Main Menu

It’s official: we’ll have Obama to kick around in 2012

Barack Obama told me this morning in an email that he’s filing the paperwork necessary to kick off his 2012 run for re-election today. So let us rededicate ourselves to the quelling of unfounded rumors, to truth, justice and the American way. [Queue the theme from Superman.]

25 Responses to It’s official: we’ll have Obama to kick around in 2012

  1. avatar
    Lucas D. Smith April 4, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    I’ve never had a doubt in my mind that Barack Obama, if not removed from office before the next election, would run for office again in 2012.

    I am also confident that if Barack Obama is not removed from office before the 2012 election that he will not only run for office in 2012 but that he will also win the election.

    I’ve never understood why anyone would think otherwise.

  2. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    Lucas D. Smith: I’ve never had a doubt in my mind that Barack Obama, if not removed from office before the next election, would run for office again in 2012.I am also confident that if Barack Obama is not removed from office before the 2012 election that he will not only run for office in 2012 but that he will also win the election.I’ve never understood why anyone would think otherwise.

    I think the reason why people would think otherwise was because birthers believed he would be found ineligible and kicked out of office.

  3. avatar
    Thrifty April 4, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    I love President Obama and will vote next year to give him a 2nd term, and I hope the majority of Americans do too.

    However, I think it’s inaccurate to characterize him, as the ad did, as and underdog or a long shot. Granted it was an extremely close primary campaign, but I remember Barack Obama being seen as serious presidential timber ever since he burst onto the national scene right after his Senatorial election in 2004.

    I am still pretty amazed that this guy came out of seemingly nowhere and became our president. But then again, I kinda felt the same way about GW Bush and Clinton.

  4. avatar
    Paul April 4, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    Thrifty:

    However, I think it’s inaccurate to characterize him, as the ad did, as and underdog or a long shot.

    I don’t think he could have been characterized as anything BUT an underdog. And I think — if we all want him to be re-elected in 2012 — we should probably think of him as an underdog again. The forces allied against him are unlike anything I’ve ever seen, and my first vote was AGAINST Nixon.

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    Here’s a birther’s response to this news:

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/memo-to-american-thinker-four-facts-on-the-breach-of-article-ii/#comment-27596

    (The comment is a repost of a long, unlinked article so I didn’t want post the text, but the writer thinks that the states will secede again if President Obama is reelected…)

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Here’s a birther’s response to this news:

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/memo-to-american-thinker-four-facts-on-the-breach-of-article-ii/#comment-27596

    (The comment is a repost of a long, unlinked article so I didn’t want post the text, but the writer thinks that the states will secede again if President Obama is reelected…)

    Here are the responses to the comment from Dr. K(h)ate’s [please insert a word that describes the cesspool of lies, sedition, and bigotry that comprise the Harridan of Hate’s greek chorus]:

    RacerJim
    April 4, 2011 at 8:38 am
    Obama announced his re-election campaign earlier this morning, and is expected to collect $1BILLION in campaign funds.

    I know of no Republican or Independent with the wherewithal to match that with the possible exception of Trump.

    God Save America

    Reply
    Quantum Leap
    April 4, 2011 at 11:47 am
    Yes and he will have to pay his donors back with OUR TAX PROCEEDS like he did for his 2008 donors with the “bailout money”. HOW ELSE? F’N PIECE OF SHET THAT HE IS .
    Bail-out went to paying back his campaign debts. It was HIS PERSONAL BAIL-OUT.

    Reply
    heather
    April 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    QL–you are absolutely right–that IS where the money went–soros and seiu and the arabs! He is giving our money away–he better not win–we won’t survive next time.

    The idiots who voted him in before better stay home this time—I already warned my brother NOT to let my neice, his daughter vote—she is not capable of making a rational decision.

    That’s right, according to the birhters you can vote as long as you vote for candidates they agree with. UnAmerican vermin.

  7. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Here are the responses to the comment from Dr. K(h)ate’s [please insert a word that describes the cesspool of lies, sedition, and bigotry that comprise the Harridan of Hate’s greek chorus]:

    How do the birthers get private donations to a candidate becoming “our tax dollars” being spent…??? *facepalm*

    Oh, why do I even bother asking a rational question when there is nothing rational about birther thought… *sigh*

  8. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 4, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    G: How do the birthers get private donations to a candidate becoming “our tax dollars” being spent…???*facepalm*

    Oh, why do I even bother asking a rational question when there is nothing rational about birther thought…*sigh*

    Wow these guys are unamerican. Totally trying to stop a legal adult from voting because you disagree with their politics. I wouldn’t be surprised if these people condone kidnapping voters who don’t vote their way and torturing them until they believe as they do

  9. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 7:07 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Here’s a birther’s response to this news:
    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/memo-to-american-thinker-four-facts-on-the-breach-of-article-ii/#comment-27596
    (The comment is a repost of a long, unlinked article so I didn’t want post the text, but the writer thinks that the states will secede again if President Obama is reelected…)

    Here is the link.

    http://csadispatch.blogspot.com/

    The author is a “J. D. Longstreet” who calls himself a conservative “Southern American” “who runs a amateurish looking blog titled “Longstreet’s Insight on Freedom”.

    He fully is declaring and advocating that Obama’s reelection will signal the next “Seccession” and he’s obviously a big fan of the Confederacy.

    He’s obviously a seditious POS nut who’s name will need to be added to the list of Anti-American nuts that bear watching.

    He even starts off his blog with a counter that currently says:

    “War was declared on the United States of America
    3,492 days, 10 hours, 17 minutes and 15 seconds ago.

  10. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 7:23 pm #

    G: How do the birthers get private donations to a candidate becoming “our tax dollars” being spent…???*facepalm*

    Oh, why do I even bother asking a rational question when there is nothing rational about birther thought…*sigh*

    WARNING – this possible explanation of ‘birther logic’ may only lead to increased cognitive dissonance! Read at your own risk!

    I believe that the reasoning is thusly: President Obama used the ‘bailout’ (which I assume to be a conflation of the TARP [Yes, I know, this was enacted under President Bush – that’s not even a small bump in the road for a birther confirmation bias…], the stimulus package, and the auto industry bailout) to ‘repay’ his donors (it is not specified how this was done or how the apparent results of the programs were accomplished after the money was diverted to Obot slush funds…) – and will do the same thing again after his reelection.

    p.s. Thanks for digging up the link I was too lazy to find…

  11. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 7:59 pm #

    Slartibartfast: WARNING – this possible explanation of birther logic’ may only lead to increased cognitive dissonance! Read at your own risk!

    All you had to do Slarti was say “Underpants Gnomes”… 😉

  12. avatar
    Black Lion April 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Here’s a birther’s response to this news:http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/04/03/memo-to-american-thinker-four-facts-on-the-breach-of-article-ii/#comment-27596(The comment is a repost of a long, unlinked article so I didn’t want post the text, but the writer thinks that the states will secede again if President Obama is reelected…)

    Slart, the best has to be how salty Dr. K(h)ate is that the American Thinker has journalistic integrity and won’t publish any of her ridiculous and false articles….See below…

    “American Thinker has generally produced well researched and interesting articles that I enjoy very much. But they fail, like so many others, in discussing the most pressing issue of our day: the invasion of the White House by the foreign usurper, Obama. This author has repeatedly submitted articles to the American Thinker on the subject of Barack Obama’s failure to meet the constitutional requirements for the Presidency articulated in Article II of the Constitution. American Thinker has refused to publish not only mine but many articles on this subject, presumably because they either don’t see a problem or have been directed to not publish anything of substance. Recently AT allowed two articles to discuss Obama’s birth certificate’, notice not eligibility. Both articles fall woefully short of informing their readers of the true seriousness of this issue.”

  13. avatar
    Black Lion April 4, 2011 at 8:10 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Wow these guys are unamerican. Totally trying to stop a legal adult from voting because you disagree with their politics. I wouldn’t be surprised if these people condone kidnapping voters who don’t vote their way and torturing them until they believe as they do

    Bob, well the good “Dr.” wrote an entire article without one shred of factual evidence…

    “Fact. The natural born citizenship clause of the Constitution requires both parents to be American citizens at the time of a child’s birth in order for that child to be eligible for the Presidency. Mr. Obama has already admitted that at birth he had dual citizenship from his father, a British subject, and his mother, an American citizen. This is irrespective of birth place. A dual citizens’ allegiance is inherently divided. The Constitution requires singular allegiance to the United States at birth.
    Fact. Mr. Obama admits he was adopted by an Indonesian national and became an Indonesian citizen in order to attend school there. No record exists as to whether Mr. Obama renounced this Indonesian citizenship or was naturalized as an American citizen when he returned to the United States. Even if he did renounce his Indonesian citizenship, Mr. Obama fails the singular allegiance test of the Constitution as a result of his dual allegiance at birth. As further disqualification then, Mr. Obama has multiple citizenships: British, Kenyan, Indonesian, with his American citizenship confirmed as soon as he releases his naturalization papers. The Constitution requires singular allegiance to the United States. A Citizen of the United States by naturalization is not a natural born citizen.”

  14. avatar
    Scientist April 4, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I believe that the reasoning is thusly: President Obama used the bailout’ (which I assume to be a conflation of the TARP [Yes, I know, this was enacted under President Bush – that’s not even a small bump in the road for a birther confirmation bias…], the stimulus package, and the auto industry bailout) to repay’ his donors (it is not specified how this was done or how the apparent results of the programs were accomplished after the money was diverted to Obot slush funds…) – and will do the same thing again after his reelection.

    In a sense, they are chargiing Obama with beiing a politician, something to which he would probably have to plead guilty. Like it or not this is how politiics works. Donors favor candidates who favor programs that benefit those donors. The Republicans support policies that favor their donors (oil, coal, defense contractors) and Democrats support policies that favor theiir donors (the technology industry, unions, health care). This practice hardly started with Obama, nor has he practised it to any greater (or lesser)degree than his predecessors.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

    Lucas D. Smith: I am also confident that if Barack Obama is not removed from office before the 2012 election that he will not only run for office in 2012 but that he will also win the election.

    And I am confident that Barack Obama will not be removed from office before the 2012 election.

  16. avatar
    G April 4, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: And I am confident that Barack Obama will not be removed from office before the 2012 election.

    Ditto!

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 4, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    Paul: The forces allied against him are unlike anything I’ve ever seen, and my first vote was AGAINST Nixon

    I was among the handful of members of the McGovern Million Man club.

  18. avatar
    Paul April 4, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I was among the handful of members of the McGovern Million Man club.

    I was at UW-Madison in ’72. We had a bad day.

  19. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 8:44 pm #

    G: All you had to do Slarti was say “Underpants Gnomes”…

    No, no no! The ‘Underpants Gnomes’ reasoning is when the birthers point out some trivial, abstruse ‘anomaly’ in, say, the microfiche archive of a Hawai’ian newspaper and declare that this somehow proves that President Obama is ineligible – this is a completely different kind of defective reasoning…

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    Black Lion: Slart, the best has to be how salty Dr. K(h)ate is that the American Thinker has journalistic integrity and won’t publish any of her ridiculous and false articles….See below…

    I saw that – and enjoyed it as much as you seem to have… 😉

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 4, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    Scientist: In a sense, they are chargiing Obama with beiing a politician, something to which he would probably have to plead guilty.Like it or not this is how politiics works.Donors favor candidates who favor programs that benefit those donors.The Republicans support policies that favor their donors (oil, coal, defense contractors) and Democrats support policies that favor theiir donors (the technology industry, unions, health care). This practice hardly started with Obama, nor has he practised it to any greater (or lesser)degree than his predecessors.

    I agree – there is a problem with money corrupting the political process (which was greatly exacerbated by Citizens United), but President Obama is pretty much par for the course in this regard…

  22. avatar
    Paul April 4, 2011 at 9:20 pm #

    …and the campaign tagline is “Are You In?”, which the right has already translated into “RUIN”. Stupid stupid STOOPID!@## Who’s running this show?! Nobody vets taglines to see how they can be twisted??

  23. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 4, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    Paul:
    …and the campaign tagline is “Are You In?”, which the right has already translated into “RUIN”. Stupid stupid STOOPID!@##Who’s running this show?! Nobody vets taglines to see how they can be twisted??

    Well it sure beats I’ll be black, you stay white here

  24. avatar
    misha April 5, 2011 at 8:47 am #

    Slartibartfast: the writer thinks that the states will secede again if President Obama is reelected…)

    Let them secede. The nation’s dental health will improve by 100%, overnight.

  25. avatar
    Thrifty April 5, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    G: He even starts off his blog with a counter that currently says:
    “War was declared on the United States of America
    3,492 days, 10 hours, 17 minutes and 15 seconds ago.

    9 years and 7 months (approximately) ago? That would be…. September 2001. Oh. September 11th. Took me a minute to piece that together.