Tweet
This is an amusing ad by the Obama campaign, poking fun at Mitt Romney’s comment in the first debate about eliminating funding for PBS and Big Bird. President Obama has been getting good traction on the stump with the line about Romney looking out for Wall Street while fighting Sesame Street, and so they turned it into ad form. This was perhaps the most memorable line of the debate, and it came from Romney. Obama may have had a bad debate performance, but he gave the Romney campaign few quotable lines to work with. So it’s the Romney lines that get highlighted in ads.
There’s only one thing that sticks out to me about this ad, though the casual viewer probably won’t notice it. Let’s look at that litany of Wall Street “criminals” and “gluttons of greed,” which later get juxtaposed with Big Bird. You have Bernie Madoff, Ken Lay and Dennis Kozlowski. So two CEOs prosecuted and convicted by George W. Bush’s Justice Department, and Madoff, whose son turned him in before Obama took office, in December 2008, and who pleaded guilty.
So the Obama campaign could not fill a list of three Wall Street criminals that the Obama Justice Department actually sent to jail. Heck, they couldn’t fill a list of one!
This is despite Eric Holder telling students at Columbia University in February of this year that his Justice Department’s record of success on fighting financial fraud crimes “has been nothing less than historic.” But not historic enough that his boss could point to, well, one Wall Street criminal behind bars as a result of DoJ’s actions.
That’s painfully telling. Nobody from Bank of America or Wells Fargo or Citigroup or JPMorgan Chase or Goldman Sachs or Bear Stearns or Morgan Stanley or Merrill Lynch or even Countrywide or Ameriquest was available to stand in as a “glutton of greed” in this advertisement. Literally no major figure responsible for the financial crisis has gone to jail. So the campaign has to use two CEOs from a decade-old accounting scandal, and a garden-variety Ponzi schemer. The financial crisis plays no role in this advertisement trying to juxtapose cuts to PBS with the financial crisis!
The subtext here is far more revealing than the text.
70 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Now why did you have to go and point that out?
I guess what I think of even though the ad alludes to wall street, is that Romney is a one trick pony. His only trick is firing people to make profit. His only trick is cutting off quality of life for average folks. I wish they had left the reference to wall street out of it, and focused instead on this aspect. All Romney has done his whole life is cut off expenses to maximize profits. That’s it. That’s what he does. Profits for folks who don’t need em, and quality of life for average people. He’s a job cutter…not a job creator…and this should be the slogan.
Romney a job cutter, not a job creator.
This ad kind of ticks me off, much like the Harold and Kumar-themed spot they ran for the Democratic Convention. It’s so appallingly cynical. When it comes to marijuana policy, Obama is the worst recent president, and yet he cut a Harold and Kumar ad. Now, Obama cuts an ad criticising Romney for being soft on Wall Street, when he has taken a “get of jail free” posture with all the major players in the 2008 financial crisis.
America more concerned with officials in the NFL impacting the games outcome and bets with local bookies, than the wholesale evisceration of life and liberty by corporate aristocrats gaming the game in the that lust for easy profit.
Asselephants addicted to the substance called money are compromised by “monied interests.”
Guess it does take a children’s program character, teaching children right from wrong to teach the substance abusing adults, your a bunch of fuck-ups?????
Yeah, it’s actually an anti-Obama ad.
Pot calling the kettle ?
Friends don’t prosecute friends, especially not when those friends are Wall Street “criminals” and “gluttons of greed.”
In less than a month, Americans will have a choice between A) a friend of Wall Street “criminals” and “gluttons of greed” and B) a friend of Wall Street “criminals” and “gluttons of greed.”
(Obama is choice A, btw)
The “Great Eviscerator?”
Wealth extraction concerning life’s most basic needs via monopolies in commerce? Meanwhile America buys junk which fails just after warranty has expired. Got to love emerging markets and corporate sodomy to be the Great Eviscerator?
Like the drunk with liver failing making a choice between whiskey and vodka, hoping only one eye ball’s white, looks jaundice today?
Funny (not ha ha funny) that you should mention Kenny Boy Lay. Where do you think he’s living these days? Presume he’s wearing a rug. If Obama could find Bin Laden, why can’t he find Ken Lay?…Oh. He’s not looking, because Kenny Boy knows where the other bodies are buried.
Bankster & War Criminals never had it so good under the O administration.
WTF?????!!!!!!!!!
Obama has the audacity to put out that ad??????!!!!!!
He must believe we are dumber then dirt.
In 2000 the only question to answer in choosing between Bush and Gore was Who would you rather have a beer with? And of course the electoral college chose the future war criminal; today the only choice is Who would you rather get fired by?
Everybody is so skeptical. The SEC cannot file criminal charges. The Justice Department can’t find any laws that were actually broken, presumably. We have watered-down regulations written by the same people governed by the regulation. We have only ourselves to blame. Too fat on fast food and too enamoured with Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian to vote.
I don’t blame Obama. I blame Americans. Fat stupid lazy Americans. Wall-E got it right.
Yes they do think that way….Look he got away with it the first time
now he is trying to do it again.
Anyone who cares anything about ‘emselve,family & friends should not vote for this creep.
Look at 3party,we must make the sacrifice.The crooked structure is still in place,this guy has done nothing,nothing to help ordinary people.
Remember what his chief of staff said about progressives,”They are fucking retards”.They think you aren’t smart enough to see the con.
Too good . . . I’m stealing this line immediately.
I absolutely despise it when people place general blame on an entire population when the blame should be placed squarely where it belongs: on the corrupt CEO’s and their corrupt political lackeys.
Who are you to criticize others, and what have you done to correct the situation?
(There are plenty of criminal charges that can be brought to bear on Wall Street thieves, despite the watered-down regulations).
So right.
Only thing I would change is to say CRIMINAL CEOS and CORRUPT BOUGHT AND PAID FOR LACKEYS.
Obama’s hypocrisy on this issue is par for the course for the leader of the Chum Gang that wants to toss marijuana smokers in prison.
If he gets re-elected, then I hope he gets impeached.
Not a lawyer but every robosigned foreclosure satisfies the common law elements of fraud and there were millions of them; as well as S & P rating AAA that which should have been junk.
Note to BO: Bipartisan and appeasement are not the same thing. Many folks are ok with bipartisan but everyone hates an appeaser.
BO has appeared to be an appeaser from day one and his debate behavior proved it.
The Big Bird ad sure has Glen Beck riled up this morning (by extension Willard since Glen is his propaganda minister).
According to Beck O should be focusing on the “scandalous” Libya situation instead of Big Bird.
But hey, 3000 dead people on W’s watch here in the good ole USA, not to worry.
All the ammunition Romney gave them and this is the best they can do? The “Romney debates himself and loses” clip from Gawker is 100x better than this. It’s official – Obama does not want to be re-elected.
Ken Lay died before he was even sentenced/went to prison. Been dead for years.
Some say he’s not dead.
And BTW because he “died” before being sentenced they couldn’t take his money away from his wife.
I’m an American, and I vote. I support political candidates with money. I participate on forums such as this. If everyone voted, we wouldn’t have this problem. My belief is that people don’t vote because they are too enamoured with one or more modern opiates of the masses.
Why would you despise me for blaming the voters who, in a Democracy, are to blame? Doesn’t make sense to me.
This article is so cynical and wrong. Let’s recap all of the points that are wrong-headed:
1. “The DOJ should prosecute white-collar criminals.” – Let’s be clear that the DOJ’s responsibility is almost never to prosecute “business” crime. This is generally handled by the SEC (which just last week prosecuted four guys: http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2012/2012-207.htm) or by state Attorney Generals who are on a firm legal footing prosecuting these guys under state fraud statutes. There is very little federal law that regulates commerce. And what there is is the SEC’s purview.
2. In light of this, the example of Bush prosecuting the CEOs listed is disingenuous. Those CEOs would have invariably faced charges from any number of other federal or state legal entities. The DOJ prosecuted because the enormity of the fraud called for the President to make a political prosecution. In this light, that the DOJ has not prosecuted anyone is exemplary. It means that we are not getting our politics and our legal system confused, which is one of the great dangers to democracy.
While I do not believe there is a specific mortgage fraud statute, there are federal mail fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud statutes that the DOJ could have used if they saw fit.
Anyone who thinks the various frauds of the 2008 financial crisis couldn’t have been construed by the DOJ as falling within the prohibitions of existing law, when attorneys were able to construe torture laws as not prohibiting waterboarding, are not giving the DOJ enough credit. If they wanted to bring prosecutions, they could have.
And some say Willard is as kind and compassionate as…. Big Bird.
Some say (Chuckie Schumer among others) that we are headed over a cliff because of the debt, deficit and long-term budget.
Others say we have been falling for four years now.
No. Your target is too low. How is it that a nation with near the highest density of lawyers could fail to prosecute the wealthiest criminals?
Capitalism is Fraud.
Boy, Big Bird seems to be bothering a few people today, first Glen Beck, now you.
The SEC brings civil actions to disgorge ill-gotten moneys from securities law violations. It does not prosecute criminal actions; that is the job of the DOJ. Also, the SEC’s jurisdiction is limited to securities law violations and does not extend to general “business” laws.
The federal mail fraud, bank fraud, and wire fraud statutes give the DOJ all the authority it needs to bring prosecutions related to the 2008 financial crisis. I note that the Bush and Clinton DOJs secured over 1,300 and 1,000 convictions, respectively, related to the Savings & Loan scandal.
It doesn’t occur to you that maybe folks don’t vote because the only candidates who are on the ballot in all 50 states are on the ballot exclusively because mega-corps and billionaires bought their tickets?
Until there is legitimate access to the electoral process that would empower the common man to also challenge for office, it is absurd to blame the outcome of the system that produces our political options on common voters.
In a system where it requires millions and millions of dollars to play … blame for the outcome goes to the people with all the money.
Both are embarrassment for the country. The only big bird both these guys deserve is the one you show with fingers or at least that is what they have been doing to most of the country.
100% correct. X2
Sorry I’m late to the party….
Not even an indictment! I’ll never forgive Obama for that. And the drone murders. Oh, continued spying under FISA. Let’s not omit NDAA and the travesty that DHS is. HIs failing to support OWS. Perhaps Gitmo. Year of offshore drilling moratorium for one predictable BP fiasco, among many.
I ‘spose he’s the New Yok Jets of presidents.
So when the President said at a news conference about the Bankers “they did nothing illegal” he had nothing to base that on but his firm belief that nobody who gives millions to his campaign war chest would ever do anything illegal. And who does the SEC answer to? Obama has not done anything within HIS power to identify the wrongdoers at the top of this massive fraud.
I must agree. It is frequently said, “The people get the government they deserve.” I totally disagree with that. As you say we the people have less and less to say about government every year. And unless wew get terms limits and campaign finance reform it will continue to get even worse.
Jeebus, it doesn’t occur to you that playing within the system won’t work? Now who’s responsible for stopping the system, comrade?
That’s a BIG 10-4!
Meanwhile, PBS has requested that the ad be taken down:
Sorry, screwed up the “emphasis” there. BUt, you guys know what I mean.
So, looks like both sides had pissed off Big Bird.
Glad he ain’t flyin’ over my house.
Dave gets this week’s “No More Bullshit!” award…to go with the other 8 or 9 sitting on his mantlepiece.
The notion that Obama, IF he can squeeze out a win, is going to do something that he didn’t do when he had all the clout, is pathetic tinkerbelle turd-polishing.
LOL. I don’t think we need to worry about that. Drones, on the other hand, well…
Right. My point is that most “business” law is handled by state statutes. While mail, bank, and wire fraud statutes do give them the authority, it does not mean that these statutes are well served to be applied in these cases especially. In most cases, state laws are more applicable. Why should DOJ spend time prosecuting someone that can be handled by the state?
The point here is that the number of CEOs that were prosecuted by the DOJ is correlation, not causation. All of the notable examples that are cited in this article are situations where Bush had significant political motivation to prosecute, not legal motivation as in all of these cases there were several states that could have handled the CEOs under state statutes.
The reason Bush prosecuted was because he wanted to be seen as doing something for political reasons. It is a cynical argument to say Obama has not prosecuted CEOs because he gets paid by them when the only reason these guys ever get prosecuted by DOJ is for POLITICAL reasons. There is almost always a state statute to handle these guys (especially the guys listed in this article). The only reason, then, to make a federal case out of it is to make a political statement.
So the article is criticizing Obama for good governance: allowing the states to handle prosecution for most commercial malfeasance. He has actually succeeded in not using the DOJ as a tool for political maneuvering, and here is an article that is criticizing that good governance.
If someone wants to post an example of someone who was not prosecuted under federal statutes, they will start to have an argument. If we can add on top of that donations to Obama, then we have the outlines of a reasonable but circumstantial argument. And I am open to that.
But to say that Obama not prosecuting CEOs through the DOJ is de facto proof that he is in bed with them is silly and does not consider that it may actually be a reflection of good governance.
Are you saying that the DOJ is so captured by Wall Street and Corporations that they only prosecute for political reasons?
Because the law is well, for the 99%?
That was really convenient wasn’t it? He’s probably living the high life at the Bush compound in Paraguay.
Eric “Chiquita” Holder (“due process is not he same as judicial process”) didn’t lie. His Justice Department’s record of prosecuting financial fraud crimes has been “historic”, in the sense that it’s non-existent.
The denial of reality is strong on this subject. It’s almost as if people blinded by partisanship are willfully ignorant./s
X2.
Every president in my lifetime I think they and the DOJ can’t get worse. Then the next one proves me wrong.
I appreciate your points, but we own the system. If we voted, and were engaged, things would not be as they are. Voting is, IMHO, a civic duty. We have the means to bring-forward our own candidates if we dislike the ones the parties are providing.
I’m not an idealist. I just think it’s important to recognize we get the government we deserve.
No the article is criticizing Obama for giving the impression he is tougher on White Collar thieves than Mitt would be when we all can see he is mostly aiding and abetting them in covering up past bad deeds and insuring their success first. Anyone of the 99% who has benefited from Obama’s “help” I classify as a collateral beneficiary.
Geez, with electronic voting that has been proven over and over and over to be easily hackable I don’t see how you think voting is going to solve this.
If you really want people to vote and hold politicians accountable based on their vote we need to demand paper ballots only.
NOT A PAPER TRAIL.
I think we get the government we deserve. If, statistically speaking, the 20% outliers on the bell curve represent the political extremes, and we only have roughly 40% of the population voting in good elections, should we be surprised the outcome?
I’m not saying that there isn’t corruption or that capitalism isn’t without obvious faults. What I am saying is that people don’t vote, and that results in a shitty government.
If we are to engage in finger-pointing, and it seems like the lively debate here today is about finger pointing, why should we ignore the obvious weak link in our democracy – apathy?
Agree [On-Edit] with paper ballots.
That’s what they want you to believe.
Here in Houston, rumors still persist that he paid off the Aspen medical examiner.
You got THAT right. I will never forgive Obama and his AG. What’s his name.
I agree that lots of people are apathetic. But nobody really cares about that./s
LoL – literally
What? With respect, I have to assert that you are talking in circles. Obama is a politician. The reason he DOES NOT have the DOJ prosecute Wall Street is EXACTLY political. They have paid him off. He is a politician, and they have paid him off, so he does not prosecute them. The pay to Obama IS political.
Yes, I and others here are cynical, but “cynical” does not mean “incorrect”.
You other point about use of State laws for prosecution is well taken, and is a viable option if the DOJ won’t prosecute.
Everytime I think ALL Liberals are hypocrits…I find an article like this here. Thanks FDL for pointing this detail out…
Eric Holder…he who approved Fast & Furious that has killed more than 300 Mexican nationals (at least 16 of whom were children) and 2 US Federal Agents…
As Willard would say….
Big Birds are people my friends.
Er wait…
Correct that.
As Willard would say…
“47% of Big Birds are people my friends.”
He’s been dead for six years moron
That is what I call self-parody. You consider yourself to be a well informed voter?
Come on people. We’re choosing between two corporate puppets here. We’re getting screwed either way. It’s just that Obama will prolong the act and talk nicer to you.