Huffpost Comedy
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

David Kronke Headshot

How Right-Wing Pundits Would Spin News That Obama Had Rescued A Child From Drowning

Posted: Updated:

Michelle Malkin: Why didn't Obama save every child from drowning? Why just one? This myopia stems from his old, outdated liberal-elitist sensibility which states that the only drowning child worth saving is the one who has the connections and the wherewithal to be in the general vicinity of America's so-called Swimmer-in-Chief.

Steve Doocy: So the liberal blogosphere today is trumpeting the fact that Barack Obama rescued a child from drowning, and naturally, they're trumpeting this as a big win for the Savior-in-Chief.
Gretchen Carlson: Typical.
Brian Kilmeade: They're cynically politicizing this random act, and simply because it involves the President of the United States and a small endangered boy, they're pretending that this qualifies as "news" in some way.
Gretchen Carlson: Typical. Typical. (beat, crossing her legs) Do I have any other lines in this segment?

Sean Hannity: Barack Obama, America's self-appointed Lifeguard-in-Chief, is yet again indoctrinating our nation's youth with his insidious sensibilities. This time, he ostensibly saved a young boy from drowning - but what if that boy wanted to drown, what if that child adhered to our American values that this is a meritocracy and only those who know how to swim deserve to survive when they're caught in an unforeseen undertow? Nonetheless, here's Obama, enforcing his own, twisted values -- brainwashing us that it's preferable to stay alive rather than to succumb to the Atlantic Ocean's market forces that, in direct contradiction to our indomitable free-enterprise system, doom lesser mortals.

Ann Coulter: What I find so deliciously amusing and so vastly hypocritical about this whole Asshole-in-Chief incident is that Obama's rescuing this poor boy from drowning is completely at odds with his uber-liberal-facist policies of deliberately impregnating unsuspecting women just so they can be forced to undergo abortions.

Wolf Blitzer: News that Barack Obama has rescued an 11-year-old boy from drowning off the coast of Martha's Vineyard has erupted into a cacophony of controversy in the Twitterverse, which we at CNN decide to follow when we can't formulate a coherent editorial policy on a particular issue, which is to say, all the time. "Waitwatcher" tweets, "Good for him," while "Ngrh8er" volleys, "I wouldn't want his skin touching mine, just as I wouldn't want his policies affecting me." "ILuvMyCatz" responds, "Off to Pinkberry's for snackies! LOL!"

Greta Van Susteren: While it's all well and good that our President has decided it's in his purview to rescue young, errant swimmers from sharks and the pervading whims of unfriendly coastal waters, I wonder if he's not dragging us further to a welfare state, where every life is saved through cynical do-gooder-ism.

Glenn Beck: Bear with me here, gang, but something about this story doesn't pass my smell test, sort of like after I have the jalapeno poppers at TGIFridays. But you have to think about this: Remember, Obama has been roundly assailed in various media reports for being a racist. I may have started that with an ill-considered comment that came straight out of my ass, but the media picked up on it, and so here we are. And who did Obama manage to wrest from the grasp of death, oh-so-conveniently? A white boy. Does that set off any alarm bells, gang? Isn't that just a little too convenient? Well, actually, the kid was Filipino, but that's closer to white than to black in my book. This administration is all about manipulating us, people! They tell us "white" is "white," "blue" is "blue," "mauve" is "mauve!" But we don't have to listen to their lies any longer!

And, anyway, when Obama was out there in the Atlantic Ocean so-called "rescuing" that boy -- and how did he learn to swim, when he spent his youth in an Indonesian madrassa? -- I have to wonder, did he touch him inappropriately? Let's face it - how "convenient" was it that this kid was "drowning" in a huge body of water where no surveillance cameras are available? This kid, this kid -- he's no doubt part of the propaganda machine. He's so grateful that the "President of the United States" saved his life that he's not going to reveal how inappropriately Obama's hands stroked his young, lithe, desirable body extravagantly desiccated by a certain lack of muscle mass that any middle-aged man couldn't find utterly intoxicating. Now, I'm not saying that Obama molested this boy -- though my audience's level of discernment is probably such that they heard me make such a statement, and is such that I can make this vague disavowal and they still won't notice -- but these are the sort of questions we should be asking, gang! Where is the accountability?