January 18 A Banner Day For Race Card

 

Today, I tracked six separate examples of  Dems flagrantly flaunting the race card, bringing the total for the week, thus far, to ten. You would think that Obama sychophants would be pacing themselves – it’s only January, after all. But hey – they’ve got a narrative to push and Americans are not going to figure out that every single Republican candidate is a virtual Klansman who wants America to “return to Jim Crow days” all by themselves.

Jan 18:

Newsbusters: Matthews: Gingrich Is Race-Baiting Calling Obama Food Stamp President – ‘He Ought to be Ashamed of Himself’

Weasel Zippers: Dem Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: Gingrich Calling Obama Food Stamps President Has “Underlying Suggestions,” He’s Developing An “Explosiveness” In America…

Weasel Zippers: Dem Rep. James Clyburn: Black People “Understand What Newt Is Saying, He Wants Poor People To Be “Servers”

Big Journalism: Obama Pollster Calls Herman Cain ‘Racist’ Then Denies It

Weasel Zippers: Obama’s Campaign Pollster Calls Gingrich A Racist, Says He’s Using “Dog-Whistle Politics”…

Weasel Zippers: Dem Rep. Donna Edwards Says GOP Candidates Are Racists: “It’s Not a Dog Whistle or Code Anymore But Plain As Day”…

The full list since I started keeping track, here.

All this fussing about Newt’s ” food-stamp President” remark isn’t directed toward just Newt, by the way. It’s for any Republican who would dare address the issue of sky rocketing food stamp usage. Especially Mitt.

Just like the Reverend Wright issue was off the table by April of 2008, Obama’s race-baiting surrogates are making sure the food stamp issue is off the table for the rest of  the 2012 election cycle.

Drudge Exclusive: NEWT’s EX-WIFE UNLOADS

Photo via Esquire.

This interview is allegedly causing a "civil war" at ABC over the timing of its airing. Drudge has the exclusive:

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.

Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

She spoke to ABCNEWS reporter Brian Ross for two hours, and her explosive revelations are set to rock the trail.

But now a “civil war” has erupted inside of the network, an insider claims, on exactly when the confession will air!

MORE

ABCNEWS suits determined it would be “unethical” to run the Marianne Gingrich interview so close to the South Carolina Primary, a curious decision, one insider argued, since the network has aggressively been reporting on other candidates.

Dana Loesch speculates over at Big Journalism:

We all know that Newt Gingrich cheated on two of his three wives. He cheated on his wife Jackie, who had cancer, with Marianne Gingrich, the woman who gave an interview to ABC. If the details are simply that he was unkind to her or didn’t treat her right well, surprise! You were the mistress! You helped break up a marriage and thus forfeited your right to be outraged when the next mistress usurped your spot as the new wife. I have no pity for the “other woman.” I guess that’s why I find Marianne Gingrich’s late-to-the-game interview so odd. Could there be any bigger bombshell than they story of their union?

If there’s a civil war going on over at ABC News, it’s about when to air the story so that it does the maximum amount of damage to Newt, the guy who poses the greatest threat to Pharaoh Obama. Should they air it before the NC primary and let him go down in flames now, only to have a Santorum rise out of the ashes, or do they wait until later – perhaps until he wins the nomination, and then destroy him in the general. Or do they just leak rumors about it now, and see if they can put enough doubt in peoples’ minds for Mitt to win decisively in SC, but not enough for Newt to bow out, so the not Romneys continue the death march to Super Tuesday.

These things have to be done very delicately as the Wicked Witch of the West told Dorothy. There are many options before them. All of them helpful to the Master.

What this story does do is follow a familiar pattern of  a certain political camp using smears and/or old family secrets that are nobody’s business to torpedo opponents’ campaigns. I’m not saying anyone in Chicago had anything to do with encouraging Marianne to tell her story. She could have decided to do it on her own accord with no prompting whatsoever. I’m just saying that this follows a very definite pattern.

MORE:

Here’s what Marianne Gingrich told Esquire in August 2010:

But there was something strange and needy about him. “He was impressed easily by position, status, money,” she says. “He grew up poor and always wanted to be somebody, to make a difference, to prove himself, you know. He has to be historic to justify his life.”

She says she should have seen the red flags. “He asked me to marry him way too early. And he wasn’t divorced yet. I should have known there was a problem.”

Within weeks or months?

“Within weeks.”

That’s flattering.

She looks skeptical. “It’s not so much a compliment to me. It tells you a little bit about him.”

And he did the same thing to her eighteen years later, with Callista Bisek, the young congressional aide who became his third wife. “I know. I asked him. He’d already asked her to marry him before he asked me for a divorce. Before he even asked.”

He told you that?

“Yeah, he wanted to — “

But she stops. “Hey, turn off the tape recorder for a second. This is going to go places …”

Back in the 1990s, she told a reporter she could end her husband’s career with a single interview. She held her tongue all through the affair and the divorce and even through the annulment Gingrich requested from the Catholic Church two years later, trying to erase their shared past. Now she sits quietly for a moment, ignoring her eggs, trying to decide how far she wants to go.

—Yawwwwnnnn—

UPDATE:

Now Politico is reporting that the interview will air Thursday night, coinciding with the final debate before the South Carolina primary on Saturday.

I asked Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond about the interview, and he released a letter to ABC News execs from Gingrich’s daughters, Kathy Lubbers and Jackie Cushman, who have become his biggest surrogates in answering questions about their family. The letter is below:

The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved.  Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.We will not say anything negative about our father’s ex-wife.  He has said before, privately and publicly, that he regrets any pain he may have caused in the past to people he loves.

ABC News or other campaigns may want to talk about the past, just days before an important primary election.  But Newt is going to talk to the people of South Carolina about the future– about job creation, lower taxes, and about who can defeat Barack Obama by providing the sharpest contrast to his damaging, extreme liberalism.  We are confident this is the conversation the people of South Carolina are interested in having.Our father is running for President because of his grandchildren – so they can inherit the America he loves.  To do that, President Obama must be defeated.  And as the only candidate in the race, including Obama, who has actually helped balance the national budget, create jobs, reform welfare, and cut taxes and spending, Newt felt compelled to run – to serve his country and safeguard his grandchildren’s future.

Greta Van Susteren weighs in:

 I have no idea what this ABC interview is other than the limited stuff I am reading on DrudgeReport at this hour.  I am flying blind in this posting and my opinion is only based on what little I know now.  

What I DO know is that we are only 2 days out from the South Carolina primary and there is a high risk from the Drudge Report description of an explosive interview of unfair poisoning of those going to the polls.  There simply is not enough time for a candidate to respond to the explosive report and fairness also includes fairness to the candidate.  

Boehner: “The President’s Policies Are Making The American Economy Worse”

It’s times like this that I lean toward the “he’s doing it on purpose” theory of economic destruction. Even Speaker Boehner agrees that his policies are making things worse.

Boehner made a brief statement about the President’s decision to reject the plan to build an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas at a Republican press conference, earlier today. “He  won’t stand up to his base even in the name of creating American jobs,” he said, but promised not to give up the fight,  “Republicans in Congress will continue to push this.”

Even though as Boehner noted, this pipeline had been in the works for three years, and was supported by everyone but far left environmental wackos Obama had the gall to blame Republicans  For His Decision To Reject Keystone Pipeline . . . 

If we wait long enough, I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame Bush, too.

See also:

Weasel Zippers: Carney Cites “Water Our Children Drink” And “Air They Breathe” As Reasons Obama Stopped “Purely Political” Keystone Pipeline…

Gateway Pundit: Gingrich on Obama’s Keystone Decision: “This Is a Stunningly Stupid Thing to Do”

WHD: Obama Gives the Enviros Their Pound of Flesh

Doug Ross: I love the smell of red-on-red warfare in the morning: unions vow war with Obama over Keystone XL:

As a result of the Obama’s job-destroying decision, Laborers’ union president, Terry O’Sullivan issued a blistering statement:

The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero. We are completely and totally disappointed. This is politics at its worst. Once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers – even though environmental concerns were more than adequately addressed. Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this.

The project would create thousands of good jobs at a time when unemployment in the construction industry is 16 percent with 1.3 million men and women jobless.

Environmental groups have used the Keystone XL as a disingenuous proxy for arguments about global warming. The pipeline would carry up to 900,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada’s Tar Sands to the U.S., reducing reliance on oil from hostile nations. While environmental groups decry Tar Sands development, the Canadian government and Trans-Canada, the company developing the Tar Sands, have made clear the oil will be developed – and possibly sold to China – regardless of whether Keystone XL is built…

The Foundry:

1) Obama’s “Forced” Keystone Decision Rejects Jobs, Energy, and Logic

  • Obama’s decision to reject Keystone sent a clear message that special interest demands are of more importance than more energy and much-needed job creation.
  • Building the pipeline would bring over 700,000 barrels of oil per day and directly create 20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs.
  • The Canadian Energy Research Institute estimates that current pipeline operations and the addition of the Keystone XL pipeline would create 179,000 American jobs by 2035.
  • Keystone XL also met 57 specific pipeline safety standard requirements created by DOS and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
  • Senators Max Baucus (D–MT), Jon Tester (D–MT), Joe Manchin (D–WV), Ben Nelson (D–NE), Mark Begich (D–AK), and Mary Landrieu (D–LA) have all expressed support for the pipeline.
  • The President’s own jobs council underscored the need for not only more oil, natural gas, and coal but also energy infrastructure project


2) Under Obama, Oil and Gas Production on Federal Lands Is Down 40%.

Hat tip: Brian B.

Att. Eric Holder: Dems In Upstate NY Say Voter Fraud is ‘A Normal Political Tactic’ – Your Voting Rights Division Might Want To Look Into That

I know that we’re currently focused on voter I.D. laws because of the ungodly burden it puts on minorities. I understand that asking people to prove they are who they say they are when they vote is a violation of their civil rights and a blatant attempt to disenfranchise them. That is so obvious.

But I just thought I’d try to direct our chief law enforcement officer to another uh – concern.

Rusty Weiss at The Mental Recession has the story:

As the city of Troy, NY, awaits jury selection in the first trial involving two Democrats and their alleged roles in a “massive”voter fraud scheme, new details have emerged from the investigation.  Details involving two other veteran political operatives that have already pleaded guilty.
According to a recent Fox News report, Anthony Renna, a Democrat guilty of second-degree forgery, and Anthony DeFiglio, a Democrat guilty of first-degree falsifying business records, are trying to drag all local politicians, regardless of party affiliation, down with the ship.
Thus far, eight people have been charged in connection with the ballot fraud investigation, four of which have pleaded guilty.
Reports emerging from the investigation indicate that the Democrats are trying to implicate Republicans of the same conduct they have been charged with.  According to the state police, Renna and DeFiglio both claimed that, “voter fraud is an accepted way of winning elections, and faking absentee ballots was commonplace.”
Renna explained that the process of handing in forged ballots and fake votes ensures that “ballots are voted correctly.”  He adds, “‘Voted correctly’ is a term used for a forged application or ballot.”
DeFiglio added that such fraud is actually “an ongoing scheme and it occurs on both sides of the aisle.  What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic.”
The Chairman of the Troy Republican party says, “Uh…normal for YOU maybe…”
James Gordon, Chairman of the Troy Republican Committee said, having been a part of the election process for a number of years that he has, “never heard or seen anything resembling these actions.”
He added, “In fact, after the Democrats were caught in 2009 the records at the Board of Elections were searched.  More cases of fraud were found dating back to 2007 or 2008, all attributed to Democrat candidates and operatives.  Nothing from any GOP members.”
Well, that’s just because Republicans are sneakier and better at covering up their crimes.
Right Holder? Let’s get this taken care of so the Republican voter-disenfranchisement machine is finally disabled once and for all.
Finish reading at The Mental Recession.
Linked by Daily Pundit, and Doug Ross, Maggie’s Farm, thanks!

PPP Poll Shows Obama Beating Romney 49-44 (But More Democrats Polled Than Republicans)

Why do people give PPP polls any credibility?

For some reason this  latest PPP poll has been getting buzz:

PPP’s first national poll of 2012 finds Barack Obama with his best standing against Mitt Romney since last May, right after the killing of Osama bin Laden. Obama leads Romney 49-44.

As always, you have to look at the breakdown of who was polled:

Q17 If you are a Democrat, press 1. If a Republican,
press 2. If you are an independent or identify
with another party, press 3.
Democrat
41%
………………………………………………..
Republican 35%
………………………………………………
24%
Independent/Other…………………………………..

Now -wouldn’t you expect a good outcome for Obama  in a poll that over samples Democrats?

As Karl at Hot Air notes:

Obama does not break 50%, despite PPP’s sample containing 41% Democrats — a couple of points higher than Dem turnout in 2008, let alone 2004 or 2000.

Moreover, a recent Rasmussen poll showed Democrat party ID at an all time low:

During December, 35.4% of Americans considered themselves Republicans. That’s up from 34.3% in November and just below the high for the year of 35.6% reached in May.

At the same time, just 32.7% of adults said they were Democrats, down from 34.9% in November. The previous low for Democrats was 33.0% in August of this year.

This is not  as great a result for Obama as agenda driven pollsters want you to believe.

Keep that in mind throughout the campaign season. We’ll be seeing many more examples of the scales tipped in Obama’s favor, and not only from PPP.

RELATED:

Warner Todd Huston dismantles another fake poll at Big Journalism: Politico’s Fake South Carolina Poll Slams Tea Party

Pelosi: ‘We Don’t Really Have Much of A Connection’ With Occupy Except When We’re “Standing With Them” and Fundraising Off Them

It wasn’t long after enthusiastically embracing the movement in October, that Nancy “God bless them” Pelosi took to  mentioning them in fundraising e-mails in an indirect manner. 

If you need further proof that Congressional Republicans are putting big Wall Street banks before middle class families, look no further than an explosive memo prepared by former John Boehner staffers-turned-banking lobbyists.

This just-leaked memo details an $850,000 “message war” plan to attack and discredit grassroots citizen movements working to hold special interests accountable

They had already become too much of an embarrassment six weeks later to mention directly in an email.

Now, she’s gone from, “woo-hoo, they’re going to be effective” to “We don’t really have much of a connection to them”.

Yes, of course, it’s obvious now that at some point the Occupy movement became a liability to Democrats, since even Nancy Pelosi is distancing herself from them. It is an election year, after all – and the MSM wasn’t able to conceal the genuinely nasty character of the movement from the public no matter how many “mostly peaceful” caveats they put in their reports about occupy violence and mayhem.

But things were different a few months ago, before their darlings (last seen throwing smoke bombs at the White House) fell out of favor.  A Democrat’s normal impulse is to embrace the mob – especially one  so amenable to the Democrat’s ultimate goals. Unfortunately for Democrats, they can not be honest with the public about what they truly believe. They call themselves “progressive” instead of “Socialist” because they know most people recoil at the word, “Socialist”. Now, they see most people recoiling from this violent, anti-capitalist, revolutionary movement, so now they have to pretend they “really don’t have much a connection to it.”

Yet, under the radar, you still see Democrat support for #OWS like this:

Hit the link for the rest of The #OWS Hall Of Shame: Democrats Who Support/Supported The Occupy Wall Street Movement

The same cast of characters still endorse the movement, some more openly than others.