Saturday, October 06, 2012

Cruising the web

Ah, the true mark of a campaign in a disarray. Now it's the Obama campaign that has aides giving anonymous quotes to the media that makes their campaign look bad.
At least two current Obama campaign aides were more blunt than Daley and used the term “shell-shocked” over the Obama performance. There were various analyses of what went wrong, including finger-pointing at debate preparations. Those included claims that Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who played the role of Romney in mock debates, probably wasn’t tough and aggressive enough. (“He does, after all, want to be Secretary of State,” claimed one aide.)
Why do these aides run their big mouths off to the media? Is their momentary thrill at being an anonymous source worth making their candidate look bad? I was annoyed when Romney's aides were telling journalists all the problems with their campaign. I enjoy hearing that the Obama campaign is "shell-shocked," but these aides still are selfish big mouths.

Paul Mirengoff has a good question about Obama supporters:
What must swing voters, who supported Barack Obama four years ago based on his soaring rhetoric and promises of a better future, be thinking after last night? Not only have these voters witnessed almost four years of bad economic performance, but now they learn that, under pressure, Obama can’t even deliver quality rhetoric.

Even the CEO of Sesame Workshop admits that Sesame Street shouldn't receive public funding.
“The Sesame Workshop receives very little funding from PBS,” she said. “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 for public broadcasting. But when they always try to tout out Big Bird, and they say we’re going to kill Big Bird—that is actually misleading, because Sesame Street will be here…Big Bird lives on.”
I wish that all the people furiously tweeting memes about Mitt Romney killing Big Bird were a bit more familiar with those simple facts. They might be surprised to learn that Big Bird "makes more money" than Mitt Romney. I know that a lot of my students who watched the debate came in today talking about Big Bird as if there were any chance that the show would disappear if PBS didn't get federal funding.
“Sesame Street” is a multimillion dollar industry, even without any taxpayer funding. Every year around Christmastime we hear about Wal-Mart shoppers literally fighting to the death for the last “Tickle Me Elmo” — or whatever bug-eyed, furry red successor it is — on the shelf. The marketing rights for “Sesame Street” and “Barney” total $1.3 billion, according to a 2005 report by former Florida Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, and “Sesame Street” merchandise is in every toy store, Wal-Mart and Target across the country.

The Huffington Post wrote that “Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit that produces the show ‘Sesame Street,’ made $46.9 million in revenue from licensing Big Bird, Elmo, the Cookie Monster and other characters in 2011, according to financial statements. This money helped pay the salaries of 1,320 employees.”
The true lesson of all the brouhaha over Big Bird is that liberals have made it clear that they have absolutely no interest in cutting any federal spending even if it's a "very little funding" for a multimillion dollar industry. If we can't get rid of that bit of corporate welfare, then they'll never be willing to cut any spending. The PBS federal subsidy may be only $445 million, but we have to start somewhere if we're ever going to whittle down federal spending. If we can't cut small expenditures like PBS and we can't cut big expenditures like Medicare, we'll never cut anything. Except defense spending, of course. The liberals are always happy to cut that.

Remember when Democrats used to make fun of jobs gained when a Republican was president as "McJobs"? Philip Klein has taken a look at the statistics from the BLS employment report and found this explanation of why unemployment declined.
But a more detailed look at these numbers shows that 572,000 — or about 67 percent — of the reported job gains that contributed to the reduction in the unemployment rate came from workers who had to settle for part time work. BLS explains that, “The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) rose from 8.0 million in August to 8.6 million in September. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.” This is why a broader measure of unemployment, which takes into account those who were forced to accept inferior jobs, remained flat at 14.7 percent.
You can see the true story of jobs gained in the Obama supposed recovery.
Klein refers to these findings from a liberal think tank's analysis of job gains in the recovery.
– Lower-wage occupations were 21 percent of recession losses, but 58 percent of recovery growth.
– Mid-wage occupations were 60 percent of recession losses, but only 22 percent of recovery growth.
But I'm sure that the liberals won't be talking about a McJobs Recovery now.

Barack Obamas downcast eyes during the debate are a metaphor for his entire presidency.

Obama is plagiarizing...himself. So much of what he promises to do in a second year are the same things he promised to do in 2008. This would make a good ad with a tag line asking how we can trust him to accomplish anything he is promising to do in a second term since he's already broken the same promises in his first term.

Why are there leaks out there about Obama's considering strikes to kill those responsible for Ambassador Stevens' murder? Isn't that the type of information that should be, well, secret?

Here is a media myth debunked: Apparently it is not true that people listening on the radio thought Nixon had won the 1960 debate with JFK. There is no evidence of that.

Speaking of supposed facts we shouldn't believe, New York Magazine reveals how much unsubstantiated guesswork goes into modern polling. They're just making assumption after assumption and there is no reason to have faith in any of them. But that won't stop me from obsessively following news of polls.

This is just too funny.

Moe Lane has gotten hold of Romney's cheat sheet for the debate.

2 comments:

mark said...

So now we're back to "we have to start somewhere" to get the deficit down. That same argument was rejected here regarding the closing of oil subsidies and corporate jet loopholes. Personally, I'm fine with ending money to PBS. Big Bird can go pluck himself.

Nice to see such consistency here. Next you'll be ignoring the voter registration fraud by Stategic Allied Consulting. Perhaps all the rage was used up by the Acorn "scandal".

hga said...

The problem is that liberalism has no limiting principle. As Rick Esenberg put it:

In his recent book, Never Enough, William Voegeli writes that modern American liberalism suffers from philosophical incoherence. Its view on the role of government has no limiting principle. The state may — and should — do whatever can garner political support. The Democratic mainstream, he says, is committed to an exercise in what he calls “adhocracy.”

Which of course has an endless appetite for money.