web
counter

the walking dead / snl / mindhole blowers / netflix / celebrity facts / marvel / liveblogging the 90s


New Obama Ad Hilariously, Sarcastically Mocks Romney's Big Bird Gaffe

By Dustin Rowles | Videos | October 9, 2012 | Comments ()


Screen Shot 2012-10-09 at 10.28.12 AM.png

Let me just preface this by saying that, yes, I know: This ad is as frivolous as it is awesome. I appreciate that the Obama campaign has a sense of humor and knows how to use that sense of humor to mock Mitt Romney, but obviously, it's not enough to win an election. He's going to have to improve his debate skills (in fact, he should take these notes from Jed Bartlett). It's not trending in Obama's way right now (in fact, according to Five Thirty-Eight, Obama's chances of winning have decreased by 10 percent since the debate, from 85 to 75 percent, while national polls have put the race at a dead heat).

Momentum has to be stopped if Obama hopes to win, and a funny ad is not going to do it.

That said, this ad -- which is not actually airing on television anywhere -- is fantastic, and people have been known to respond to a delightful sense of humor.







Are you following Pajiba on Facebook or Twitter? Every time you do, Bill Murray crashes a wedding.


Comments Are Welcome, Bigots and Trolls Are Not


  • Pookie

    SmugMoFo, you are what I like to call a “Theory Ho.” you walk around with your “don’t tread on me” sign and your pocket constitution railing about the evils of government, but don’t let your government subsidy come late. Oh no, you’ll jump on the phone and give your case manager an earful.

  • SmugMoFo

    I am the 1%. I am voting in my best interests and in what I believe is the best interest of the country. I pay for the government subsidy and would like to have some say in how it is spent. And while I understand that I have an obligation to support those in this country who are financially less fortunate than I am the amount of waste and reckless spending I see is disgusting. I would be happy to continue to pay my freight, and even more if need be, for the public good, but I am not happy to send money needlessly down the drain. For me then, going through the budget on a line item by line item basis and cutting the less effective in favor of the more effective sounds like a good strategy. The US is not currently in a position to have everything it wants, we can't afford it, but we should be able to focus on what we need right now and try and improve things to the point of having more of what we want down the road.

  • AnomicOfficeDrone

    Amusing but not at all helpful to the political discourse.

    On the other hand, neither is Romney's style of lying through his teeth whenever it's convenient.

    Maybe you just have to fight absurd with absurd?

  • A Guy

    That's a really, really stupid ad.

  • Slash

    Once again, the Onion nails it:
    http://www.theonion.com/articl...

  • Pookie

    Don't you just love the ” Government is bad” crowd? They had better hope that the government stays in their lives, because the only thing that's standing between them and some ” Mad Max “ existence is the government.

  • SmugMoFo

    Seriously Pookie. Have you heard Romney advocate for no government? Zero? No defence, no laws, no protection of citizens at all? Your statement is as stupid and poorly thought out as the tea party idiots ranting about how Obama is a socialist and wants to take over all businesses. No one is arguing all or none, just more or less and where the government should be involved. I think there is ample evidence that the government is bad at business. Look no further than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under the government's guidance they operated like the two biggest hedge funds on earth and detonated in fantastic fashion during the crisis, all while paying out in excess of $10 million ($25mm for Frank Raines, Clinton Buddy) in bonuses to senior executives who had all the upside but hung the downside on taxpayers. THESE BUSINESSES WERE RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT!.

  • Pookie

    Seriously SmugMofo. Where have I written that said Romney advocated for no government? Romney is a businessman, nothing more nothing less, and I don’t have a problem with that. My problem with Romney is that he wants to run the government like a business, governments aren’t supposed to be run like a business, governments are set up to be the backbone of a civilized society. And a civilized society can’t function if its government is only concerned about making money. Freddie and Fannie were set up to help those citizens that wanted help in purchasing a home, those that were in charge of Freddie and Fannie used it as a slush fund of sorts. Now if stronger “Regulations” were in place this fiasco might not have happened. But since Romney and every other Republican since Adam tapped Eve under that tree with the snake in it, they are allergic to the word “Regulations,” we can look for more shenanigans like Fred/Fan to happen more often.

  • SmugMoFo

    The regulations for Fannie and Feddie were loosened under the Clinton administration and championed by Barney Frank. Granted, they didn't get any stronger under the Bush administration, but to call this a Republican problem is disingenuous. Further, if they were unregulated private enterprises they never would have survived as long as they did or grown as large. Only because of the assumed government guarantee were they able to fund themselves and run massive leverage at advantageous rates and operate in the fashion that they did. If the government can't properly regulate and manage a business they actually run, how can we hope they can do differently with others? You are correct, the government should not be involved with money making enterprise because the incentive structure is other than profit maximization. That's exactly my point.

  • Swoon. love love love the ad. hated the debate. very worried.

  • SmugMoFo

    "What’s stopped us from meeting these challenges is not the absence of sound policies and sensible plans. What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics — the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems."
    -Your guy, 2007
    Still love the ad?

  • Pookie

    "I stand by with whatever it was that I said"
    Your guy, a couple of months ago.
    Still love the guy?

  • SmugMoFo

    I don't love him, I just think he's the better of two very flawed options.

  • LOL! Well, seeing as how Sesame Street has asked that the commercial be removed, I won't make too much of this. Nor should the lowlifes at Pajiba.

  • Guest

    The "new" Big Bird voice still discombobulates me. /gen-Xer

  • e jerry powell

    And naturally, Sesame Workshop has already asked for the ad to be pulled.

  • no one

    What makes this ad really sweet is Seseme Street is telling Obama to stop running it and they never approved of it.
    Also, how on earth is it a gaffe to say federal money to PBS should be cut?

  • Jezzer

    It's not a gaffe, it's an idiotic statement made to appeal to dim people who think federal money to PBS is more than a drop in the budget bucket.

  • BierceAmbrose

    Going through the budget one line at a time certainly is an insane and radical idea: http://www.boston.com/news/pol...

    As you certainly know, Governor Romney proposed a heuristic for cutting things, with Big Bird as an example. The heuristic: "Is it worth borrowing money from China to do this?" A variation I like better is P. J. O'Rourke's "grandma test" which goes: "Is it worth putting a gun to your sweet grandma's head to get her to pay for this?"

    Would that President Obama had gone through the budget as he promised. Even if you are against my preference for the government doing less (because they're bad at doing most things & never heard of an unintended consequence before it happens), the current course is suicidal. Budgets are about choices, someone notably said in the the recent Professional Wrestling Matchup - the Rumble in the Sky. "I choose them all" is one choice.

    But make the case, whatever your preference.

    "More govt spending." - OK, then what happens? (And BTW, how's that working out so far?)

    "Quantitative ease some more!" - OK, then what happens? (And BTW, why will *this* easing be different?)

    "Tax the 1%!" - OK, how much money they got, and BTW then what happens? (In perfectly timed irony, the French richies who petitioned to be taxed more aren't so into it now that it's happening: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20...

    This crap is like two steps removed from seriousness. Make your proposal. One step removed is shoot up the other guy's proposal. This is running a distract-o ad at his example, which BTW was memorable, and pretty good politics. Really? Really?

    (*) The French thing via TaxProfBlog which does a pretty good job of deconstructing both tax proposals & operations / implementation. http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...

  • Slash

    That's a whole lot of blah blah blah just to say "Taxation is theft!" Next time, just do that and we'll get it.

  • BierceAmbrose

    "Shut up", you explained?

    If I wanted to say "taxation is theft" I'd have said "taxation is theft." See, there I typed it twice. I didn't say that.

    I think taxation is something more than grabbing something that's free. Whatever *we* take, someone had. Along with the good of who gets the stuff, comes the taking of the stuff. There's a lot of space between "there's a downside" and "taxation is theft. A nuanced distinction, one might say.

    - If you want to argue that them who are taxed *deserve* to have their stuff taken, that's another position - take it and make the argument.

    If you want to talk "the 1% caused the financial crisis", I think we missed a hell of an opportunity to clean up financial markets some. The big banks are bigger, fraudsters of different flavors are running around loose, still, and I haven't seen a lot of reform aimed at the most risky stuff.

    Here's Huff Post on exactly that:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  • no one

    Who cares how much it is? Borrowing money from China to give to PBS is stupid and irresponsible.

  • foolsage

    For those who prefer to read instead of watch:

    "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

    Bernie Madoff. Ken Lay. Dennis Koslowski. Criminals, gluttons of greed, and the evil genius who towered over them. One man has the guts to speak his name.

    "Big Bird. Big Bird. Big Bird."
    "It's me, Big Bird!"

    Big. Yellow. A menace to our economy.

    Mitt Romney knows it's not Wall Street you have to worry about; it's Sesame Street.

    "I... I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS."

    Mitt Romney: taking on our enemies no matter where they nest."

  • Fabius_Maximus

    That was mildly amusing.

  • dizzylucy

    That's a real ad? That's hilarious.

  • Rummy

    If he believes what he said, and would say it again, I don't think you can call it a 'gaffe'.

  • Slash

    Agreed. It's not a "gaffe" if someone is saying what they actually think. Republicans actually think the stupid shit about PBS Romney said. They actually think Sesame Street is indoctrinating their children. Whether Romney actually believes it is another matter, but throwing it out there the way he did - he still represents the Republican party, which is now straight-up, full-on crazy. Poor people don't pay taxes, women's naughty bits should be regulated, Obama's weakness causes terrorist attacks, government is worthless but please put me in charge of it, crazy.

  • BierceAmbrose

    Yet another platoon of scarecrows. Jeebus H Godtopus jumping a shark, y'all are gonna make me vote for the Romney-bot just out of pique.

    - Who pays federal income taxes? How much by % of their income and by % of contribution to the federal spend? (Sales taxes are horribly regressive, and VATs nearly impossible to make otherwise.)

    What are the numbers vs. say, the poverty line? For extra credit, what are the effective taxes put on poorer folks through regulations, fees, and taxes on others? Develop those numbers over the last 4-5 administrations, broken down by *congresses* vs. presidencies and that's something to talk about.

    - No, a fetus, while not an adult - which may happen, let's say around age 26 or thereafter - is something more than a fingernail clipping(*). The fundamental problem of "abortion" comes down to 1) Of course people(**) should be able to do what they want with their own bodies, 2) We seem to think that in general these proto-humans have some sort of rights and value, too 3) Sometimes 1 & 2 conflict, and 4) It's horribly tied up in gender politics because only women can become pregnant.

    - First ambassador killed in line of duty in 33 years. Embassies, consulates & etc. attacked, looted, etc. So, is this love or respect we're seeing? Is this what "working" looks like in dealing with terrorists?

    (Or maybe whole swaths of the world's nations are batshit and kept that way because it keeps their mumu-wearing "strong-man" leaders in blonde Valkyrie "nurses.")

    - Government is a huge, dangerous, difficult to control instrument that can't do many things at all, does other things poorly. Government is also the *only* way to effectively do a few terribly, vitally important things.

    The first thing you do when you're over-committed is knock off the stuff that ain't working. You can try the hard stuff again after you get the rest of it under control.

  • BierceAmbrose

    Frakking Disqus told me it ate that without posting.

    OK

    (*) "Fingernail clippings" have in fact been used to describe "abortion products" by abortion advocates. It ain't my phrase. More common and somewhat more accurate was "ball of cells."

    If *everybody* thought an embryo or fetus was a fingernail clipping or ball of cells we wouldn't have any arguments. Saying that isn't productive.

    (**) Why does this running argument always start with "women", then "women are people, too." Start with *people.* People have autonomy and rights. Some people have differently-shaped tingly bits, and different people's bodies can sometimes do different things. Start there.

    This has the advantage of flushing out the profound "Women are chattel" folks in a hurry. Hook them on that by talking about "people" and daring them to say, in effect "Well, that doesn't count because we're talking about women here, and they're not ... oops."

  • ZestyItalian2

    Preface appreciated.

    I mean, I haven't watched the ad yet- I'm sure it's very droll indeed.

    But I am gobsmacked by the notion that OfA is releasing anything that could be described as "hilarious" or "sarcastic" or "frivolous" right now. Obama is taking on water, big time. Regardless of what Nate Silver says, he's currently on a trajectory to lose in November if he can't halt Romney's advance.

    I want to see substance, passion and FIGHT from the president right now. He was cruising to reelection a week ago. CRUISING. I've NEVER seen polls turn around this quickly so late in an election. If he loses, it will go down as one of the biggest choke jobs in American history.

  • space_oddity

    Regardless of what Nate Silver says

    This is a guy who predicted the last presidential election within a couple of electoral votes and got the popular vote percentages almost exactly right, if I recall. He knows whereof he speaks.

  • SmugMoFo

    His prediction for the UK elections was off-the-wall dead wrong.

  • no one

    Out of the thousand of talking heads predicting the outcome in 2008 SOMEONE had to be closest. Does that mean Nate Silver had the best model or that he was just lucky? Neither, the data set is too small to prove anything.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    What an adorable ad.

    Now, CRUSH HIM, Obama. Crush the living FUCK out of that lying, condescending, thieving, bullying, gay-non-white-women-hating DOUCHEBAG.

  • SmugMoFO

    Wow, you lefties can't take a punch. Everyone should be open minded and civil right up untill they disagree with you then they should be taken out back and shot. Sounds like the kind of thinking you accuse the other side of.

  • Pants_are_a_must

    Look at you trolling.

    Look at you.

    Somewhere in Reddit, an asshole just took your place.

  • SmugMoFo

    Trolling like a fox.....

  • Pants_are_a_must

    I see what you did there. You should flush.

  • BWeaves

    Bwa-hahahahha! OK, that was cute.

blog comments powered by Disqus