Is there a "Blackout" Behind the Election?

Okay. Let's say that being a conspiracy theorist were accepted in normal society as healthy. In this imaginary setting, an "ounce" of distrust is justified instead of ballyhooed as nonsense. In this society that I created, people can be suspicious of people in power. They are not paranoid, but very sane, and "my country" believes that it is healthy to question what you read or what you are told.

So, let's just imagine that everything I am about to say is not skepticism, but a clairvoyant sense about what's really going on behind the scenes. Remember Mary Tyler Moore? People loved it because you got a sense of what goes on in a television news studio. Remember All the Presidents Men? Two men joined forces to dig out the truth about what happened at the break-in at the Democratic Headquarters Watergate Hotel. Well, let's say I'm a journalist, which I am not (I am a critic of journalists) and I am digging for an understanding about the Obama Juggernaut which is about to take over America. I'm writing this today, just in case it turns out to be the truth down the road.

Let's say Rupert Murdoch and all these other media moguls think that a Republican Administration is better for the country: 1) wars create jobs; 2) we have formidable enemies, not imagined but ones who could blow themselves up in the United States, so we better keep them busy; and 3) let's also say that advertising revenues are always higher when Republicans are in office. So, fearing that their industries might suffer a devastating blow if Democrats are swept into office, they decide they want to orchestrate an election. Yes. Orchestrate. And it doesn't take much because there can always be a candidate that can be used as fodder. The "fictitious" powers that be did it to Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or was it Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (not sure which one, probably the latter or both), so they can do it in the country I've created in my fictional COPYRIGHTED story.

The "powers that be" find a candidate who is young and eager to run for the highest office in the land, and they fuel him with the belief that he, too, can be President. And he's got Presidential qualities, but he's so green there's no way that he'll make it past the nomination (they fervently hope). They groom him, and they do what they can to make him a viable candidate -- but not too viable because he's being set up to fail. He's the foil for their guy ("the bad guy," as the media identifies people) to win. Now the guy they are "rooting" for, the eager beaver, actually believes that this is about him. But it's not. But how could he not believe it? They make sure that the polls say that he's way ahead, and knowing that Americans like to be on the winning side, the voting electorate join the pack. And they rally around the first "chosen" candidate," who loses, and the other, the real candidate (now seen as the "real good guy") wins.

By saying that Obama can beat McCain sets everybody up to vote for the former, to ensure that he's the Democratic Nominee, who cannot beat their real candidate, McCain. How is it that today, of all days, statistics have come out on every channel extolling that the match up is between Obama and McCain? No one mentioned them a week ago. And the Obama race is definitely heating up, hey, why not let him believe in it, for a second, that he can be President? And he'll do everything he can to be every man's President, and every woman's President. He has charisma and charm; two young kids, and a doting wife whose grace and outward appearance of etiquette rival one of our martyred Presidents, John F. Kennedy and his wife, Jackie. I don't like the comparison, as that sets Obama up for martyrdom, too, if not literally, then figuratively: he's being set up to fail.

What if Karl Rove left the White House to makes sure that this would happen? So Karl Rove writes an op ed piece giving Obama advice on how to win . Would any sane Democrat take advice from a brilliant maniac? Nowadays, yes; our eager beaver candidate might even go so far as to extol another revered President, Ronald Reagan as a "change agent." So, on the eve of a big, big election day, the word gets out by "the media" that their guy (the eager young Democrat) can win. And lo and behold he wins the nomination, but he loses the Presidency. The word gets out about some past indiscretion and he loses flat out. And we're in war for another 100 years. And the Imperial Presidency is born.

Don't believe what you hear on television -- or what they are writing, unless there are 20 sources that say the same thing, and those sources have to reveal who their sources are (which will never happen as it is protected under the First Amendment, a time-honored tradition). Revealing sources isn't necessarily something I would try to coax out of anyone, but wouldn't it be nice if someone at the news desk who mouthed the words written for him or her questioned the information they were told to speak. What if that announcer cared about about how the information was derived (like the Swift Boat posse who uncovered the dearth of research conducted by Dan Rather's staff).

Writing or saying it doesn't make it so. But in America, that might be different. Hey, I have a poll too, with a sampling error of only 1%. My poll of one says that something smells "Karl Rov-ingish" about the way the media has handled this election.

Now, my Karl Rove is fiction. I don't believe there's anyone who has those kind of powers; someone that Machiavellian would have gotten us out of the war by now, and would have expropriated all of Iraq's oil. So, this is fiction. But just in case.... you heard it here first. And if it's fiction, which it is, if you copy it, I'll kick your ass.... my copyright is on this one, baby. Get your own story.

All Rights Reserved
(c) ShutUpMedia 2008

Sphere: Related Content