Former Capitol Police Officer Michael Fanone Was Out of Control During Jack Smith's...
Darrell Issa's Questions for Jack Smith Did Not Sit Well With Dems
Jim Jordan Gets Jack Smith to Admit How Far He Was Willing to...
Is Political Murder Becoming ‘Acceptable’? These Numbers Say 'Yes.'
Governors Newsom and Walz Lurch Toward Infanticide
Bari Weiss Is Still Scorched After Running Disputed 60 Minutes Segment, and Another...
Passengers Applaud After Woman Kicked Off Miami Flight Following Bizarre Political Rant
Nick Shirley Gave Opening Remarks at the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on Fraud....
Javier Milei Declares the United States a 'Beacon of Liberty' at the World...
The First Son, Credited With Saving the Life of a 'Very Close' Female...
DHS Slams Democrat Story Which Claims ICE Used 5-Year-Old As Bait
Florida Nursing Assistant Convicted in $11.4 Million Medicare Brace Fraud Scheme
U.S. House Approves $10B for ICE Funding, Avoids Shutdown
Jury Convicts California Couple Charged with $100 Million Fraud
Two Men Sentenced in Nearly $2M COVID-19 Relief Fraud Scheme
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