"Big Bird" Party 121009

Democrats: Proud to be the “Big Bird” Party

The recent presidential debate and Team Obama’s reaction have perfectly illustrated the state of the political debate in this country.  You may recall Governor Mitt Romney suggested that it might be time to discontinue funding of Public Television.  But it is worthwhile to consider the statement Romney made leading up to his comment on Public TV.  “First of all, I will eliminate all programs based on this test, if they don’t pass it – Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it. And if not, I’ll get rid of it.”

It has all come to a head with Team Obama’s 30 second advertisement featuring the well known Sesame Street character Big Bird.  The ad references Wall Street criminals Bernie Madoff and Enron’s Ken Lay, and then implies that Governor Romney believes Big Bird is behind their crimes.  Of course it is intended to be humorous, but Team Obama is trying to make a point or two.

So apparently Obama’s thinking goes something like this: Big Bird is good, therefore the federal government should take taxpayer money to support the show and the network that features Big Bird.  Ah . . . would somebody please point me to the provision in the Constitution that supports this position.  I don’t recall such a mission for the federal government stated in Article I, Section 8.

And of course Team Obama doesn’t even understand the point.  The point is that if we are ever to reign in the deficit and at some point reverse the accumulation of national debt, we are going to have to stop spending money on projects that have nothing to do with the proper role of the federal government.  But for modern day Democrats, the thought of cutting anything . . . ANYTHING out of government is not only wrong, but also worthy of derision.

On the one hand this President would have us believe he is serious about debt and deficit reduction.  On the other hand he is willing to ridicule Mitt Romney for suggesting that we cut government funding from an enterprise that is hugely profitable on its own.  It has been estimated that the marketing rights to Sesame Street and Barney were worth approximately $1.3 billion as of 2005.  The left wing Huffington Post admitted that in 2011 Sesame Street produced $46.9 million in revenue through the licensing of Big Bird, Elmo, Cookie Monster and other characters.  But according to Democrats it is nigh unto treason to suggest that we quit taking taxpayer dollars to support the enterprise!

I can only hope and pray that Romney and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan have the courage to call out the ludicrous notion that we can’t cut anything, including cash cows like Sesame Street.  The media moguls of the world will try to portray Romney and Ryan as unsophisticated and anti-children.  Ignore the media!  Talk to the folks.  The American people get it.  Apparently Columbia journalism school destroys any and all ability to think rationally.

V.P. Debate 121008

Style vs. Substance and the V.P. Debate

There is an old saying, commonly known among trial lawyers: “If you have the facts on your side, pound on the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound on the law; if you have neither, pound on the table.”  Despite the dramatics portrayed by Hollywood, pounding on the table rarely works in real life.

Since last Wednesday’s presidential debate, the consensus seems to be that Governor Romney won convincingly on style, in part because President Obama was not on his game and was unprepared for Romney’s aggressiveness.  I have a slightly different take.  I agree the President was not at his best and that Romney got more style points.  But why?  Over the last four years I have repeatedly been told President Obama is literally one of the most intelligent presidents in our nation’s history, and that his oratory skills are second to none.  Maybe his problem Wednesday had less to do with style than with substance.

The problem for Obama is that when confronted with his record he has nothing to say.  The reason he fidgeted and looked down at his notes and seemed discombobulated is because there is no defense for the state of this nation’s economy, and deep down inside he knows it.  Allow us to consider just a few facts this President was forced to defend.

1.             Unemployment over 8% (on the date of the debate);

2.             Millions more underemployed or too discouraged to even look for work;

3.             $16 trillion in national debt;

4.             Deficits in excess of $1 trillion forecast as far as the eye can see;

5.             Millions of individuals and thousands of small businesses are becoming aware of the debacle that is Obamacare;

6.             Business investment and expansion on hold due to the uncertainty of federal tax policy and suffocating regulation.

Romney’s mission was simply to shed light on the fecklessness of this president and then provide a reasonable alternative.  He did both very effectively.

So what does this mean for Representative Paul Ryan as he goes into the “ring” with Vice President Joe Biden?  All he needs to do is heed the instructions from good old Joe Friday: “Just the facts, ma’am.”

Vice President Biden is stuck trying to defend the same abysmal record that hamstrung President Obama.  And during the past week or so, Biden made it even more difficult for himself by admitting the middle class has been “buried” during his boss’s tenure.  And he finally conceded that allowing the “Bush tax cuts” to end is tantamount to a tax increase, which Obama has conceded is a bad idea during a time of economic distress.

Most analysts are of the opinion that vice presidential debates have little, if any impact on the outcome of a presidential election unless there is a major announcement or serious gaffe.  However, if Paul Ryan is able to drive home the failure of this administration, the message will be a continuation of what America learned during the first presidential debate.  And if Americans are constantly reminded of what this Administration has done to this nation, November 6th might be a very good day for conservatives.  Just the facts, sir.