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
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
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.
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.
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.
Here’s a birther’s response to this news:
(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]:
That’s right, according to the birhters you can vote as long as you vote for candidates they agree with. UnAmerican vermin.
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
Here is the link.
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:
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…
All you had to do Slarti was say “Underpants Gnomes”… 😉
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.”
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.”
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.
And I am confident that Barack Obama will not be removed from office before the 2012 election.
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.
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…
I saw that – and enjoyed it as much as you seem to have… 😉
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…
…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
Let them secede. The nation’s dental health will improve by 100%, overnight.
9 years and 7 months (approximately) ago? That would be…. September 2001. Oh. September 11th. Took me a minute to piece that together.