Justin's Political Corner
In the first debate it was “Big Bird.” In the second it was “Binders Full of Women.” In both cases, Mitt Romney uttered the words that dominated social media conversation during and after the debates.
After Romney talked about how he would cut federal funding for PBS despite the fact that he loves Big Bird, President Obama turned it around as line of attack both on the campaign trail and in an intentionally satirical ad. The Big Bird issue had a point to make about Romney’s lack of specifics om deficit reduction, but it was clearly also a way to paint him as less than presidential.
We haven’t seen a campaign ad featuring a binder yet, but Obama did bring it up the day after the second debate, saying he has never needed to “collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women.”
This morning, the men of Morning Joe tried to conflate both of these issues as things regular Americans don’t care about, while the only woman present, Mika Brzezinski, tried in vain to explain what make binders different from Big Bird.
People immediately latched onto to both of these ideas online in real time, but I believe it was for different reasons. There was an inherent silliness to hearing “serious presidential candidate” Mitt Romney utter the words “I love Big Bird,” which led to people joking about it on Twitter and posting photoshopped images on Tumblr.
The “binders full of women” comment seemed to hit people in a more visceral way, revealing something disturbing about how Mitt Romney views qualified women as something he would have to go out of his way to find.
As evidenced by the Binders Full of Women Tumblr that immediately popped up, there were plenty of memes to be had. But as time went by and it was revealed that Romney didn’t even request the binders as he suggested but rather they would have been presented to either candidate by the group MassGAP, the issue has taken on more weight.
The Obama campaign should not get lost in a world of binders in the way some would argue they got sidetracked by Big Bird. But to equate these two ideas as mere distractions misses the mark.
Mitt’s grabbed his hair cutting shears and is leading his gang out to bully someone. Today its Big Bird and you.
Today he whined about Obama talking about “Big Bird”.
Hey, Romney, it’s not just Big Bird though Big Bird is a sweetheart, and like a small kid, and anyone, like you, who bullies him…
The Obama campaign is capitalizing on Mitt Romney’s promise to cut funding to PBS and Sesame Street’s Big Bird with a new ad mocking Romney’s dedication to stripping this funding. During the last Wednesday’s debate, Romney mentioned cutting funding to PBS even though he likes Big Bird in order to cut the deficit.
“Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay, Dennis Kozlowski, criminals, gluttons of greed,” the narrator says. “And the evil genius who towered over them? One man has the guts to speak his name.”
The ad then cuts to footage of Mitt Romney saying three separate times, “Big Bird.”
Varney: “Big Bird Would Still Be Around Because It’s A Profit Center In And Of Itself.” Discussing Mitt Romney’s statement during the October 3 presidential debate that he would “stop the subsidy to PBS” if elected, host Stuart Varney claimed that the government spends $444 million a year on public broadcasting, adding, “If we took that subsidy away, Big Bird would still be around because it’s a profit center in and of itself.” Varney later said, “If we take it away, Sesame Street, Big Bird stands, profitable.” [Fox Business, Varney & Co., 10/4/12]
Fox Guest Carol Roth: PBS Can Make Up For Lack Of Government Funding By Bringing In Sponsors, Advertisers, Or Subscribers. Responding to Varney, guest Carol Roth said: “You can bring in corporate sponsors, you can bring in advertisers. Look, HBO is a great station, they do it by subscribers. There are other ways for PBS to remain.” [Fox Business, Varney and Co., 10/4/12]
Sesame Street Producer “Receives Very, Very Little Funding From PBS.” Sherrie Westin, executive vice president and chief marketing officer for Sesame Workshop, which produces Sesame Street, told CNN: “Sesame Workshop receives very, very little funding from PBS. So, we are able to raise our funding through philanthropic, through our licensed product, which goes back into the educational programming, through corporate underwriting and sponsorship. So quite frankly, you can debate whether or not there should be funding of public broadcasting. But when they always try to tout out Big Bird, and say we’re going to kill Big Bird — that is actually misleading, because Sesame Street will be here.” [CNN, Starting Point, 10/4/12]
From the 10.04.2012 edition of FBN’s Varney and Co.:
h/t: MMFA
nomoretexasgovernorsforpresident:
Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive
Awesome picture.
Makes me wanna laugh out loud.
(via occupy-my-blog)
The CEO of PBS fired back at Mitt Romney Thursday, saying that it was “stunning” that the Republican candidate had singled her network out in Wednesday’s debate.
Romney had one of his most memorable moments when he vowed to cut the federal subsidy to public broadcasting.
“I’m sorry Jim, I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS,” he told moderator Jim Lehrer, who has worked for PBS since the 1970s. “I like PBS, I love Big Bird, I actually like you too, but I’m going to stop borrowing money from China to pay for things we don’t need.”
Noting that the debate touched on education, she called PBS “America’s biggest classroom,” adding, “This is not about the budget. It has to be about politics.”
Kerger also fact-checked Romney — who she has tussled with before — pointing out that PBS doesn’t get any direct money from the government.
“In fact, the money that comes from the government into the Corporation for Public Broadcasting goes to our member stations,” she said.
h/t: HuffPo
Poor Big Bird.
The last thing he probably wanted was a mention in the first political debate between President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. But that’s exactly what happened to the lovable eight-foot, two-inch feathery fellow Wednesday night.
Romney told moderator Jim Lehrer, “I’m sorry Jim. I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m gonna stop other things. I like PBS, I like Big Bird, I actually like you too.”
A collective stab pierced the heart of Generation X who grew up with Big Bird, Bert and Ernie and Oscar the Grouch as their best friends. I immediately thought, “Oh no, Big Bird will be unemployed if Romney wins.” I wasn’t alone.
As is normal these days, Big Bird started trending on Twitter. Memes magically appeared on Facebook showing Big Bird sitting on a stoop holding a sign “Will Work For Food.” But what we really needed at that moment was Count von Count appearing at the debate to explain Obama and Romney’s monologues about complex taxes and percentages.
Obama was not his best Wednesday night, but he could leverage Big Bird. That is if the Obama campaign is smart. A survey in 2008 noted that 77 million Americans had watched “Sesame Street” as children. That’s a lot of potential voters to woo. Nostalgia runs deep, trust me.
Big Bird, an iconic image, could serve as a bright yellow reminder that the Romney administration is keen on deep cuts to beloved institutions.
In August, Romney said he would eliminate funding for PBS, Amtrak, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS’s parent organization, receives $444 million a year from the government.
Maybe Romney doesn’t understand how vital PBS, which celebrates its 42nd anniversary on Friday, is for many Americans. For several years, polls have regularly placed PBS as America’s most-trusted national institution. Before the invention of cable television, PBS offered diversity when only three networks — ABC, NBC and CBS — dominated the airwaves. Educating America’s children with smart programming has remained a dutiful promise of the network.
