Kash Patel Becomes the Focus of Media Analysis They Consistently Get Wrong
How America Has Destroyed Its Democracy, Part Two: The Aristocracy of Merit
Three Congressional Missteps on Healthcare
Today’s Qualifications to Be President of the U.S.
Climate Alarmists Howl After EPA Rescinds ‘Endangerment Finding’
Ukraine's Bureaucrats Are Finishing What China Started
Rising Federal Debt: Why Strategic Planning Matters More Than Ever for High-Net-Worth Fami...
Classroom Political Activism Shifts a Teacher’s Role from Educator to Indoctrinator
As America Celebrates 250, We Must Help Iran Celebrate Another 2,500
Guatemalan Citizen Admits Using Stolen Identity to Obtain Custody of Teen Migrant
Oregon-Based Utility PacifiCorp Settles for $575M Over Six Devastating Wildfires
Armed Man Rammed Substation Near Las Vegas in Apparent Terror Plot Before Committing...
DOJ Moves to Strip U.S. Citizenship From Former North Miami Mayor Over Immigration...
DOJ Probes Three Michigan School Districts That Allegedly Teach Gender Ideology
5th Circuit Vacates Ruling That Blocked Louisiana's Mandate to Display 10 Commandments in...
OPINION

March Madness: Obama Champions One-Percenters

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
March Madness: Obama Champions One-Percenters

When Barack Obama picked his NCAA brackets, he should have done what he always does: champion the underdog, and demonize the “overdog.”

It’s March Madness, and the underdogs are running wild – everywhere except in the President’s NCAA brackets.

Advertisement

There, where it counts, the President spent a disturbing amount of time and mental energy picking what he felt were the best teams with the best chances of becoming #1 (which led him, this year, to choose two #1 seeds to meet in the NCAA finals).

If President Obama ran his March Madness brackets like he runs the country, instead of picking two #1 seeds to meet in the finals, he would have demonized them for being fat-cat 1%ers. And he would have avoided six “upset” losses in his bracket so far, if he had just stood up for the underdog instead of picking perennial 1%er teams like Michigan, Duke, UNLV, Missouri and Temple.

Heck, if he treated basketball’s most successful teams and players the same way he treats America’s most successful companies and workers, he would go on 60 Minutes and call UNC and Kentucky a bunch of “fat-cats” for winning so many games. His campaign speeches would call for more “fairness” in the league. And he would ram through an unconstitutional law to close the “unfair” gap between winning teams and losing teams.

While we’re on the subject of picking winners and losers: why should there be any losers in the NCAA tournament at all? What kind of madness has the President of the United States succumbed to: actually picking winners? That means he’s picking losers, too! Is it fair for any team to lose? And why does the President pick so many fat-cat 1%er teams to win, and so many “little guy” underdog teams to lose?

Advertisement

Have you lost your soul, Mr. President? Have you not even read the speeches on your teleprompter? They tell a different story. When it comes to the American economy, you consistently champion the underdog and demonize those who succeed in America – even when their success leads to millions of jobs for millions of underdog workers across the country.

What does success in the NCAA tournament lead to? More millionaire basketball players in the pros. That’s right: more hated 1%ers.

If only the President treated successful Americans the same way he treats successful basketball teams and players.

Then maybe he would pick us, for a change.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement