Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Big Bird steps out of ‘Sesame Street’ for starring role in 2012 presidential contest

Big Bird has become a symbol in the presidential election in the past week. Romney stated in the Presidential Debate last week that he would cut federal funding of public broadcasting. While this proposal has been part of Romney's campaign plan for a while, the debate last week brought this to the attention of many Americans and brought about much debate among those Americans. President Obama and his administration took this proposal and linked it to Romney acting against a much-beloved symbol of the American population (children's show). The Obama campaign released an add pointing out Romney's plan in a negative way and emphasizing that he wants to end a beloved symbol while reduce taxes on the wealthy. Obama's actions taken with this debate have really annoyed me. To me, Romney recognizes that this cut of federal support would not save much money, but rather it shows the nation that the government will not and does not need to fund programs that can get along on their own, for specifically public broadcasting receives much financial support from individual organizations and people. While I recognize Obama's point that this funding cut will not save much money, he took this proposal and made it something it is not; an attack on a beloved character. Sesame Workshop (which supports Sesame Street and other public broadcasting shows) requested the ad be removed. To me this shows the trivial actions of President Obama in dealing with this debate specifically, his ad especially.

20 comments:

  1. 1)Obama keeps harping on this idea of cutting taxes on the wealthy, when Mitt Romney specifically said in the debates, that such cuts were not part of his plans, and that he actually wanted to close gaps in reductions, effectively raising revenue without raising the rates specifically. Yet repeatedly in the debate and afterwards in rallies, Obama keeps throwing out this accusation. In all seriousness, aren't there other more substantiated claims to be addressed?
    2)I saw the ad and it honestly sounds like something out of SNL. I agree with Lauren that the president is making this an issue that it shouldn't be. The point wasn't to attack Sesame Street or the Public Broadcasting Service, it was to make an example of the commitment to budget cuts and ACTUALLY reducing the deficit. Not saying that you're going to "reduce the deficit in a balanced and responsible way" and instead almost doubling it in 4 years. No cutting one program like the subsidy to PBS will not make a substantial difference in the budget. PBS came out in a statement saying this, that they are not even 1/100th of a percent of the federal budget. But it's still $225 million. And if many such cuts are made, the cumulative effect can be a substantial difference.
    On a related note: I saw an interesting RNC sponsored ad that threw back the insult as the Count from Sesame Street counted all the times Obama mentioned Big Bird or Elmo during speeches in the week immediately following the debate (it was over a dozen) versus how many times he talked about Libya or plans to improve the economy (they said zero).

    ReplyDelete
  2. To lessen or end a deficit,the government can cut spending and/or make higher taxes. Since our deficit is very high, it would be a good idea to do both. I think cutting all programs that aren't essential for the well being of our nation or our citizens, should be cut. Romney has a good plan in cutting funding to PBS, since it is not essential for our country and will still be able to broadcast shows, if they charge for advertising.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Sara that the government needs to both cut spending and raise taxes if it ever wants to have a surplus again. I feel this issue is a passing fad with little importance but Obama is trying to recover from what many considered a Romney win in the debate by only having the public remember this one specific moment. The Obama ad takes the issue and tries to make it seem as if Romney is focusing on the wrong things (specifically ignoring Wall Street) by planning a spending cut on PBS.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I completely agree with Lauren and Grace. PBS ans Sesame Street itself have been an extremely successful network. They are indeed making millions upon millions in dollars in profit over their monumental characters. As Grace said, it's not a substantial cut to our budget spending, but with little cuts added together, the deficit will slowly decrease and we can progress to getting a surplus. If it's not that much to run an extremely successful network such as PBS, and they've been well to do since around 1969, then why can't they fund their own network?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do not make "millions and millions of dollars in profits." Let's keep to reality.

      Delete
  5. I agree with Sara and Jeff that we do need some programs to be cut but we also need higher taxes. One or the other will not effectively lower the deficit and will anger a lot of people. If both are employed then there is more balance and less people would be outraged, and the deficit would be cut more efficiently. I think that using Big Bird and the other Sesame Street characters in the campaign is funny at first, but a little bit ridiculous. PBS seems like almost a non issue compared with the economy as a whole and foreign policy, so either candidate focusing on it is not productive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with Sara and Jeff. The deficit is very high and this is seen as a quick and easy way to reduce spending. As a child, I watched Sesame Street and I would assume others did too. I highly doubt it would stop airing because it is such a staple in children's television. That is just my opinion but I think someone would donate a bunch of money if it was really threatened.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree that we need to have some programs cut but PBS has been an extremely successful network, bringing in millions of dollars in profit. I agree with Sam that since PBS is so successful, they should be able to fund their own network.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Not to repeat what basically everyone else has said..BUT I really do have to agree with as lot of it. While cutting funding for such programs isn't enough, paired with higher taxes it could be an effective way of cutting the deficit. Sesame Street has the ability to stand on its own, and it bothers me that Obama feels the need to reiterate how Romney is "Anti-Big Bird." There are much more important matters that need to be discussed, and I think he wants to distract from his weak performance in last week's debate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I completely agree with Liz and Sam. While cutting funds or raising taxes would help close the defecit doing both at once will be far more effective. The whole issue revolving around PBS and Sesame Street is completely absurd. It is a children's show. We have many other pressing issues to worry about before we worry about how to fund a children's TV show. Sesame Street and PBS like any successful show or station should fund itself fully. There is no need for the government to intervene in the PBS program

    ReplyDelete
  11. Everyone's said the same thing at this point... I don't think that cutting PBS should be a big selling point for either candidate. I do agree though that it's federal funding should be cut, or at least reduced, due to the fact that it is so popular. It should be able to run its own channel just like most, if not all, (I don't know how it works) of the other channels do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. With little to success in the debates, Obama just seems to be pulling at trivial matters to gain whatever lead he can. The spending cut on PBS will eventually die down and will not majorly effect either candidates campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  13. While much of this has been mentioned already, I am of the opinion that rather than solely look at PBS, we should also focus on the taxes citizens pay. I believe raising taxes in addition to cutting funds is the solution. Yes, adjustments need to be made to the economy, but targeting PBS is not the solution to our problems. Then again, while I don't find Romney's Big Bird comment to be particularly relevant, it has been exaggerated by the Obama campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Like Jeff and Katie said, this is a hot-button topic right now, soon to be replaced by a brand new highly publicized and controversial event. Still, Obama used Big Bird to illustrate a point rather than to showcase a children's show character in national politics. If his goal was to leave an impression on voters and the public in general, he has certainly achieved it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm sure this blow-up of a comment came as a surprise to Romney. His vow to de-fund public broadcasting has been a part of his campaign appearances for months, and since a reaction like this had not yet existed, he probably assumed that the nation would not be surprised by this statement to stop the subsidy to PBS. Evidently, his assumptions were wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  16. http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-national/2012/10/big-bird-mitt-romney-and-how-pbs-is-actually-funded/

    They are a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The whole point of PBS is that it is not a commercial network. It does not use advertising to fund its programming, which allows it to step a little bit outside of the corporate box that controls network television and radio. BTW, PBS is the TV side of NPR (National Public Radio). While I agree that Obama could be talking about more substantive things (he is, actually), this is a perfect campaign-ad talking point. Don't take it too seriously-- they aren't! Certainly not something that is a tiny infinitesimal fraction of one percent of the federal budget-- doesn't matter in the least from an actual deficit standpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Well, how could Romney not expect getting attacked for wanting to cut Sesame Street? Its way to big of a target for Obama to miss. A chance to make your opponent look like a heartless, children-show hating monster? SCORE! It doesn't help his failure in the debate, and I don't think that this is some kind of low-blow to try and make a comeback. Obama's still got enough of a lead to more or less comment about whatever he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I agree with Aaron that this is a great big opportunity for Obama to strike a blow to the Romney campaign, but this may be too low of a blow to heavily use this as a tactic against the Republican. For instance, Obama made no reference to Romney's leaked tape about the 47% in the debate because America knows that it's wrong. I believe the same applies for Sesame Street. Who would want their childhood or their children's childhood erased from the PBS network? It is a topic that may not need to be addressed a whole lot; but it may be brought up as a reminder to americans and to boost Obama's support.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.