«

»

Why Would I Do That?

You know, the Onion has a point. They have a satirical article about Obama not wanting to run for President again:

Arguing he’d have to be certifiably insane or some kind of sadistic freak to extend his presidency, Obama asked why anyone with half a brain would willingly open himself up to constant vilification by media strategists, or place himself in a situation that involves so much work for such little reward. He also asked the audience how “messed up and sick” he’d have to be to devote nearly a decade of his life to an unending cycle of political gamesmanship that stifles progress at every turn.

The Onion is coming at this from a very liberal viewpoint of asking why the country is so sick we can’t get on board the Obama Awesomeness Agenda. In fact, a lot of the “the system is broken” criticism from the Left has that taste to it: that the system must be broken because we can’t create universal healthcare or double education spending (again). It would never occur to them that the opposition to many of Obama’s policies is the system working.

But the article does circle the question we always ask: who the hell would want to run for President? Who would want to have their past dug through, their every statement and gesture analyzed? Who would want to be the subject of a thousand ridiculous rumors and “facts”? Who would want to have reasonable positions portrayed as — take your pick — socialism, fascism, racism, elitisms, Christianism? Who would want to spend all their time raising money, scratching backs and telling the American people everything they want to hear but nothing that they need to hear?

The answer, of course is: politicians. I was at an event where someone asked P.J. O’Rourke this question and he responded that politicians enjoy the game. They love cold-calling people for donations. They love scoring cheap points on the Sunday morning shows and unfairly mocking their opponents’ positions. It’s a game, if you have the right semi-sociopathic mentality.

That’s why the few politicians who don’t seem to enjoy that game, who do seem interested in ideas and debate strike such a chord among the general public. Reagan was this way, to some extent, although he also played the game about as well as it has ever been played. Ron Paul is this way. John Huntsman maybe. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. A few others. But they seem to be getting rarer and rarer.

7 comments

No ping yet

  1. Mississippi Yankee says:

    All satire has a firm foundation in truth right? Could the WH see problems on the horizon?

    This stuff is still on the back burner for now but as the Presidential Primary draws closer…

    And I’m certain that everyone at this blog is way, way too sophisticated to be a”birther” but some courts in Alabama plus the Secretary of State in Georgia do have some questions.

    BARACK OBAMA UNABLE TO REGISTER FOR STATE PRIMARY
    An Alabama Court has announced that it will hear arguments as to whether Barack Hussein Obama II is in fact eligible to appear on the State Presidential Primary Ballot.

    GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE
    DEMANDS PROOF POSITIVE!

    Georgia becomes the first state to pursue Obama ineligibility complaints and the end result may keep Barack Obama OFF the Georgia 2012 ballot!

    If any of this comes to fruition Georgia alone puts 15 electoral vote in play.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Kimpost says:

    The “badly forged” birth certificate – again. Awesome. Plus the whole natural born citizen issue – again.

    The White House’s badly forged “birth certificate” has not ended the debate on Barack Obama’s eligibility. Rather, it has opened the door for further allegations of fraud and ineligibility. Georgia resident Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, “Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States….”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. FPrefect89 says:

    I think it is friggin hilarious that everybody concentrates on the fact that Obama’s father was not a US citizen keep forgetting about his mother who was.

    The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The Congressional Research Service has stated that the weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion indicates that the term means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship “at birth” or “by birth,” including any child born “in” the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad, and those born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements.[1]

    Wikipedia Link
    Wikipedia reference Link

    Seems pretty clear that he is a “Natural-born-citizen, ” even with the minimal constitutional education I received in high school, that was what I was taught. I have always been confused by the argument that Obama is not a citizen so he should not be president, when there are plenty of arguments of why he should not be just based on his policies.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. balthazar says:

    My only question is why did the Senate have to have a hearing about weather or not Mccain was able to be President due t the fact he was born overseas? Yet no such hearing was held about BHO.

    Oh that’s right, the dems controlled congress at that time, NM.
    Its all stupid, the partisan bullshit is just that, bullshit, no matter who does it.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Xetrov says:

    My only question is why did the Senate have to have a hearing about weather or not Mccain was able to be President due t the fact he was born overseas? Yet no such hearing was held about BHO.

    Because he was born inside the United States…

    Oh that’s right, the dems controlled congress at that time, NM.

    The McCain vote was unanimous in a non-binding opinion on the status of McCain’s birth that has zero legal weight. If the push for such a vote was driven by the Democrat majority, you would think at least one of them would have voted against.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. balthazar says:

    The point is why did they have the hearing at all? It makes no sense, Congress couldn’t do shit about it anyway. The courts would need to be involved if there was a real issue.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Well, it’s nice to see everyone is up and speaking again ;)

    My good deed for the week is done!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.