Posts
WASHINGTON- After a successful State of the Union Address and an inspirational speech at the sight of the Tucson massacre, the political crisis in Egypt has dampened President Obama’s momentum. We at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy see the silver lining in this global calamity cloud- we now have the opportunity to destabilize Obama’s base, scare independents back into the arms of Republican politicians, and make everyone believe that Obama somehow caused all of the problems.
You might be thinking to yourself that it sounds impossible to formulate a way to blame Obama for Egypt’s ongoing problems before we know what will come out of the protests. I will be the first to admit that crisis-creation is more art than science. You will see that demonizing both sides is a tightrope, and I will demonstrate how to ride a unicycle down the middle of it.
One of the problems in Egypt is that nobody really knows who is going to be in power a day, a month, or a year from now. Without that information, it is hard to start creating lies about how evil and anti-American that group or individual is, and fabricating ties between Obama and the leadership will be extremely risky.
Our policy analysts suggest that President Mubarak or Murabak or whatever has lost the support of his military, which makes it seem like the populist protesters will likely oust him from power. We have dispatched Glen Beck to commence character assassination on these protesters, and he has already planted the seeds that they are Marxist revolutionaries and Islamic Jihadists. Americans reflexively hate both of those things. They are the two most demonic enemies of the last 50 years, so combining them in one group should make any unthinking American immediately want to blow them up. I am aware that Marxism is not especially compatible with a Jihad, but the people who are going to think about the issue that deeply make up 3% of the population and aren’t going to be on our side anyway. We thought about making them child molesters
, but we were worried that it might sound too far-fetched, so we stuck with Marxist Jihadists- I’m really happy with how that sounds.[LEFT- Whatever. They look scary enough.]
That bit of enemy creation has the external benefit of creating great villains for action movies. The Hollywood Liberals don’t think it’s PC to depict stereotypical Arab terrorists, and the Russian commie bit is getting tired, so seeing Sylvester Stallone curb stomp a few dozen Egyptian Marxist Jihadists should be a breath of fresh air.
If the protesters take over, we have to be ready for several contingencies. If Obama does not fully endorse the revolution, we plan on changing course and portraying the protesters as sympathetic characters. Even though we have already called them Marxist Jihadists, if we change course and start talking about how they are freedom-loving patriots who want a democratic election, nobody will remember what we said a week before. Then, we will have the Tea Party take their lead and organize a “peaceful protest” in Washington, but we will make the protest about the Second Amendment and gun control, and we will pretend that’s what the Egyptians were actually protesting. Again, nobody that is listening will know the difference.
If Obama endorses the revolution, we already have the Marxist Jihadist ball up in the air, and then we can make the current President seem like a sympathetic character by pointing out that Egypt has not been involved in any wars in the last decade. We can also make up some figures that make it seem like they were prosperous. If we tether Obama to the Marxist Jihadists who unseated a peaceful and economically sound leader, it’s pretty easy to play the Barack Hussein Obama card and indict his loyalty. Questioning his country of origin might even get people thinking about his birth certificate again, then we can try to stretch out the residency fervor we had going against Rahm Emmanuel for a while. I realize that Obama’s citizenship has nothing to do with who rented Emmanuel’s house, but if we just say “citizenship” and “residency” enough times, there is bound to be some cognitive resonance somewhere.
We also recognize that there is a possibility that the existing Egyptian government squashes the protesters Tiananmen Square-style, so we want to cover all of our bases. We have started digging up old press releases from Obama’s presidency where he said lukewarm things about the Egyptian government in order to keep from getting angry at the United States. If we take a few quotes out of context, we can make it seem like Obama was in the President’s pocket the whole time. With a little bit of creative wording, we might be able to suggest that Obama knew that Egypt was planning to massacre thousands of citizens and did nothing to stop it. That’s really the ideal scenario for us because it makes Obama unsympathetic to the American people and props up a dictatorship in the Middle East that is going to hate Obama anyway. It’s a lose-lose for him, so I have my fingers crossed that the massacre takes place.
Another avenue to pursue would be interventionism. If Obama decides to send peacekeeping troops to Egypt to help conduct an election, we will decry the notion that America is the world’s babysitter and talk about how the Progressive movement got us involved in so many global entanglements that we eventually found ourselves in the middle of World War I. There really is no reasonable line of thinking that connects Egyptian protests to World War III, but it’s such a powerful rhetorical tool that we will probably just throw those words around anyway.
On the other hand, if Obama decides not to send any troops or aid to Egypt, we get to say that he has stretched the military dangerously thin in Afghanistan, that the Egyptians will run a corrupt election that will result in an anti-American fascist government, and that he is a coward who does not have America’s national security at heart. I’m just brain-storming here, but we might also run with the idea that there is some connection between repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the American military becoming too weak to provide a deterrent. Ooh, I like
the sound of that. I’m going to get the Westboro Baptist Church on the phone immediately to work out the details.
That bit of enemy creation has the external benefit of creating great villains for action movies. The Hollywood Liberals don’t think it’s PC to depict stereotypical Arab terrorists, and the Russian commie bit is getting tired, so seeing Sylvester Stallone curb stomp a few dozen Egyptian Marxist Jihadists should be a breath of fresh air.
If the protesters take over, we have to be ready for several contingencies. If Obama does not fully endorse the revolution, we plan on changing course and portraying the protesters as sympathetic characters. Even though we have already called them Marxist Jihadists, if we change course and start talking about how they are freedom-loving patriots who want a democratic election, nobody will remember what we said a week before. Then, we will have the Tea Party take their lead and organize a “peaceful protest” in Washington, but we will make the protest about the Second Amendment and gun control, and we will pretend that’s what the Egyptians were actually protesting. Again, nobody that is listening will know the difference.
If Obama endorses the revolution, we already have the Marxist Jihadist ball up in the air, and then we can make the current President seem like a sympathetic character by pointing out that Egypt has not been involved in any wars in the last decade. We can also make up some figures that make it seem like they were prosperous. If we tether Obama to the Marxist Jihadists who unseated a peaceful and economically sound leader, it’s pretty easy to play the Barack Hussein Obama card and indict his loyalty. Questioning his country of origin might even get people thinking about his birth certificate again, then we can try to stretch out the residency fervor we had going against Rahm Emmanuel for a while. I realize that Obama’s citizenship has nothing to do with who rented Emmanuel’s house, but if we just say “citizenship” and “residency” enough times, there is bound to be some cognitive resonance somewhere.
We also recognize that there is a possibility that the existing Egyptian government squashes the protesters Tiananmen Square-style, so we want to cover all of our bases. We have started digging up old press releases from Obama’s presidency where he said lukewarm things about the Egyptian government in order to keep from getting angry at the United States. If we take a few quotes out of context, we can make it seem like Obama was in the President’s pocket the whole time. With a little bit of creative wording, we might be able to suggest that Obama knew that Egypt was planning to massacre thousands of citizens and did nothing to stop it. That’s really the ideal scenario for us because it makes Obama unsympathetic to the American people and props up a dictatorship in the Middle East that is going to hate Obama anyway. It’s a lose-lose for him, so I have my fingers crossed that the massacre takes place.
Another avenue to pursue would be interventionism. If Obama decides to send peacekeeping troops to Egypt to help conduct an election, we will decry the notion that America is the world’s babysitter and talk about how the Progressive movement got us involved in so many global entanglements that we eventually found ourselves in the middle of World War I. There really is no reasonable line of thinking that connects Egyptian protests to World War III, but it’s such a powerful rhetorical tool that we will probably just throw those words around anyway.
On the other hand, if Obama decides not to send any troops or aid to Egypt, we get to say that he has stretched the military dangerously thin in Afghanistan, that the Egyptians will run a corrupt election that will result in an anti-American fascist government, and that he is a coward who does not have America’s national security at heart. I’m just brain-storming here, but we might also run with the idea that there is some connection between repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the American military becoming too weak to provide a deterrent. Ooh, I like
the sound of that. I’m going to get the Westboro Baptist Church on the phone immediately to work out the details. [RIGHT- GOD HATES MARXIST JIHADISTS!]
If all else fails, we can always fall back on oil prices. Instability in the Middle East always results in higher oil prices, so we will just blame the Democratic President for gas prices this summer. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, but it still works. That’s why we have opposed every energy policy for the last 40 years. People think that we want to prop up American oil companies for private gain, but we really just don’t want to lose the “blame Democratic leadership for high oil prices” as an ace in the hole. T. Boone Pickens was with us for a while and flipped. Luckily, by the time he started exposing our secrets, he was already so senile that nobody would listen. The oil prices argument is a steady backup plan that has won us at least two presidential elections, so we’re not about to let it go now.
So you can see that we have plenty of irons in the fire, or so to speak. I tried turning these contingencies into a decision tree, but I’ll be damned if Excel Pivot Tables aren’t too complicated for even the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to figure out. We should be fine without it, though, because all that hard work we put into making everyone so racist for the last 400 years has been paying off big time- getting people to turn against the black President is probably the easiest job we have had in a generation.
If all else fails, we can always fall back on oil prices. Instability in the Middle East always results in higher oil prices, so we will just blame the Democratic President for gas prices this summer. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book, but it still works. That’s why we have opposed every energy policy for the last 40 years. People think that we want to prop up American oil companies for private gain, but we really just don’t want to lose the “blame Democratic leadership for high oil prices” as an ace in the hole. T. Boone Pickens was with us for a while and flipped. Luckily, by the time he started exposing our secrets, he was already so senile that nobody would listen. The oil prices argument is a steady backup plan that has won us at least two presidential elections, so we’re not about to let it go now.
So you can see that we have plenty of irons in the fire, or so to speak. I tried turning these contingencies into a decision tree, but I’ll be damned if Excel Pivot Tables aren’t too complicated for even the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to figure out. We should be fine without it, though, because all that hard work we put into making everyone so racist for the last 400 years has been paying off big time- getting people to turn against the black President is probably the easiest job we have had in a generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment