Obama is smart to back out of NC. He was never going to win it this time. If worst comes to worst he might be smart to move resources from Virginia to Ohio and Florida.

(10-09-2012 10:05 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 09:57 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Laugh all you want. Even the latest 2 polls from Pennsylvania are within the margin of error. I never thought Romney had a chance to win that state.

While I may be able to believe that PA is getting close, I really doubt the Big Bird ad will push Romney over the top. Outside your little tea bag world, most people actually support PBS.

Think before you speak. I support PBS, listen to NPR every day, and watch CNN for 95% of my cable news. I'm not a *********, I'm a realist. A presidential campaign that releases an official ad using Big Bird is in full desperation mode.

The president is trying like hell to see that Big Bird is the only thing anyone remembers from the debate, and frankly, after the ass whoopin' he took, can you blame him?

I think "desperate" is a fair characterization.

(10-09-2012 11:49 AM)Smaug Wrote:  The president is trying like hell to see that Big Bird is the only thing anyone remembers from the debate, and frankly, after the ass whoopin' he took, can you blame him?

I think "desperate" is a fair characterization.

Desperate? With his horrible debate performance, it was the soundest course for him to take. Why is that desperate?

But if you look deeper, this is just another failure really by an inept Romney campaign. Normally campaigns schedule an event for the morning after the debate to push their latest narrative. Romney passed on this, so all anyone heard was Obama starting the BB meme.

Quote:WASHINGTON – President Obama has ruffled some feathers at PBS by putting Big Bird in a TV ad attacking Mitt Romney.

"We have approved no campaign ads, and as is our general practice, have requested that the ad be taken down," Sesame Workshop, the PBS-affiliated non-profit behind Sesame Street, said today in a statement.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/se...FgrligZJEP

(10-09-2012 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Desperate? With his horrible debate performance, it was the only course for him to take.

FIFY

(10-09-2012 11:55 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:49 AM)Smaug Wrote:  The president is trying like hell to see that Big Bird is the only thing anyone remembers from the debate, and frankly, after the ass whoopin' he took, can you blame him?

I think "desperate" is a fair characterization.

Desperate? With his horrible debate performance, it was the soundest course for him to take. Why is that desperate?

Uh, because that's the definition of desperate.

All in all , I think the plug could be pulled on PBS because (a) the public has countless more choices for information than they had just twenty years ago, and (b) PBS's programming is popular and strong enough to survive on its own. Shows like Sesame Street and Nova will survive without skipping a beat.

But I won't lose a wink of sleep if the station continues to be partially funded by the feds. It's so far down the list of concerns. I may agree with Romney in priniciple on PBS, but he could've instead listed off some serious pork/bloat examples on the national stage last week (and let's face it, PBS is one of those things the vast majority have either neutral or positive feelings toward).

(10-09-2012 02:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

Yeah, but don't mess w/ Snuffleupogus.

(10-09-2012 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All in all , I think the plug could be pulled on PBS because (a) the public has countless more choices for information than they had just twenty years ago, and (b) PBS's programming is popular and strong enough to survive on its own. Shows like Sesame Street and Nova will survive without skipping a beat.

But I won't lose a wink of sleep if the station continues to be partially funded by the feds. It's so far down the list of concerns. I may agree with Romney in priniciple on PBS, but he could've instead listed off some serious pork/bloat examples on the national stage last week (and let's face it, PBS is one of those things the vast majority have either neutral or positive feelings toward).

Good points. And coupled with his calls for unprecedented, unaffordable and unwanted military spending increases, it looks pretty pathetic to even warrant a mention.

(10-09-2012 03:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All in all , I think the plug could be pulled on PBS because (a) the public has countless more choices for information than they had just twenty years ago, and (b) PBS's programming is popular and strong enough to survive on its own. Shows like Sesame Street and Nova will survive without skipping a beat.

But I won't lose a wink of sleep if the station continues to be partially funded by the feds. It's so far down the list of concerns. I may agree with Romney in priniciple on PBS, but he could've instead listed off some serious pork/bloat examples on the national stage last week (and let's face it, PBS is one of those things the vast majority have either neutral or positive feelings toward).

Good points. And coupled with his calls for unprecedented, unaffordable and unwanted military spending increases, it looks pretty pathetic to even warrant a mention.

Defense spending by the Federal Government is a responsibility spelled out in the constitution. I don't think funding a television channel was part of the constitution. I'd do more checking into military preparedness before I labeled increased spending proposals unwanted.

(10-09-2012 03:29 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All in all , I think the plug could be pulled on PBS because (a) the public has countless more choices for information than they had just twenty years ago, and (b) PBS's programming is popular and strong enough to survive on its own. Shows like Sesame Street and Nova will survive without skipping a beat.

But I won't lose a wink of sleep if the station continues to be partially funded by the feds. It's so far down the list of concerns. I may agree with Romney in priniciple on PBS, but he could've instead listed off some serious pork/bloat examples on the national stage last week (and let's face it, PBS is one of those things the vast majority have either neutral or positive feelings toward).

Good points. And coupled with his calls for unprecedented, unaffordable and unwanted military spending increases, it looks pretty pathetic to even warrant a mention.

Defense spending by the Federal Government is a responsibility spelled out in the constitution. I don't think funding a television channel was part of the constitution. I'd do more checking into military preparedness before I labeled increased spending proposals unwanted.

No, funds are funds and we need to cut where there would be a difference made. PBS isn't one of those areas, but like Motown said, I would not lose any sleep over cutting it's funding either. You want to cut PBS? Sure, fine, but to use it in a debate to outline how serious you are to fiscal responsibility when it's budget represents not even a sliver of a dent into the deficit? Come on.

Admittedly an attempt by Obama to focus on the one part of the debate that Romney flubbed on, but it's a legitimate point. People who are serious about cutting the deficit don't mention PBS.

(10-09-2012 03:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:29 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:02 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  All in all , I think the plug could be pulled on PBS because (a) the public has countless more choices for information than they had just twenty years ago, and (b) PBS's programming is popular and strong enough to survive on its own. Shows like Sesame Street and Nova will survive without skipping a beat.

But I won't lose a wink of sleep if the station continues to be partially funded by the feds. It's so far down the list of concerns. I may agree with Romney in priniciple on PBS, but he could've instead listed off some serious pork/bloat examples on the national stage last week (and let's face it, PBS is one of those things the vast majority have either neutral or positive feelings toward).

Good points. And coupled with his calls for unprecedented, unaffordable and unwanted military spending increases, it looks pretty pathetic to even warrant a mention.

Defense spending by the Federal Government is a responsibility spelled out in the constitution. I don't think funding a television channel was part of the constitution. I'd do more checking into military preparedness before I labeled increased spending proposals unwanted.

No, funds are funds and we need to cut where there would be a difference made. PBS isn't one of those areas, but like Motown said, I would not lose any sleep over cutting it's funding either. You want to cut PBS? Sure, fine, but to use it in a debate to outline how serious you are to fiscal responsibility when it's budget represents not even a sliver of a dent into the deficit? Come on.

Admittedly an attempt by Obama to focus on the one part of the debate that Romney flubbed on, but it's a legitimate point. People who are serious about cutting the deficit don't mention PBS.

I don't care whether it makes a dent or not. Funding for defense is a constitutional requirement, benefits us all, and if we don't maintain preparedness we pay more for it in the end. PBS is just one of the assinine expendentures the federal government makes. There are many more and they should be cut long before we start cutting on the military. I've provided examples of how the Navy has been overextended and the problems it has in another thread.

Overextension of the military isn't a problem of funding, it's a problem of overextending ourselves. The military absolutely needs to be cut back, and massively so.

Nobody is saying defense spending is not mandated or important. And we certainly aren't advocating for its total demise like PBS funding.

But we don't have the money to fund the huge increase Mittens wants. Certainly not without tax increases or huge cuts to domestic safety nets. Thankfully, it will likely never happen as the Senate looks to remain in D hands.

(10-09-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Overextension of the military isn't a problem of funding, it's a problem of overextending ourselves. The military absolutely needs to be cut back, and massively so.

You are gravely mistaken on that and that way of thinking ignores history and the reality that there will be threats to our security in the future and it may not just be from terrorist groups.

(10-09-2012 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is saying defense spending is not mandated or important. And we certainly aren't advocating for its total demise like PBS funding.

But we don't have the money to fund the huge increase Mittens wants. Certainly not without tax increases or huge cuts to domestic safety nets. Thankfully, it will likely never happen as the Senate looks to remain in D hands.

Democrats have always been willing to spend as much as possible on anything other than what the contitution calls for.

(10-09-2012 04:07 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:01 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nobody is saying defense spending is not mandated or important. And we certainly aren't advocating for its total demise like PBS funding.

But we don't have the money to fund the huge increase Mittens wants. Certainly not without tax increases or huge cuts to domestic safety nets. Thankfully, it will likely never happen as the Senate looks to remain in D hands.

Democrats have always been willing to spend as much as possible on anything other than what the contitution calls for.

You seem like a nice guy. Please don't act like the modern Republican party is the bastion of conservative spending, ok?

We weren't born yesterday!

(10-09-2012 04:05 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:00 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Overextension of the military isn't a problem of funding, it's a problem of overextending ourselves. The military absolutely needs to be cut back, and massively so.

You are gravely mistaken on that and that way of thinking ignores history and the reality that there will be threats to our security in the future and it may not just be from terrorist groups.

I'm ignoring history? Yes, americas meddling in world affairs has only resulted in positives. I'm very happy that your school of thought is slowly losing influence, because it's a very dangerous and expensive one.

If Romney or Obama wanted to show some leadership, whichever is elected, they should give up their salary for the next 4 years and put it back into the country. Neither really need it.