'When You Look at the Way That He Governs, You See That He is Very Inclusive'

At the current rate of progress, the Washington Post hit piece series on Rick Perry may result in him being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his stellar role in race relations. Judging by this article he's done a lot more to reach out to blacks than most any Democrats I can think of.

As governor of Texas, Rick Perry appointed the first African American to the state Supreme Court and later made him chief justice. One of Perry’s appointments to the Board of Regents of his alma mater, Texas A&M University, became its first black chairman. One chief of staff and two of his general counsels have been African American.

Perry, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, also enjoys warm associations with many black leaders, who say he regularly reaches out to them and has personally backed some of their causes.

“When you look at the way that he governs, you see that he is very inclusive,” said Brian Newby, an African American who served first as Perry’s general counsel and then as his chief of staff before returning to private law practice in Fort Worth. “You see that in his appointments; you see that in his friendships; you see that in the way that he deals with minority legislators.”

Still, you know there's a but coming. There has to be. They've gone all in on painting him a racist and even after the humiliation of the racist rock story, they can't let go of their racism chew toy.

But many of those minority legislators say Perry has a long history — dating to his first race for statewide office more than 20 years ago — of engaging in what they see as racially tinged tactics and rhetoric to gain political advantage.

What they see as racially tinged. Not what his actual record reflects, but what one person sees as racially tinged, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Let's forget about the president marching with some of the most odious racists on the planet and attending a racist church for two decades. Rick Perry has supposedly engaged in racially tinged politics.

He could have an entire staff of African-Americans, could be married to an African-American, could call himself the First Black Governor of Texas and none of it would matter. He's a Republican and therefore must be destroyed.

I can't wait for the general election when the WaPo laments the politics of personal destruction any time Obama's faults are pointed out.

Romney Leads Obama in ABC News/WaPo Poll

Knowing how notoriously skewed toward Democrats, this news must have the White House in panic this morning.

An announcement bump for Mitt Romney and a bus-tour boost for Sarah Palin put the pair atop the field for the Republican presidential nomination. But while their primary standings are similar, their broader prospects for election look vastly different.

Romney appears formidable: In a general-election trial heat in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll he runs evenly with Barack Obama among all Americans, and numerically outpoints him, 49-46 percent, among registered voters -- not a statistically significant lead, given sampling error, but a clear reflection of Obama's vulnerability to a well-positioned challenger.

Romney, though, is the only Republican to run that well; Obama leads all other potential opponents tested in this poll -- Palin, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman. Palin fares worst, trailing Obama by 17 points among all adults, 15 points among registered voters.

Results here, and they're not good across the board for the failed Obama presidency.

One thing to keep in mind which should tell you how bleak Obama's prospects are is this poll was just random adults, not registered or likely voters.

In the link at the Washington Post we discover the breakdown: Democrats 31%, Republicans 25%, independent 39% and have no clue 4%. Buried deep in there is a question about the Tea Party, and they actually increased in favorability, which is now at 46-44%

State-Controlled Media: CBS and Washington Post Receiving ObamaCare Slush Fund Money

I guess this is no big deal. After all, these two impartial bastions of the mainstream media have been entirely fair in their critique of the government takeover of your health care.

Oh, wait...

Two mainstream news organizations are receiving hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars from Obamacare’s Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) — a $5 billion grant program that’s doling out cash to companies, states and labor unions in what the Obama administration considers an effort to pay for health insurance for early retirees. The Washington Post Company raked in $573,217 in taxpayer subsidies and CBS Corporation secured $722,388 worth of Americans’ money.

“It is fine with me if they continue covering the ObamaCare debate,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, in an e-mail to The Daily Caller. “When NBC used to cover energy issues, they identified themselves as a subsidiary of General Electric. CBS and Washington Post just have to disclose that they are subsidiaries of the Obama Administration.”

This is wonderful. GE, which owns NBC, isn't even paying taxes while their chairman is an Obama economic adviser, and now CBS and the WaPo are being subsidized by Obama. Apparently none of the rest of Obama's pom-pom media have any problem with this.

In a Surprise Move, Biden Hires WaPo Stenographer to Replace Obama's New Flack

A regular revolving door at the Washington Post.

Veteran political reporter Shailagh Murray is leaving the Washington Post to serve as communications director for Vice President Joe Biden, The Fix learned today.

“There are few reporters more skillful than Shailagh when it comes to connecting politics and policy in Washington,” said Post national editor Kevin Merida. “She is a master at explaining complex legislation and the unpredictable twists and turns of Congress. Her sophisticated understanding of issues and an ability to bring big ideas to our pages have served readers well.”

With such awesome skills, it's a wonder how someone with such a sophisticated understanding of issues never found a more meaningful pursuit in life other than mouthing Democrat talking points.

Case in point, her "reporting" following the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.

Giffords’s seat was targeted by Republicans in the 2010 midterm elections, but she managed to win a tough battle against a tea party-endorsed opponent. The up-and-coming lawmaker, known as a moderate Democrat who stayed in touch with her district, had been singled out by Sarah Palin’s SarahPac as one of 20 Democrats representing states that supported Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., for president in 2008.

Liberals on Saturday blamed the tea party movement’s sometimes militant rhetoric: for example, Palin’s telling supporters via Twitter, “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD,” and Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s advocating “second-amendment remedies” to some of the nation’s problems.

The link to Palin touched off a war of words Saturday on social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, as prominent left-wing bloggers accused Palin and others of encouraging extremism. Palin weighed in by issuing a call for “peace” on her Facebook page.

So a woman who was quick to insert Sarah Palin into the debate there, a low point in recent media history, is hired by the administration to make sense of Joe Biden's incoherent ramblings.

Wonderful.

Surprise! Dana Milbank's Own Newspaper Crosses the Palin Picket Line

A couple of weeks ago Washington Post clown Dana Milbank, in a desperate bid for attention, pleaded with his fellow moonbats to cool it with their Sarah Palin obsession and to avoid reporting on her for the month of February.

Well, that lasted less than nine hours. At his own newspaper. Milbank really has some clout, huh?

Needless to say, the bulk of the comments are the typical, rehashed anti-Palin screeds.

Imagine my surprise.

Meanwhile, MSNBC today offers you the Sarah Palin Guide to Style. Apparently they're trying to be funny.

She's no Michelle Obama when it comes to style, but that doesn't mean former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has nothing to offer in terms of fashion. On the contrary, Palin has mastered the art of looking effortlessly chic. Grab your sexy librarian glasses and chunky heels -- it's time to learn how to dress like the Mama Grizzly.

Make Believe Media: WaPo Claims Al Sharpton Brings Thousands to DC

Hundreds of thousands of Americans showed up in Washington today to see a rally held by Glenn Beck. So what does the Washington Post report? That Al Sharpton drews thousands to Washington.

Unreal. Most notable quote they can find about Beck, who outdrew Sharpton by about 100 to 1?

Jaime Contreras, president of SEIU-32BJ, said those gathered at the Mall with Beck "represent angry white people and hate-mongering." He added: "We will not let them stand in the way of the change we voted for!"

Meanwhile, they make sure to remind readers that Beck and Sarah Palin drew an overwhelmingly white crowd. They failed to note Sharpton's sparse gathering was overwhelming black, naturally.

Claiming the legacy of the nation's Founding Fathers and repeatedly evoking civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr., Beck, Sarah Palin and other speakers at the "Restoring Honor" rally exhorted a sprawling and overwhelmingly white crowd to concentrate not on the history that has scarred the nation but instead on what makes it "good."

Update: Via Ian Schwartz, it looks like CBS was also playing the race card.

CBS News: "I'm noticing that there are not a lot of minorities here today, why do you think that is?"

Black woman at Glenn Beck rally: "They're probably over there with Al Sharpton."

Plus, even more nonsense.

WaPo Ombudsman Wonders Why His Paper is Silent on Black Panther Story

Short answer: They don't want to make Obama and Holder look like they're playing racial politics, which they are.

Long answer: He's baffled.

Thursday's Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department's decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn't been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent.

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.

Early last year, just before the Bush administration left office, the Justice Department filed a voter-intimidation lawsuit against the men, the New Black Panther Party and its chairman. But several months later, with the government poised to win by default because the defendants didn't contest the suit, the Obama Justice Department decided the case was over-charged and narrowed it to the man with the nightstick. It secured only a narrow injunction forbidding him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of Philadelphia polling places through 2012.

Congressional Republicans pounced. For months they stalled the confirmation of Thomas E. Perez, President Obama's pick to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, while seeking answers to why the case had been downgraded over the objections of some of the department's career lawyers. The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation, which is pending. The independent, eight-member Commission on Civil Rights also began what has become a yearlong probe with multiple public hearings; its report is due soon. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), a prominent lawmaker in The Post's circulation area, has been a loud and leading critic of how the case was handled. His office has "aggressively" sought to interest The Post in coverage, a spokesman said.

The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors' decision to reduce its scope was "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." Some in the department believe "the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation," he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn't cover it. Indeed, until Thursday's story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.

Of course when those on the left manufacture stories accusing tea partiers of being racist it makes news. I wonder if they'll notice the White House is behind that smear?

Hey, let's cut the WaPo some slack. They're more interested in exposing secret sites than they are in reporting on malfeasance by our post-racial administration.

Heh: WaPo Confuses Obama With Malcolm X

Some subtle racism at the Washington Post, I guess. Maybe to all those white people in their newsroom these black guys all look alike or something. I thought they had painstaking layer upon layer of editors fact-checkers for this stuff?

The obvious difference in telling them apart was Malcolm X wasn't dependent on a TelePrompter.

Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the link.

Update: Cuffy Meigs thinks it's simply an honest mistake. He has a good point.

WaPo Publisher: Hey, Sorry About Our Political Prostitution

What does a newspaper do after being caught in bed with Democrats? Why, pretend it was all a misunderstanding and beg your dwindling readership to not abandon you because of your integrity.

You can't make this stuff up.

Dear Reader:

I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity. A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem. Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the organization, down. The Washington Post remains committed, now and always, to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Nothing is more important to us than that, and nothing will shake that commitment.

Just pathetic. I guess this dunce figures if you repeatedly infer some long-ago abandoned integrity we're to believe you're little money-making scheme didn't leave a massive black eye.

Read the rest of this letter if you need a good laugh, but we'll leave you with this parting gift.

We remain committed to you, our readers. We remain committed to the highest standards of integrity. And while we will continue to pursue new lines of business, we will never allow those new avenues to compromise our integrity.

In the meantime, I hope that we can continue to count you as a reader while we promise to continue to bring you the news as it develops, unbiased and with the best reporting and editing we can offer.

Unbiased.

Heh. What a cut-up.

Unnamed GOP Critics 'Wince' Over Cheney

MSNBC and the Washington Post aren't even trying to hide the bias with this headline:

As Cheney seizes spotlight, many in GOP wince

So they name names of those who are wincing, right?

Uh no, they don't.

They allegedly find two anonymous "Republican strategists" who don't want to be named to criticize Dick Cheney, yet this is spun a many in GOP wince.

How about identifying some of those in the GOP who are actually wincing?

I believe this would be the appropriate response from Cheney:

Old Media Deathwatch: WaPo Profit Plummets 77%

Yesterday it was the San Francisco Chronicle announcing they're clinging to life. Over the weekend the Journal Register Co. filed for bankruptcy followed Monday by Philadelphia's largest newspapers.

Now we get one of the really big boys headed for the abyss.

Please, try and contain your tears.

The Washington Post Co.'s reeling newspaper and magazine divisions stumbled again in the fourth quarter, extending an earnings slump that would have been even more disconcerting if not for the stability of the company's education and cable TV businesses.

The publisher of The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine said Wednesday that it made $18.8 million, or $2.01 per share, during the final three months of last year. That represented a 77 percent drop from net income of $82.9 million, or $8.71 per share, in the same quarter a year earlier.

The results for the last quarter included after-tax charges of more than $82 million to account for the eroding value of the company's newspaper holdings, the upcoming closure of a Maryland printing plant and restructuring costs.

It marked the Washington-based company's ninth consecutive quarter of declining profit.

Revenue rose 3 percent to $1.16 billion.

Washington Post Co. shares fell $7.42, or nearly 2 percent, to $377.57 in Wednesday's afternoon trading.

Like most publishers across the United States, the company's publications have been losing advertising revenue to the Internet for several years. The pain has been exacerbated during the past six months by a devastating recession that has waylaid retailers, banks, auto dealers and builders—traditionally all big buyers of newspaper ads.

Not to mention a relentlessly leftwing slant in their reporting, but let's ignore that 10 ton elephant in the room. The current recession doesn't explain why their profit has declined for nine straight quarters.

WaPo Ombudsman: Yes, We Were Completely In the Tank for Obama

I'm sure we'll be seeing a plethora of these soul-searching pieces now that the media tries to regain their credibility.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors -- like most of the national news media -- found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

Yes, when you're shamelessly rooting for one candidate over the other, you'll find him more newsworthy. Of course. The problem is, certain things about that historic candidate were deemed un-newsworthy.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

They found plenty of space to go over McCain's health in agonizing detail but ignored Obama's drug use, shady connections and mysterious undergrad years.

I'm sure they'll make up for their grossly imbalanced coverage now that their guy is safely in office. And I have an oceanfront spread in Wyoming up for sale.

Media Blowback: WaPo Profit Drops 86%

As we all know, journalism is officially dead and buried on the heels of this presidential campaign, and nothing more demonstrates the fact than dozens of these alleged journalists that are now de facto press aides for Barack Obama haven't officially boycotted his campaign this morning after reporters for three major newspapers were barred from Air Messiah.

So can it any longer be newsworthy that newspapers are in dire straits financially since readers are abandoning them in droves?

Well, it's newsworthy to me that the Washington Post, carrying water for Obama with this absurd defense of PLO mouthpiece Rashid Khalidi, good buddy of Barack Obama, has seen their profits virtually disappear in the third quarter.

Good. I won't rest until it's 100% and they're bankrupt.

Washington Post Co. reported an 86 percent drop in third-quarter profit as it wrote down the value of its publications and recorded a 14 percent decrease in advertising at its flagship newspaper.

Net income fell to $10.3 million, or $1.08 a share, from $72.5 million, or $7.60, a year earlier, the company said in a statement distributed by Business Wire today.

Of course this decline doesn't strictly stem from a decline in readers, but these organizations such as the Washington Post and hordes of others from the LA Times to the New York Times need to be boycotted. And they're just several of dozens of newspapers, magazines and television outlets that should be ignored. These people are not journalists, they're propagandists with an agenda, and simply put, that agenda is to destroy any dissent from liberal orthodoxy and truth simply no longer matters with them. Whatever can further the goal of their politics is now justified. They're not satisfied with simply looting the personal files of a Joe the Plumber or smearing Sarah Palin, now they're not even standing up for their professional peers. They've sacrificed dignity, honor and a journalistic code in furtherance of their political ideology.

They must be shunned.

There is an enormous opportunity for the alternative voices in the new media to rise up and replace them. The time is now.

WaPo: Just In Case You Haven't Had Enough McCain Cancer Stories, Here's Another

Barack Obama's doctor released one page "detailing" his medical history. John McCain released 1,173 pages. The media has gone through miles of news copy agonizing over every last detail of McCain's health, ominously implying he's about to keel over, leaving us with this naif Sarah Palin as president, and as we all know, she frightens and terrifies people.

So just in case you haven't heard it all before, the Washington Post, fresh off their endorsement of the nuanced Barack Obama for president, rehashes it all again. You know, just in case you didn't know it all already(wink, wink).

In May, the presidential campaign of 72-year-old cancer survivor John McCain tried to put to rest doubts about his health by allowing a few reporters to inspect his medical records, but the effort has failed to quell questions about his odds of surviving an eight-year tenure in the White House.

One loosely organized group of physicians has been claiming in Web-based videos, op-ed columns and newspaper ads that McCain's risk of dying from a recurrence of the skin cancer he had treated eight years ago may be as high as 60 percent.

Of course it failed to quell questions. Because no matter what McCain does, the media just isn't going to let go of this.

How about an in-depth story on why Obama's flimsy one-page history has failed to quell questions about his health?

Stunner: WaPo Endorses Nuanced, Tolerant Obama

This ought to open the floodgates for all those non-partisan editorial pages to offer their approval for Obama. You see, they'd have given McCain a chance, but his campaign was so disappointing. As if they'd have endorsed him if they weren't so disappointed. I guess they expected him to just roll over.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes.

Mr. Obama is a man of supple intelligence, with a nuanced grasp of complex issues and evident skill at conciliation and consensus-building. At home, we believe, he would respond to the economic crisis with a healthy respect for markets tempered by justified dismay over rising inequality and an understanding of the need for focused regulation. Abroad, the best evidence suggests that he would seek to maintain U.S. leadership and engagement, continue the fight against terrorists, and wage vigorous diplomacy on behalf of U.S. values and interests. Mr. Obama has the potential to become a great president. Given the enormous problems he would confront from his first day in office, and the damage wrought over the past eight years, we would settle for very good.

Geez, could they jam any more lame cliches in there?

But Mr. Obama's temperament is unlike anything we've seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

He's eager to hear opposing points of view? Hmm. Maybe he ought to let his supporters know that. Somehow, I'm missing out on all this tolerance for opposing viewpoints. The way Joe the Plumber is being treated, harsher than William Ayers one would argue, is rather chilling.

In the zeal to tell us how nuanced Obama is, the anonymous WaPo editorial board neglects to mention a few facts.

* With 9/11 not far in the past, even casual ties to a bomber should turn off folks.

* So should his links to a pastor who thinks America got what it deserved on 9/11.

* As should his slur that US troops are "air-raiding villages and killing innocent civilians" - particularly given that McCain endured six years of torture on behalf of his country and fellow soldiers.

* Ditto for Obama's tax-hike plan, as recession looms.

* And his lack of accomplishment, at a time when the world situation demands experienced leaders.

* Then there's Obama's rating as the most liberal US senator, and his ties to socialists and radical leftists. That should cost him - stacked against McCain's record of centrism, standing up to his own party and joining with liberals like Ted Kennedy.

* Most damaging, you'd think, would be Obama's work with ACORN, which actually helped foment the current economic crisis by pushing banks to make bad loans. Obama was as wrong about the economy as he was about the surge. Don't folks care?

On the other hand, you can probably dismiss Obama's negatives and still wonder why he's ahead, given that he brings so few positives to the table: no national record, no great accomplishments, no experience.

I guess, on the other hand, anonymous editorials are alright. Whoever endorses McCain may want to stay in the shadows, given the left's famed tolerance for opposing points of view. Seems the editorial board doesn't even read their own news pages. Talk about intolerance.

The sign went up Sunday evening, bold black letters against the stark white background of the marquee at the Colony South Hotel & Conference Center in Clinton: "Country First. McCain/Palin."

By daybreak, pandemonium had broken loose all across heavily Democratic Prince George's County. Many local supporters of Democrat Barack Obama, jolted by the message as they headed down Branch Avenue on their Monday morning commutes, grabbed cellphones and BlackBerrys to notify friends. Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events.

Some tolerance.

Latest Palin Non-Scandal: She Used Allowable Meal Expenses

You would think these knuckleheads would quit while they're behind. Although I guess there's no statute of limitations on making yourselves look stupid.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Palin, who earns $125,000 a year, claimed and received $16,951 as her allowance, which officials say was permitted because her official "duty station" is Juneau, according to an analysis of her travel documents by The Washington Post.

Let's cut to the chase. Nothing was done illegally. They're simply trying to play gotcha here and like everything other nonscandal the past 10 days, it'll blow up in their faces.

"As a matter of protocol, the governor and the first family are expected to attend community events across the state," she said. "It's absolutely reasonable that the first family participates in community events."

The state finance director, Kim Garnero, said Alaska law exempts the governor's office from elaborate travel regulations. Said Leighow: "The governor is entitled to a per diem, and she claims it."

That doesn't stop the Post from excruciatingly detailing seemingly every expense she's ever claimed.

I'm sure they'll be doing an exhaustive accounting of all the per diem expenses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, right?

Naturally, the frothing left will bite on this. They can't help themselves.

An analysis here.

Useless Poll of the Day

With virtually every national poll of registered voters now showing the presidential contest in a dead heat, the Washington Post today releases perhaps the most meaningless poll this election cycle.

Democrat Barack Obama holds a two-to-one lead over Republican John McCain among low-wage workers but many are uncommitted to either presidential candidate, to according to a new poll by The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Obama's advantage is due largely to overwhelming support from African Americans and Hispanics, but even among white voters, the Illinois senator leads McCain 47 percent to 37 percent, The Washington Post reported in Monday editions.

The poll found that one in six white workers polled remains uncommitted to either candidate, the Post reported.

Most of the respondents were pessimistic about the impact of the November 4 election. A majority of those polled, both white and minority, said that no matter who won their personal financial situation would be unlikely to change, it said.

The poll included interviews with 1,350 randomly selected workers 18 to 64 years of age who put in at least 30 hours a week but earned $27,000 or less last year, the newspaper said.

Not registered voters, not likely voters, but randomly selected workers.

The national poll was conducted June 18 to July 7 among randomly selection low-wage workers. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

A poll of randomly selected workers conducted a month ago does not reflect current trends.

And it only stands to reason that since most of them are minorities, they'll go overwhelmingly for Obama. Nor should it come as any shock that low-income workers tend to vote Democrat. After all, which party promises all sorts of freebies while promising to tax the rich?

It's as if this poll released yesterday where McCain leads Obama 56-24% accurately reflect the entire nation.

Naturally, with this attempt at manipulating the news, they overlook this poll where a majority says Obama was being racist with his dollar bill remarks last week.

Gateway Pundit links. Thanks!

Washington Post Doing Its Part to Help the Insurgents

Here we go again. You need only read any newspaper lately to know that we are making tremendous victories against the insurgents. How? Why? Lately every story has revealed some secret information, whether it is the names of interrogators or in the case of this story, reveals the tactics and techniques of the enemy in order to give them information on the effectiveness of those tactics. Why you would almost think the media is trying to encourage the insurgents to continue their struggle?

U.S. military officials in Baghdad have noted the use of rocket-propelled bombs in press releases in recent months. But they have not publicly discussed their use or their concerns about the weapons at length because most of the information about them is classified, U.S. military officials said.

So of course the reporter goes on to fill in the blanks. Gee with friends like this who needs enemies?

And here is some nice information on page 2 of the story.

Most such attacks have been carried out during the day and some have been videotaped and aired on the satellite television station operated by Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia and political movement. U.S. military officials said they have found Iranian-made 107mm rockets at some of the blast sites, which they said suggests the weapons -- or parts -- may have come from Iran.

So Hezbollah is now a "Lebanese militia and political movement" huh? Just like the Democrats. Well they would be if the Democrats supported gun ownership that is.

The weapon in question is called an IRAM (Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions).

They are propane tanks packed with hundreds of pounds of explosives and powered by 107mm rockets. They are often fired by remote control from the backs of trucks, sometimes in close succession.

While the article talks about how deadly these devices are the only deaths so far seem to be from these devices accidentally going off and killing people in the proximity to the trucks which carry them. There have been very few successful attacks and in fact there have been more found unused then have actually used, but the Washington Post would like the insurgents to please keep trying, because after all, we all know if at first you don't succeed try, try again.

Race-Obsessed Democrats Have a Lot of Healing to Do

Expect such insight from the media nonstop until election day.

So a larger percentage of blacks admit having racial bias, by 34% to 30% of whites? Doesn't even cause a ripple.

All this tells me is the Democrats have a lot of racial healing to do.

They're the party consumed with race, all they do is sow racial division and all this when they have the most baggage on the issue.

Projecting it upon Republicans has become a national pastime, but that doesn't address the larger issue: Why are Democrats such racists?

More than six in 10 African Americans now rate race relations as "not so good" or "poor," while 53 percent of whites hold more positive views. Opinions are also divided along racial lines, though less so, on whether blacks face discrimination. There is more similarity on feelings of personal racial prejudice: Thirty percent of whites and 34 percent of blacks admit such sentiments.

At the same time, there is an overwhelming public openness to the idea of electing an African American to the presidency. In a Post-ABC News poll last month, nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be "entirely comfortable" with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.

Ninety percent of whites said they're comfortable with having a black president. So other than reinforcing the fact Democrats are race-obsessed hucksters, what exactly is the point of this study?

Sister Toldjah has a look at exactly who has been playing the race card this campaign. And it sure isn't the GOP.

Quagmire at the Washington Post

The steady decline of the dead-tree media continues.

Maybe some of them can start a blog.

More than 100 Washington Post reporters, editors, photographers, artists and other journalists will take early retirement packages offered by the company as a way to cut costs, reducing the newsroom staff by at least 10 percent.

A number of familiar bylines will leave for good or no longer appear regularly in the paper, including those of military affairs reporter Thomas E. Ricks; feature writers Linton Weeks and Peter Carlson; health reporter Laura Sessions Stepp; science reporter Rick Weiss; the husband-and-wife foreign correspondent team of John Ward Anderson and Molly Moore; critics Stephen Hunter, Desson Thomson and Tim Page; Federal Diary columnist Stephen Barr; Weekend writers Richard Harrington and Eve Zibart; and Metro reporters Sue Anne Pressley Montes and Yolanda Woodlee.

Political dean David Broder took the package but will remain on contract; his column will continue to appear in The Post. Sports columnist and ESPN personality Tony Kornheiser also took the offer, but his most recent full-length column in The Post appeared in 2005. Since then, his presence has been largely limited to printed excerpts from his daily Talking Points video, which is planned to continue.

At the current rate of progress, or lack thereof, this won't be the last of the job cuts.

In 1999, for instance, the newspaper division of The Post Co. reported $157 million in operating income. By 2007, that number had fallen to $66 million. Daily average circulation of The Post peaked at 832,232 in 1993. It stands at 638,300.