Political Correctness: The Incompetence of the Thought Police

All groups use to their political correctness and political semantics to their advantage, including liberals obviously, but even conservatives. Most recently, there has been debate over what to call people who have entered this country illegally. Those more sympathetic to this group call them Undocumented Workers, which seems to excuse the civil offense they have committed (Interest fact: It’s not a criminal offense). Those who are not sympathetic to them call them Illegals, which makes them sound like they are dangerous criminals. I’ve always preferred to call them Border Jumpers. It’s the most accurate and makes no political assertions (and it sounds badass!). I have heard that Latinos do not appreciate that phrase, but I’ll keep using it until I see hard poll data. I refuse to rely on Hispanicdotal evidence.

While we are on the topic, another case of stupid political correctness is the totally bullshit word, Caucasian. It comes from pseudoscientific (aka racist) classifications of people from like 100 years ago. The white race was Caucasoid, the black race was Negroid. So all those PC Leftists who call themselves Caucasian (secretly, they just like that it has Asian in it, so it sounds ethnic), are using a word related to Negro. How progressive. Great job, guys. Way to do your homework.

One last thought: George Carlin once observed “They call it the rainforest/wetlands because no one would want to save the jungle/swamp.” This shows how PC terms can garner sympathy for a group, but it can also backfire. A Clerk sounds like someone who is overworked and underpaid, but the PC-nik corporate morale-boosters have now made them Customer Service Representatives, who sound like a bunch of rich, yuppie jerks. Well done, guys (I mean…guys and girls). Are they these PC terms really benefiting the targeted groups? And why do we always get caught up in semantics while ignoring the really issues? Wait, why didn't I post about a real issue? (I'm busy lately? Nothing's happening in the primaries at the moment? Goofers, come back! I'm running out of ideas!)

Barack Obama: The Boston Red Sox of Politics

Barack Obama is only capable of come-from-behind victories. Before the primaries, Clinton was “inevitable.” Then he won big in Iowa. In New Hampshire, he was expected to beat her easily and wrap it up, but then he actually lost narrowly. He waltzed into the “must-win” SC and won decisively, but then failed to put Clinton away on Super Tuesday after almost achieving front-runner status. Since then, he has racked up nonstop victories this month, although Clinton looks poised to make a comeback by winning the delegate-rich Ohio, and possibly Texas or Wisconsin. This is another setback for Obama, except it’s not. Falling behind is his only chance to win.

He’s just like the Boston Red Sox. The Red Sox have proven over the years that they are incapable of smooth success from start to finish. However, in 2004 they found a new strategy: let the other team get ahead of them. They gave the Yankees a false sense of confidence, letting them go up 3-0 on them, a historically insurmountable margin. As it turned out, it was actually easier for the Red Sox to make history with a ridiculously difficult comeback than to win a dead-even series. Again, in 2007, they looked to be the obvious favorite. However, it was only once they nearly blew their division lead that they were able to truly reach the top of their game and dominate in the playoffs. Nothing is ever easy for the Sox, I guess.

Obama has no choice but to stick with the Red Sox strategy. If he keeps winning, he is sure to lose. Even if he runs the table, Hillary will pay off superdelegates or find some way to beat him. No, he has no chance as the front-runner. He can only win as the underdog. He can only win by losing (This strategy failed miserably for Giuliani, but only because he is a filthy Yankees fan). So lose, Barack, if you want to have any chance. Lose Ohio! It’s better that way. In fact, you may as well give an acceptance speech if you lose. It’s just too bad you can’t get a Curt Schilling endorsement.

MSM Strikes Back Against PMW: It’s WAR!

The Mainstream Media has been relentlessly and shamelessly attacking Political Mouthwash for quite sometime now. Apparently, less than four hours after his second post ever, NBC’s Chuck Todd felt it necessary to mock The Waco Kid on his First Read blog:

Fred’s Dead, Baby

Posted January 10th at 6:56 PM.

Fred’s NOT Dead, Baby

Posted January 10th 10:40 PM.

Very mature. Well who had the last laugh, Chuck? Fred WAS dead, and 12 days later, he dropped out. Chuck struck Waco. Big mistake-o. Who won? The Kid did. Point and match, bee-yatch!

Check out how TIME Magazine’s Mark Halpern decided to blatant copy our site with his site, The Page:

Surviving the Killings Fields of February

They're stealing our techniques of amateur photoshopping (ours are pretty good actually, that Hillarambo picture looks like a 5 year old did it). Plus, they defend Hillary against Obama-biased media (a thinly veiled attack on PMW). This aggression against PMW will not stand, man.

We know more attacks will come. I’m sure Lou Dobbs will accuse me of being an illegal immigrant that Goofers sneaked across the border into Waco (It’s a Mel Brooks reference, you nativist jerk! And no, Lou, Mel Brooks did not sneak in here from Israel). Tucker Carlson will accuse me of being a poorly dressed hippie. Let’s put Mr. Bowtie up against PMW commenter and mafia protege Lenny Jiverson. I give The Italian Stallion the edge over Tucker the… (No, that’s too easy).

But fear not. PMW will fight on!

Obama’s Secret Weapon: A Blast from the Past

With Hillary and Obama deadlocked, many are forecasting a brokered convention, meaning the convention will be more than a 72-hour infomercial to sleep through (don't wake me until the Black Eyed Peas are on!). At the convention, party leaders and delegates will decide who wins. One would think that Hillary, being a Clinton and the establishment candidate, would have the upper hand in such a situation. However, it is important to note who the actual leader of the Democratic Party is. Is it Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton? Nope.

You might be surprised to hear that the Chairman of the DNC, leading the party and running the convention, is Dr. Howard Dean, former presidential candidate and famous screamer. After almost winning the nomination with huge grassroots support in 2004, party insiders knew they had to do something with this outspoken, anti-establishment firebrand. So much like when Teddy Roosevelt was given the Vice Presidency, Howard Dean was a given a quiet desk job where he could stay out of trouble and learn to keep his voice down (and that way, everyone felt safer).

Interesting fact: Howard Dean does not get along with a certain faction of the Democratic Party. They even sent their go-to-guy James Carville to try to unseat him in 2006 (somehow after taking back the House AND Senate in one year, it was hard to make a case that the Democrats had bad leadership—for once!). Yes, we are talking about Bill Clinton and Friends. Like Roosevelt, Dean may see an attempt to brush him under the rug backfire (Brush is actually his middle name). With some behind the scenes maneuvering, Dean may in fact be partly responsible for a brokered convention picking Obama over Clinton. All Obama has to do is turn off Dean’s mic and it’ll be clear sailing from there.

The Clinton Reign of Terror: Democratic Party Status Check

Many insiders in the Democratic Party resent the Clintons, despite always putting up with them because they always seem to win. Party leaders have long accepted this political marriage of inconvenience (the original topic of An Inconvenient Truth), but now Obama presents a real chance to dethrone the Clintons and stop Hillary’s candidacy, earning him endorsements from Ted Kennedy and other Democrats, who plaintively cry, “Save us, Barack!” However, if Obama fails to stop her, can Clinton win?

Yes, but America loses (no offense to Hillary supporters, unless you’re a feminist who thinks I’m sexist, in which case, I hope you are offended in every way possible). A Clinton win is a victory for the Democrats, but an Obama win is a victory for optimism as well. While experience is helpful, (like, two extra years over Obama, Yes!) Obama has the potential to make people hate politics less. When they hate politics, they stop paying attention, and then presidents get elected who end up with 30% approval ratings. If Clinton is nominated, she may win, even against McCain (do not underestimate the power of the Clintons). The only other choices will be a third party (“Go ahead, throw your vote away!”) or a Straight Talker (John McCain is only a Straight Talker in the sense that he is neither gay nor silent).

But she has no hope of creating a consensus or broad coalition. Many Democrats love her, many Republicans hate her, (and many people will die inside as they cast their vote for her) but she shows no potential to be a uniter. It may have nothing to do with her policy positions. She just pisses people off. Half of Hillary voters will be settling for her because they have no better options (like eating at Denny’s at three in the morning) and Republicans will attack her relentlessly (like the stoner night staff’s undercooked meals attack your stomach the next day). And many people will just stay home (sleeping off the hangover of political cynicism).

The Democrats need to offer a remedy for the Bush infection plaguing America. America elected the honorable, pious Jimmy Carter to wash away the slimy, corrupt Nixon. They elected the competent Ronald Reagan to take the reins from the naïve, ineffective Carter. They chose the shrewd, able Bill Clinton to clean up the mess made by the aloof Poppa Bush. Baby Bush became president because they trusted him to keep it his pants and avoid embarrassing sex scandals (scandals like the FEMA one are so much more tasteful!). A new president has to counteract the old president’s fatal flaw.

George W. Bush is a stubborn cowboy who has done poorly partly because he doesn’t listen to opposing points of view (his cabinet of Yes Men replaced Clinton’s cabinet of Yes Women). Obama is widely seen as someone who respects all points of view and will listen. Hillary is viewed only as someone who can get things done. Even if Obama’s idealistic plans don’t come to fruition, he will still push mostly the same policies as Hillary, so why not take the gamble? Why not try someone the Republicans won’t hate and the Indies might actually like? Either way, the Democrats have the advantage in November, but with Hillary, cynicism and pessimism also have the advantage. With Obama, people might not get exhausted by politics and fall into a deep, apathetic sleep.

The Phantom Maverick: Huge Super Tuesday Victory for Obama?

On Super Tuesday, Barack Obama scored an overwhelming victory. At least, I think so. It is not yet apparent, but I’ll explain why. Obama did well, (more information on the results to be posted soon) but it was widely considered a draw. Hillary narrowly won the popular vote (49%-48%), but Obama won slightly more delegates and maintains an overall delegate lead, although different sources disagree on exact figures. Many would say Obama failed to take a commanding lead and Hillary is continuing to inch toward certain victory.

However, other states are being ignored that help Obama, or at least will help him in the near future. Most important is the State of Emergency soon to erupt in the Democratic Party. John McCain continued his march to victory on Tuesday and his nomination is becoming more of a reality every day. This means Hillary vs. McCain becomes more of a reality every day for Democrats. Welcome to a State of Emergency in the Democratic Party.

What we have here (besides a failure to communicate) is a situation resembling that one bad Star Wars movie (Not the one with “Noooooooooooo,” not one with the awkwardly bad romantic dialogue, the other one). In this story, the veteran hero who supposedly knows what he’s doing engages the bad guy in a light saber duel.

Predictably, he gets his ass kicked by the bad guy with the fancy light saber. So things are not looking good for the good guys.

Then there’s the young guy, who’s ignored all movie but obviously is much better. They didn’t think he was ready, not experienced enough, but he comes in and slices the bad guy in half! The bottom line is, the Democrats will soon realize who they want going up against McCain. As McCain rises, it will only make Obama more powerful (Barack you like a McHurriCain?).

WHY CAN’T IT HAPPEN?: Super Tuesday and Fat Tuesday Collide

This Tuesday is Tsunami Tuesday, or Super-Duper-Anderson Cooper Tuesday or whatever you want to call it. Anyway, 24 states plus American Samoa are voting, amounting to a national primary. It’s also a Day of Reckoning for struggling candidates. Anyone who can’t score delegates on this day should start drafting a concession speech, endorse the likely winner, and hope for a cabinet post (Rudy called dibs on Attorney General) or maybe a spot on the ticket (what sounds better: Macabee or Romnabee?)

The two candidates most interested in Tuesday’s results are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary has been way ahead in these states for months, but Obama has “the big mo,” (this is what newscasters who think they’re hip call momentum). Obama is mounting a sudden comeback, putting Hillary in a tight spot. And she wouldn’t be Hillary if she weren’t willing to do anything to win.

Remembering that Mardi Gras is the same night as the primaries, Hillary will campaign by flashing people that throw her Vote Hillary beads. These beads will be symbolic of a promise to vote for her. However, many people will throw her the beads, but actually reneg on their promise and vote for Obama instead. This group will call themselves Recantors for Obama, because Reneggers for Obama would just not sound right. Hillary will wake up the next morning horribly hung-over and Obama will emerge victorious.