Krazy Bill Kristol hates Sesame Street, liberal education, and the number 44

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney may have "won" last week's debate, but the larger takeaway is that he's a liar who wants to kill Big Bird. And in response his supporters are reiterating the lies and taking Romney's anti-Sesame Street line (or, rather, anti-funding for public television, including Sesame Street) beyond even what he intended, arguing that Sesame Street is fundamentally evil, the PBS equivalent to sending your children to an al Qaeda training camp in South Waziristan.

It isn't about the budget anymore. Funding for public television accounts for just 0.012 of the federal budget. It's about right-wing political correctness and paranoia. And you can find it spewing from the neocon delusions of Krazy Bill Kristol:

[T]here's something deeply revealing about Obama's blithe willingness to portray Wall Street as an enemy. Wall Street is key to American prosperity -- even to American greatness. Lots of important and impressive Americans have had careers on Wall Street. What Wall Street does is important. Wall Street matters.

I hate to tell the liberals this, but Sesame Street doesn't. It would be nice if life were "a magic carpet ride/Every door will open wide." It would be nice if happiness could be achieved by government telling us, "how to get/How to get to Sesame Street." It would be nice (maybe) if the world of Sesame Street were real.

But it's not. It's fictional. It's childish. It's as fictional and childish as the make-believe world of Obama's liberalism -- a liberalism that scorns Wall Street, and disdains Main Street... but embraces Sesame Street.

This is entirely ridiculous, of course. Obama doesn't think Wall Street is any sort of enemy. And he obviously knows that Wall Street matters. Has Kristol ever taken a look at the president's economic team? Does he remember Obama's tepid treatment of the real perpetrators of the Great Recession? Does he remember Obama's cautious approach to regulation? What the president objects to isn't Wall Street but the sort of destructive avarice that led to Wall Street's all-out assult on "Main Street." What he objects to, that is, is Wall Street run amok.

And of course he doesn't disdain Main Street. What does that even mean? The president's record has focused on salvaging what was left of Main Street from the ravages of Wall Street and uncontrolled corporate greed. The president has supported business, kept taxes historically low, and focused on rebuilding the economy out of the rubble that Republican policy had created.

As for Sesame Street... does it matter? Of course it does. It's an educational institution that without proselytizing teaches children the values that any modern liberal society should value. It's not about government telling you this or that, it's about learning in a fun, entertaining setting. You can fairly criticize its methods, just as you can fairly criticize the use of television as an educational tool, but if you really object to its values you're basically a monster.

Of course it's make-believe! It's a television show populated mostly by muppets! And of course it's idealistic. It presents a comforting world for children away from the ugliness and violence of so much of modern life. (But it's also very much rooted in the real world, and if you don't get that, you've either never seen the show or are an ignorant right-wing bigot. Or both.)

But to say that it therefore doesn't matter is just plain stupid.

And if Bill Kristol, an educated and supposedly smart guy, insists on criticizing "Obama's liberalism," and therefore to such things as marriage equality, access to affordable health care, and dignified care for seniors, what he's really saying is that he objects to the values of toleration, inclusion, opportunity, and hope, which is what you find on Sesame Street and in the hearts and minds of Americans who want a bit more from life than the retrograde dystopia of the conservative -- and neoconservative -- imagination.

Quote of the Day: Obama on Romney's attack on Sesame Street

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

The president, at a speech yesterday in Wisconsin:

When he was asked what he would do to actually cut spending and reduce the deficit, he said he'd eliminate public television funding... But I just want to make sure I got this straight. He'll get rid of regulations on Wall Street -- but he's going to crack down on Sesame Street.

Yes, that's right. Because, of course, Romney doesn't want to tell the voters just what he'd cut given how deeply unpopular such cuts would be. Better to talk about offsetting his massive tax cuts for the rich with vague talk about loopholes and deductions and to go after one of the right's usual targets, public television, which takes up a minuscule percentage of the federal budget.

And by minuscule I mean 0.012 of the budget. 

Yes, killing Big Bird is surely the way to go. I mean, it's not like the numbers have to add up or anything. (Right, Paul Ryan?)

(For more, see TakeMyCountryBack, where I got the image above.)

Conservatives accuse PBS of conspiratorially covering up huge Obama "gaffe" about Lincoln, even though there was no gaffe, no conspiracy, and no cover-up

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yup, here we go again. As LGF's Charles Johnson notes:

Practically the entire right wing blogosphere went into vapor-lock this morning, shrieking in unison at the evil librul PBS for "editing" the transcript of the President's joint session speech on jobs, to cover up his "gaffe" that Abraham Lincoln was a founder of the Republican Party.

Evil, evil PBS! Shame on them!

Oh, wait...

So are they right? Did PBS edit the transcript?

Gasp! Yes, they did! Full Text: Obama Vows to Spur Job Creation, 'Jolt' Economy in Speech to Congress.

Why in the world would they do something like this? Why, I ask you?

EDITOR'S NOTE: The original transcript provided on this page, as was noted, reflected the president's remarks as prepared for delivery and released by the White House. This transcript has been updated to reflect the remarks as delivered and released by the White House.

Oh.

There you go. PBS didn't do anything wrong. In fact, it did what pretty much every news organization does, running the prepared remarks, which it received in advance, and then not "editing" them but changing them to reflect what was actually delivered.

Conservatives really do jerk their knees in the stupidest ways.

(Actually, as Johnson also notes, Republicans commonly refer to Lincoln as the founder of their party -- and understandably so given that Lincoln gives them instant credibility, even though Lincoln and the current GOP, which is anything but Lincolnian in its right-wing ideological extremism, have next to nothing in common. It's never a wise thing to trust Wikipedia entirely, but its current phrasing is good: "[Lincoln] was instrumental in forging the shape of the new Republican Party." That was way back in the 1850s. Needless to say, the GOP has taken on rather new shapes since then.)

You can find more on the whole brouhaha at Mediaite:

If PBS wanted to "cover up" the gaffe, they did a lousy job when they posted the full video of the speech, including the Lincoln remark at the 27:35 mark. A quick review of the President's "Prepared Remarks" versus his "Remarks As Delivered," both of which we posted here at Mediaite, reveals that PBS didn't "alter" anything, they simply ran the prepared remarks, and never added the transcript when it was released several hours later...

So, again, big deal. There's hardly a "liberal media" pro-Obama conspiracy going on here. Conservatives are just desperate to find one.

This is what Jon Stewart was talking about

By Edward Copeland

To paraphrase the old Clinton campaign battle cry, "It's the media, stupid."

When the whole TSA media explosion began, it was one of those rare stories where all sides of the political spectrum seemed to agree from the likes of Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake to an assortment of conservative talking heads. It even had its own variation of "Don't tase me, bro" with "If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested" before true horror stories came out of passengers who had colostomy bags broken and urine collection bags ruptured, women who had their prosthetic breasts which they got after cancer surgery moved around as if they were puzzle pieces, etc. (Read Capt. Fogg's post for some of the examples.) It all pointed to improper training. Well, cable can't stand something like that, so they had to find political sides.

Suddenly, the left decided the whole issue was raised by neocons and the right to try to use racial profiling, even though days earlier they agreed with some of the ridiculousness of the system that still doesn't really add to protecting our skies nine years after 9/11. What makes this completely nonsensical and infuriating is that there is real news going on.

North Korea attacks a South Korean island in the most serious engagement between the two countries since 1953 in the same week we learn that North Korea has built another uranium enrichment facility. Do cable news shows want to discuss the serious implications of this? They could even put a political spin on it, if they wanted, as Jon Kyl continues to oppose the latest START treaty for no apparent reason.

I just watched Ed Schultz throwing a conniption fit about racial profiling and the TSA and Rush Limbaugh and I just couldn't take it anymore and I did what I do more and more when I need reasonable news coverage: I watched PBS' the NewsHour. They, of course, had in-depth coverage of the Korean situation as well as the fake Taliban negotiator, a promising drug that might actually prevent HIV infection and details of the financial reform. In fact, they went an entire hour without mentioning the TSA or what the cable channels would have you believe is today's other story of monumental importance: Prince William and Kate Middleton have set a wedding date!

Of course, I'm not even mentioning MSNBC's corporate synergy with NBC by using its nonstop coverage of the TSA imbroglio to play the Saturday Night Live skit about it from last weekend about it (which they do every time there is a new SNL on) as if it's an essential part of illustrating the story. Chris Matthews went as far as calling it the greatest SNL sketch ever. It aired on Olbermann, Maddow and O'Donnell last night and Morning Joe, Hardball and Schultz today.

Politico's Mike Allen had a funny tweet earlier today pointing out that Good Morning America actually did lead with the North Korean situation, but the Today show actually chose to go with the wedding date. As Fran Lebowitz said in the wonderful documentary about her that premiered on HBO last night, Public Speaking, I remember when news used to mean information.

It's like Jon Stewart said during his interview with Rachel Maddow. Was the Juan Williams story really as important as cable news made it out to be? No, but it fit their narrative and their template. There are far too many important things going on both domestically and overseas to waste our times on this nonsense anymore. Our "leaders" in D.C. can play politics, but they've lost the ability and the interest to govern and none of the talking heads on either side have any role in governance. Enough.