What Big Bird means to Team Obama and Team Romney

Posted on October 7, 2012 By Luis Alvarado Election 2012

President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s comments on Big Bird have become symbolic of their political differences.

fire big bird

This Aug. 30, 2009 file photo shows Big Bird, of the children’s television show Sesame Street, in Los Angeles. Big Bird is endangered. Jim Lehrer lost control. And Mitt Romney crushed President Barack Obama. Those were the judgments rendered across Twitter and Facebook Wednesday during the first debate of the 2012 presidential contest. While millions turned on their televisions to watch the 90-minute showdown, a smaller but highly engaged subset took to social networks to discuss and score the debate as it unspooled in real time. (AP Photo/Matt Sayles, File)

For years, PBS has been seen as a network that does good; one that had not been overtaken by the gritty partisan divide or corrupted by the corporate influence of commercialism.

When Gov. Romney said, “”I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS, I like Big Bird, I actually like you too,” people watching felt a pinch of hurt.

Many of us grew up watching programs like Sesame Street, Romper Room and Mr. Rogers. Now as adults, we enjoy the documentaries and unbiased news coverage. Certainly, no one could argue that the PBS Network is not an American gem. So how is it that Gov. Romney could seem to direct such a frontal attack to this national treasure?

President Obama referred to Big Bird in a stump speech two days after the debate by saying, “But he’s going to bring the hammer down on Sesame Street.”  The president said this in an effort to persuade us to join him in the defense of the network by portraying himself as the good guy and conversely implying that Mitt Romney is the bad guy.

But manipulations of opponent’s words are nothing new to campaigns. During campaign seasons, candidates attempt to demonstrate differences between them and their opponents by touching nerves in the electorate to gain advantage in the race for the vote. In this instance, Big Bird has become the symbol of what each presidential candidate is defending. And to best ascertain where we stand, we need to truly understand not who Big Bird is, but what he represents.

The symbolic Big Bird

To Team Obama, Big Bird is symbolic of the contributions that big government brings to its citizens in their every days lives; healthcare, social security and education. These are the same commodities that citizens in Spain and Greece are fighting desperately to maintain.

To Team Romney, Big Bird is symbolic of the hard, but necessary, choices we must make to ensure that the country has the ability to survive the current economic crisis. He said, “I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it.” Parents who have to adjust their budgets at home and cut things that they are accustomed to enjoying, are also seen as heartless foes to their children who would rather continue to spend money aimlessly.

In essence, the contrast between what both presidential candidates are proposing could not be any clearer. Team Obama wants to project an image that is popular among his base and continue the status quo at the expense of our economic future—charging the credit card and passing the burden to tomorrow. Gov. Romney is taking the high road and telling us we have to rip the Band-Aid off and fix the problem now, which certainly brings angst to the population at large.

Big Bird, or in this case the Public Broadcasting Service and subsidiaries, along with many other government programs would not go away. They might be reconfigured or modified, but they, like Gloria Gaynor, will survive. Just like many of the government services we have become accustomed to enjoying, we must learn to live with new limitations or else we will see the unemployment statistics grow.

email
Share this post

,

Source: Luis Alvarado/ VOXXI Blogs

Get our Weekly Newsletter

  • Z

    If a candidate is serious about balancing the budget, they start with the defense budget. Not PBS. This was yet another posturing move by Romney for his rich, white, cronies.

    • Fordsell

      Z – unfortunately, you don’t understand your own constitution. The federal government has a direct responsibility to protect our sovereign rights (i.e., the military). There is no constitutional requirement to provide entertainment, even educational oriented entertainment. In this time of economic crisis, we need the federal government to get their priorities straight.

      And by the way, why bring race and economic class into the discussion? The “rich, white, cronies” comment makes you sound like a racist with class envy.

      • Shasta316

        Except for that whole “promote the general welfare” thing. You righties are always saying your such strict constitutionalists, but you don’t know what the heck is even in it.

  • Quadraphobia

    Hmm. I can’t help but think of this in a very different light.

    The “Big Bird” comments are a symptom of a different problem to me. America is no long investing meaningfully in education and even wants to pull the plug on educational funding. In the not-very-long-run this means that the American educational system and American workers will no longer be very competitive at the highest levels.

    This is a great way to drive away tech companies that need a highly educated workforce. Let’s send more jobs to India!

    And a poorly educated workforce is easily manipulable by demagogues. (!)

    And Sesame Street is an amazing “international diplomat” for the U.S. — kids the world over love Elmo, their parents love Sesame Street, it’s something good that people associate with the U.S. It’s those kind of programs that the federal government should be interested in helping, enlightened self-interest and all that PLUS actually doing some good.

    To me, it doesn’t sound like Romney’s wanting to make “tough decisions” as much as he has very different priorities for the budget.

    • Fordsell

      That’s why we have a congress where these priorities will be negotiated and compromised into something more moderate that hopefully will reflect the will of the people. Hopefully, Romney, unlike Obama, will not try to override the congress and we’ll actually have the will of the people back in power.

      • scasab

        Override the Congress? I think the Congress has been overriding Obama as much as they have been able to!

        • Fordsell

          It’s a split congress – what’s your beef and Obama had his way for the first two years with a majority democrat congress – weak argument my friend.

  • Oracle

    No one dares to touch defense. You do not even hear much on defense in the campaigns. I think we will go the way of Rome. Wars, rich appeasement, no welfare.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kelly-Fitzpatrick/1699228643 Kelly Fitzpatrick

    Look at real waste. Look at DOD. Look at oil company subsidies. Look at agribusiness subsidies. Look, for crying out loud, at Congress! Don’t look to one one hundredth of one percent of the federal budget, a program that Republicans happen to hate BECAUSE it educates and presents the big picture. Romney accomplished one thing with his broadside against PBS. He got lots and lots of people like me to write a check. To Obama.

    • Fordsell

      If you like PBS so much, pay for it (I do). Be a donor, but don’t ask the rest of America to subsidize something not everyone finds a priority. I do agree with you we should take a whack at the business subsidies as well, something Romney has vowed to do. As for Republicans not wanting to Educate…please, do you really believe that? Is demagoguery really needed to support your argument?

      • scasab

        Why forget that the taxpayer dollar comes from taxpayers? With the taxes I pay I am already “donating” to PBS. Public broadcasting goes along with true democracy. It can broadcast news without depending on the dollar that comes from advertising and that ultimately defines content. It’s free broadcasting.
        I see that when we talk about democracy we tend to forget Lincoln’s definition of it: “Government of the people by the people.” (Wasn’t he Republican?) Why talk about government as something that has nothing to do with us? Government is administration and it might not be an efficient one in many cases, but our right and our duty is precisely to elect the people who can turn it into what it must be: a truly representative of the desires and needs of the people that it represents.

        • Fordsell

          your taxes are donating to PBS, but you are forcing every one to donate – what part of my point don’t you get?

        • enigmaticang3l

          Yes. Lincoln’s was a Republican; but Lincoln’s party has eventually transformed into the Democratic Party. Have you forgotten that? The Republican Party has some members so far to the right, so “off the chain”, or the “rich only” party that it has become obAmerica wants or needs.solete to most Americans. It is no loger representative of what America wants or needs.

          • enigmaticang3l

            My remark got messed up, but u get the idea, right?

    • robinisaac

      Kelly you are right, I wrote my first check ever to a president election and it was to Obama. If we elect Romney the poor kids of the world is in trouble. I grow up on PBS and I,m 50 years old and I still watch PBS for it’s adult entertainment on education. Let’s save PBS

  • anonymous

    you don’t start with defense over entertainment you moron!

    • robinisaac

      anonymous there are billions of dollars that are wasted in defense and i think what the reader is saying is don’t start with education.moron

      • Anonymous

        After 27.5 years serving in the Army and defense of this nation at high levels, I think I’m qualified to say that money is not wasted. I would say there’s a few too many generals. I also agree that public education is not the place to begin either.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_GK7NXPGI75L7ZGZZY3T3RY3U24 viewer5

          Anon, don’t be too hasty. Even the Pentagon didn’t want to be forced to buy two different engines for the F-35. But, by gum, they got them! And let’s not even get started on V-22 Osprey, a Congressional boondoggle more lethal to our own than to any enemy. We are spending at an atrocious rate on the military. More than our eight nearest competitors––most of whom are our allies! We can certainly
          afford to cut spending as we wind down the Afghanistan war. Having a healthy, productive, educated and employed workforce is also part of military strength!

  • mpl

    This is a Trojan Horse on the part of the republicans. This is a social issue in the guise of an economic issue. The religious right has had an axe to grind with PBS for years over socially tolerant programming. Examples are programs like ‘In the Life’ that advocate rights and understanding for same-sex relationships. The Christian Right HATES that pennies of their tax money might go to support secular humanism. This is more pandering by Romney to the evangelical right. It also shows how extreme this party has become in recent years.

  • MathHurts

    A true “tough decision”by Romney would be cuts to military spending or (god forbid) Medicare, cutting PBS spending is like bringing a roll of paper towel to New Orleans after Katrina and saying “you’re welcome!”

    • enigmaticang3l@gmail.com

      Cutting medicare will hurt the poor and disabled, as well as the elderly. Now, DOD, NSA, warrantless surveillance, etc., if we saw what was spent on these and wars…and cut this, we’d be ok.

  • slidnbob3

    There is a more powerful symbolism here. This debate is symbolic Republican spin. Canning PBS won’t make a tiny dent in the deficit/debt. Republicans just don’t like PBS.

  • OpenYouEyes

    The more republicans we get in government, the more we will fall behind. Look at the numbers and you will see it.

  • ChapinTico

    I rather have entertainment than wars

  • Guest

    So in the face of trillion dollar
    annual deficits and an overall debt that will likely hit $20 trillion
    should Obama, we the taxpayers are
    tossing away a cool half-billion a year at this junk.

    Now comes the real numbers — the numbers the media will never reveal because they’re absolutely infuriating.

    According to Senator Jim DeMint:

    Shows like Sesame Street are
    multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private
    market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to
    file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 —
    nearly a million dollars — in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to
    2006, “Sesame Street” made more than $211 million from toy and consumer
    product sales.

    If you break that down, it works out to over $50 million a year “Sesame Street” is taking in from all that merchandising.

    Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes
    about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama
    still wants you and I to still carry his freight

    I guess that’s Obama’s idea of “economic patriotism.”

  • Stu

    So in the face of trillion dollar
    annual deficits and an overall debt that will likely hit $20 trillion
    should Obama win reelection, we the taxpayers are
    tossing away a cool half-billion a year at this junk.

    Now comes the real numbers — the numbers the media will never reveal because they’re absolutely infuriating.

    According to Senator Jim DeMint:

    Shows like Sesame Street are
    multi-million dollar enterprises capable of thriving in the private
    market. According to the 990 tax form all nonprofits are required to
    file, Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 —
    nearly a million dollars — in compensation in 2008. And, from 2003 to
    2006, “Sesame Street” made more than $211 million from toy and consumer
    product sales.

    If you break that down, it works out to over $50 million a year “Sesame Street” is taking in from all that merchandising.

    Yep, that one-percenter Big Bird makes
    about four times what Mitt Romney does annually and yet Barack Obama
    still wants you and I to still carry his freight

    I guess that’s Obama’s idea of “economic patriotism.”

  • j

    the real cost of government is not pbs or even DOD waste, it is medicare and medicaid. there are no easy answers to managing our healthcare costs as a nation. making sure everyone is insured is a start. not sure if privatization of medicare/medicaid is good or bad. maybe privatize them with really strict regulations? My son says to never read these comments because people only talk garbage or name call, but I would really like to have an honest discourse about this!

  • Larcha

    The GOP and its conservative agenda has been against targeting the PBS for many years. They see it as a part of the liberal media. Balancing the budget is a red herring. Forget whether PBS tries to present unbiased news coverage. If you don’t agree with someone cut their budget!

  • birdie

    BE BERD

  • DPSnAZ

    The candidate appears to be messing with the wrong bird !

  • scasab

    I cannot agree with your interpretation of what Romney does. It’s clear that Romney doesn’t care that much for the American people, whose needs he doesn’t live or understand. It’s easy to create the figure of “the country” or “the corporation” and refer to them as people, but they are concepts not people. The people in this country are already understanding the need to sacrifice certain things, but why would they sacrifice education, health and public broadcasting…. these are essentials!
    Romney’s aim is not to cut the deficit, but to defend the interests of the big capital. Describing Obama as someone who wants to keep the status quo is inaccurate, he’s the one who’s been trying to move the country towards peace, energy efficiency, and defends women’s rights, while protecting education and health from the greedy hands of capital. Romney, on the other hand is the one who actually aims to protecting the status quo by wanting to go back to policies that have proven disastrous.

  • enigmaticang3l

    It is not that most understand there need to be cuts to the budget, but they wholly and morally disagree on what these cuts should be. To cut PBS, a free channel, and, possibly all a family can afford, to pay for a five trillion dollar tax cut to millionaires and billionnaires, who do not need it, is unfathomable. To increase military spending two trillion, when the military does not need it, and is not even asking for it is not financially sound. I could go on; but it is obvious Republican policies raise our debt and further income disparity. We cannot afford another Bush Administration!

  • enigmaticang3l

    Also, PBS, was the only tv source, besides HBO, that I am aware, that dared to address the Bush Administration abuses.