It’s less than one month before the election, and what is the attack ad that the Obama administration is pushing this week?  Big Bird.  I’m sure you’ve seen it, and I’m sure you’ve heard that the folks at Sesame Street have asked that the ad be taken down.  But it should say a lot about Obama’s campaign that the biggest outrage in the wake of last week's debate is about Big Bird.  Really?  Is this all they have to hang their hat on? 

And the answer is yes … that’s all they have.  Obama’s record as president clearly isn’t campaign worthy.  He’s a SCOAMF.  If you don’t know what that means, Google it (with caution).  His debate performance wasn’t campaign worthy.  So they seize on one innocuous moment that all Americans can relate to.  Why Big Bird?  Because most people know Big Bird and love Big Bird and it pulls at the heartstrings of millions of Americans who grew up with the feathery icon.  Again, the Democrats have resorted to appealing to emotion, rather than logic or reasoning.  This is nothing new.

The truth is that if you sit back and think about the concept of funding programs like PBS, Romney’s statement isn’t all that absurd.  Private enterprise has been able to come up with daytime TV characters equally, if not more, loveable than Big Bird.  PBS represents the millions of different programs where the government spends our money, and it is time that America finally sit back and say, “Do we really need to be spending this money?”  Yeah .. Sesame Street funding is probably 0.00001% of our federal spending, and much of its funding is private as it is, but that doesn’t make the money’s intentions any less absurd in a market that could be easily filled by private sector options.  Just remember, this is the same thought process that led us to spend $20 million on Sesame Street …. in Pakistan!