In the opening presidential debate of the 2012 election, the GOP presidential candidate employed a novel rhetorical device—a paper Big Bird—to demonstrate how serious he was about reducing the federal deficit. The candidate vowed to stop borrowing money from China to subsidize the exploits of the admittedly lovable Muppet moocher, Big Bird, and his parent network, PBS, which leaches 0.12% of the federal budget annually.
Oct 4, 2012
#45 Paper Big Bird
Inverted paper tiger; an entity that appears non-threatening but effectual made to
appear threatening but ineffectual.
In the opening presidential debate of the 2012 election, the GOP presidential candidate employed a novel rhetorical device—a paper Big Bird—to demonstrate how serious he was about reducing the federal deficit. The candidate vowed to stop borrowing money from China to subsidize the exploits of the admittedly lovable Muppet moocher, Big Bird, and his parent network, PBS, which leaches 0.12% of the federal budget annually.
In the opening presidential debate of the 2012 election, the GOP presidential candidate employed a novel rhetorical device—a paper Big Bird—to demonstrate how serious he was about reducing the federal deficit. The candidate vowed to stop borrowing money from China to subsidize the exploits of the admittedly lovable Muppet moocher, Big Bird, and his parent network, PBS, which leaches 0.12% of the federal budget annually.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you've mucked this one--a paper tiger is "a person or thing that appears threatening but is ineffectual," which is how Mitt used Big Bird. I love the coin, but believe you've accidentally given it the same definition as its intended opposite.
ReplyDeleteWhat a dimbo socket I am! Looking out for me even from afar…thank you!
ReplyDeleteDear readers of The Daily Coin, I have issued a correction to coin #45, Paper Big Bird, thanks to the discerning eye of Jesse Trahan, loyal friend and reader. I attempted to remedy the ill-defined neologism with a new definition that I hope abides by the laws of logic.
ReplyDelete