Men Are Going to Strike Back
Wait, That's Why Dems Are Scared About ICE Agents Wearing Body Cams
Bill Maher Had the Perfect Response to Billie Eilish's 'Stolen Land' Nonsense
Some Guy Wanted to Test Something at an Anti-ICE Rally. Their Reaction Says...
The Trump Team Quoted the Perfect TV Show to Defend a Proposed WH...
Why This Former CNN Reporter Saying He'd Fire Scott Jennings Is Amusing
Democrats Have Earned All the Bad Things
CA Governor Election 2026: Bianco or Hilton
Same Old, Same Old
The Real Purveyors of Jim Crow
Senior Voters Are Key for a GOP Victory in Midterms
The Deep State’s Inversion Matrix Must Be Seen to Be Defeated
Situational Science and Trans Medicine
Trump Slams Bad Bunny's Horrendous Halftime Show
Federal Judge Sentences Abilene Drug Trafficker to Life for Fentanyl Distribution
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.

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