big-bird-nosedive/2012/10/09/6ee0055e-121b-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/the-5-problems-with-the-big-bird-obama-ad/2012/10/09/3f7c0306-1231-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/329806/obamas-failed-big-bird-ad-greg-pollowitz

Duck Soup

Oh look, another 'story' from the top of the Drudge Report. I worry about Matt Drudge. Between recent things like this, the "Obamaphone", the pimping of Fox's 200 year oid 'redistribution' video, he's actually trashing his own reputation of a breaker of worthwhile - if all slanted in one direction - political stories.

You can only pump out so many non-events as breaking news before your readership atrophies to the most partisan of viewers, going only to your site to seek reinforcement.

joseph brand

Duck Soup wrote: »

Oh look, another 'story' from the top of the Drudge Report. I worry about Matt Drudge. Between recent things like this, the "Obamaphone", the pimping of Fox's 200 year oid 'redistribution' video, he's actually trashing his own reputation of a breaker of worthwhile - if all slanted in one direction - political stories.

You can only pump out so many non-events as breaking news before your readership atrophies to the most partisan of viewers, going only to your site to seek reinforcement.

Is this the same Drudge?

Amerika

WINK WINK NUDGE DRUDGE

Rule #6 of Left leaning excuses... When all else fails, blame the bogeyman Matt Drudge. Ignore the fact that similar headlines might appear in sources like RealClearPolitics, The Daily Beast, HufPo, Salon, etc, etc, etc. Diverting negative attention away from our failings to Drudge continues to be an effective maneuver.

Cork boy 55

politics aside, Romney telling the PBS moderator that he was going to cut the program that hires him during the debate was class. balls of steel

Amerika

I see the Obama administration is ignoring the Sesame Street plea to stop using them for political purposes. The Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said yesterday he didn't know of any plans to take down the controversial ad.

I think it a good strategy to keep using it. It brings information to light about how the Obama administration fights for the little guy and protects the interests of its citizens. I mean, only a truly evil person would think its not the best fiscal use of taxpayer dollars to fund a salary of $314,072 to don a yellow bird outfit. And we all know some of those multi-millions in revenues generated from Sesame Street video releases, merchandising, and other marketing efforts gets back to the taxpayer. Wait, what’s that you say… none of it gets back to the taxpayer… ahhhhh NEVER MIND!

20Cent

Poor Big Bird Romney wants to fire him and Obama won't listen to him. He's the new Joe the Plumber.

Cutting PBS is the only cut that Romney has said he'd make the rest is a big secret or would take too long to tell.

Amerika

20Cent wrote: »

Cutting PBS is the only cut that Romney has said he'd make the rest is a big secret or would take too long to tell.

IMO Romney only took on PBS in the debate to set a tone with the moderator, and to show the American people he will make the hard decisions on spending regardless of the consequences... as in a preceived retaliation from the moderator.

MrMister

Amerika wrote: »

IMO Romney only took on PBS in the debate to set a tone with the moderator, and to show the American people he will make the hard decisions on spending regardless of the consequences... as in a preceived retaliation from the moderator.

Making the hard decisions? What a joke. Republicans go on and on about the deficit but won't cut a cent from the defence budget. PBS is 0.014 of the budget, which is $22.3 million. If Romney wins then one of his donors, Sheldon Adelson, would get a $2 Billion tax cut.

Now where would you rather have the money go? $2Billion extra into the back pocket of Sheldon Adelson, so he can pay even less taxes than he already does, or $22.3 million to fund PBS?

Romney wants to extend Bush's tax cuts and then cut another 20%. But forget the 20%, if all he did was extend Bush's tax cuts then that would cost another $1 Trillion over 10 years. So, 22 Million for PBS or a Trillion for tax cuts!

Tell me again how he's making the hard decisions?

Amerika

MrMister wrote: »

Making the hard decisions? What a joke. Republicans go on and on about the deficit but won't cut a cent from the defence budget. PBS is 0.014 of the budget, which is $22.3 million. If Romney wins then one of his donors, Sheldon Adelson, would get a $2 Billion tax cut.

Now where would you rather have the money go? $2Billion extra into the back pocket of Sheldon Adelson, so he can pay even less taxes than he already does, or $22.3 million to fund PBS?

Romney wants to extend Bush's tax cuts and then cut another 20%. But forget the 20%, if all he did was extend Bush's tax cuts then that would cost another $1 Trillion over 10 years. So, 22 Million for PBS or a Trillion for tax cuts!

Tell me again how he's making the hard decisions?

What is it about perception that is so hard to perceive?

MrMister

Amerika wrote: »

What is it about perception that is so hard to perceive?

Care to address my post?

Amerika

MrMister wrote: »

Care to address my post?

I did. You either don’t seem to understand my point or refuse to see it for what it was. That’s okay though, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I reiterate it again… The taking on of PBS was more of a symbolic perception that Romney is willing to make the hard decisions regardless of the consequences. In this case taking on the employer, of whom the moderator has built his career with and is very fond of, knowing full well the moderator could have made the debate rather troublesome for Romney because of it.

The $5 trillion number over 10 years is a rather disingenuous if you refuse to combine with it the counter factors of capping and eliminating deductions, and additional revenues from economic growth due to the tax decreases.

MrMister

Amerika wrote: »

The $5 trillion number over 10 years is a rather disingenuous if you refuse to combine with it the counter factors of capping and eliminating deductions, and additional revenues from economic growth due to the tax decreases.

Romney won't say what loopholes he'd close and even if he did close all the loopholes it still wouldn't cover his tax giveaway to the rich. The "give enormous tax breaks to the rich" and "less regulation etc" has already been tried and that's what's lead us into this mess. The Republican party is like a broken record. No new ideas. Just tax cuts. Wow. Genius.

Sulla Felix

Amerika wrote: »

I did. You either don’t seem to understand my point or refuse to see it for what it was. That’s okay though, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I reiterate it again… The taking on of PBS was more of a symbolic perception that Romney is willing to make the hard decisions regardless of the consequences. In this case taking on the employer, of whom the moderator has built his career with and is very fond of, knowing full well the moderator could have made the debate rather troublesome for Romney because of it.

The $5 trillion number over 10 years is a rather disingenuous if you refuse to combine with it the counter factors of capping and eliminating deductions, and additional revenues from economic growth due to the tax decreases.

I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning that concludes with a President willing to do thing regardless of consequence being a good thing?
Surely a more nuanced balancing of risk/reward is to be desired? For me at least, going out of his way to register his plans to cut a specific 20 odd million from the budget really wasn't worth the risk of having a hostile moderator on the debate. Or maybe he was hoping for that to happen, but regardless, I don't like the idea of anyone doing things regardless of the consequences, never mind a potential US President.

Amerika

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow the line of reasoning that concludes with a President willing to do thing regardless of consequence being a good thing?
Surely a more nuanced balancing of risk/reward is to be desired? For me at least, going out of his way to register his plans to cut a specific 20 odd million from the budget really wasn't worth the risk of having a hostile moderator on the debate. Or maybe he was hoping for that to happen, but regardless, I don't like the idea of anyone doing things regardless of the consequences, never mind a potential US President.

I believe the US people are ready for someone willing to make the tough decisions on our out of control spending, without regard to political gain or loss – which is what I meant by "regardless of the consequences."

And I think it was brilliant maneuver on Romney’s part going after PBS and noting Big Bird. Yeah it was nothing earth shattering, but rather symbolic. If we can’t agree or even discuss cuts to something that would do just fine without government funding, what hopes do we have of ever getting the spending under control under this administration?

20Cent

Amerika wrote: »

I believe the US people are ready for someone willing to make the tough decisions on our out of control spending, without regard to political gain or loss – which is what I meant by "regardless of the consequences."

And I think it was brilliant maneuver on Romney’s part going after PBS and noting Big Bird. Yeah it was nothing earth shattering, but rather symbolic. If we can’t agree or even discuss cuts to something that would do just fine without government funding, what hopes do we have of ever getting the spending under control under this administration?

Aren't you curious about what these "brave" cuts will be?
As far as I know PBS is the only one they have announced. Its a tiny fraction of spending it would be nice to let people know before they vote.

Sulla Felix

Amerika wrote: »

I believe the US people are ready for someone willing to make the tough decisions on our out of control spending, without regard to political gain or loss – which is what I meant by "regardless of the consequences."

And I think it was brilliant maneuver on Romney’s part going after PBS and noting Big Bird. Yeah it was nothing earth shattering, but rather symbolic. If we can’t agree or even discuss cuts to something that would do just fine without government funding, what hopes do we have of ever getting the spending under control under this administration?

Has he specified any other areas that he wants to cut? Disclaimer: Fiscally I'm a conservative, it's on social issues (largely rights rather than social spending though) that I might lean towards the Democrats. So I'd love to see a candidate from either party that was openly and genuinely willing to wield the axe on a range of government spending areas. I just haven't seen any real evidence that Romney is that candidate. Neither is Obama of course.

Amerika

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Has he specified any other areas that he wants to cut? Disclaimer: Fiscally I'm a conservative, it's on social issues (largely rights rather than social spending though) that I might lean towards the Democrats. So I'd love to see a candidate from either party that was openly and genuinely willing to wield the axe on a range of government spending areas. I just haven't seen any real evidence that Romney is that candidate. Neither is Obama of course.

Curious... What did you think of Romney's stating he wants to eliminate any plan that we have to borrow money from China to pay for?

Sulla Felix

Well, for one it'd be difficult to isolate borrowing like that. With the deficit the way it is, there's going to be further borrowing by the US for decades. So, how's he going to raise it? It's not as if Obama is currently walking into the DC branch of PRC national bank and taking out a loan. Most of the debt owned by China has been bonds the resale of which is next to impossible to govern.

Anyway, it doesn't go far enough. An economy like the US shouldn't be deficit spending, it really shouldn't. Unfortunately since Romney has commited to reducing taxes across the board, maintaining Medicare, expand defense spending I can't see him tackling the deficit even if he gets 8 years. Binning Obamacare and PBS might help stop the deficit growing but it's certainly not enough to shrink it.

asherbassad

And people VOTE in that country.

It's like "Fcuk You, Coca-Cola Roolz"
"No! Fcuk you....Pepsi fcukin' reewlz"
"No! Fcuk you....McDonald's roolz!"
"No Fcuk you, pal, Burger King rulez"


Looking out the window down on the smellies the leaders of Coke, Pepsi, McD's, BK, GOP and Democrats snigger, pass the cognac and exchanges pleasantries.
"Cola and a burger, sir?"
"Good god, no! Do you think I'd be within a whiff of what these pigs below us are all about?"

"How's that BP Deepwater coverup coming along?
Quite well. Most of those affected are dying or dead from Corexit poisoning. Keystone XL on track?
Yeah.....eminent domain will clear the last arseholes out of our way."

Armagnac...anyone?