Since the presidential candidates of 2012 – President Barack Obama and the GOP presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney – don’t want to talk about what Americans are most concerned about lately, jobs and the economy, maybe we need to just tune them out and look at the coming election from a totally different aspect.
If the two men won’t give us conversation about who we want in the Oval Office, maybe we can decide for ourselves as to which of the two candidates we want in the White House – period.
I vote for Mitt Romney on this count. Not only is Romney likely more-accustomed to such exquisite surroundings due to his past success and wealth, but he probably has a better history in caring for the residence and the irreplaceable items within. One would also hope that he may have more respect for the historical aspect of the landmark edifice.
Seriously, look at what the Obamas have done to the White House in their brief stay. Right after the 2008 election, the President and misses made it their business to plan changes in the artwork throughout the White House. It’s like selling one’s home and being told the walls and its décor are a shambles by the new owner who is overanxious to undo what was honorably done years before – when the old owners still have two months to live there. Not only is the method of change void of any social class and graces, it is just plain rude.
What else has happened in the White House that – for all we know – wasn’t happening before he moved in? Of course, the parties. Even if you are on the most “left” part of the political “left”, admit it – the Obamas partied like it was 1999 – a decade late. Of course, “Dreams From My Father” told us how Obama partied before the turn of the century. Anyway, our current tenants in the White House allegedly have way too many parties on the premises – parties that appear to be going well into the night.
While some of the parties are traditional, expected, and appropriate, such as last spring’s Easter Egg Roll out on the lawn and barbeques for military personnel and their families, most of the Obama parties would send a landlord – that’s us, the American taxpayers – scurrying for eviction notices. How many music legend-laden parties can one president possibly squeeze into a four year span at the White House? If the White House had houses next door like most Americans’ domiciles, the local 911-operator would have been on meltdown.
You think this is an exaggeration? If so, let me remind you of the blues legend’s party where the president sang and the misses swayed into the night. There was the country music star night where legendary country stars were summoned to croon for the first couple. Remember the Motown extravaganza where the best of Barry Gordy’s Detroit legends inundated our White House? I would have given anything to witness that party – until I found out that it was so poorly organized that it was on a night when Diana Ross couldn’t even attend.
Then there was the Cinco de Mayo affair, the tribute to Paul McCartney after the singer disgraced former President George W. Bush, the salute to Broadway, the Super Bowl Party, and of course President Barack Obama’s highly-publicized birthday bash – correction, make that bashes.
I’ll be the first to quote most every American’s mother who has rightfully said “all work and no play make Jack a dull boy”, but come on. Partying is one thing – this presidency has been quite another.
Besides the parties, look at the people who have been let in the front door and even photographed with the leader of the free world. Recently, we’ve seen Obama smiling alongside Cher, her mom and transgender son Chaz of “Dancing” fame. We’ve seen Betty White looking up to and speaking with her presidential choice of 2012. And the list goes on and on. Has the president nothing better to do with his or his photographer’s time? Oh, I almost forgot two of their most memorable party guests – the uninvited Tareq and Michaele Salahi who breezed into our White House for a great time and a greater photo op with Obama.
Beyond the redecorating, the partying, the lack of proper security at the fiestas, one must consider the possible consequences of a tenant allowing his mother-in-law to cohabitate with the family. While Obama’s mother-in-law appears to be a very nice lady on the surface, one must keep in mind that some of those old adages about “the mother-in-law” aren’t so off-the-wall.
Lastly, as the American taxpayers who own and maintain the White House and are solely responsible for those who live there for four years at a stretch, we ought take into consideration the spending habits of the tenants. The current tenant has a penchant for spending incredible amounts of cash without a clue as to how the bills are going to be paid. This is dangerous – extremely dangerous. After all, we don’t want to see our White House boarded up before the next tenant has a chance to get in.
About Scott Paulson
Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.