President Obama is unpopular.  His "signature accomplishment" is widely despised, his top economic initiative has flopped, and his re-election prospects are mixed, at best.  Unable to run on a record of failure, Obama is gearing up for an enduringly negative and blame-filled 2012 campaign.  A critical element of this effort will be a persistent, deeply ugly push by the president's allies to paint his critics as racists.  We saw some of this four years ago, of course, but then-candidate Obama had strong political headwinds and Operation HopenChange working in his favor in 2008.  This year, voters will be subjected to an endless drumbeat of race baiting -- an unholy political Hail Mary that Democrats hope will distract voters from real issues and force Republicans into a permanent defensive crouch.  Politico sets the table for the coming battle, offering helpful tips for Leftists on what sorts of things can be instantly racialized (hint -- it's everything):
 

The issue of race and American politics, never far beneath the surface during Barack Obama’s historic 2008 campaign, is making a loud, overt and surprisingly early appearance in the 2012 presidential race. And no one knows — least of all Obama himself — what impact the race card, always a wild card, will have on the president’s reelection prospects. In the past several months, Newt Gingrich has drawn sharp criticism for labeling Obama the “food stamp president” and for suggesting poor kids in New York’s majority-minority school system burnish their work ethic by picking up mops. First lady Michelle Obama bridled at the perception that she’s an “angry black woman.” Obama’s Chicago-based campaign has pushed back against stories that he’s more or less given up on the white vote.

But nothing has illustrated the potentially explosive political impact of race — an issue that Obama has downplayed throughout his career — like the firestorm around the image of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer wagging her finger at the first black president of the United States. If there were any illusion that 2012 would be the post-racial election most Americans hoped for, it vanished with that single shake of a finger and 30 seconds of sniping lost to history in the turbine roar of Air Force One. The issue that sparked the tarmac showdown was nominally the ongoing battle between Brewer and the White House over immigration policy. But the brief episode infuriated African-American leaders, who saw the image of a white conservative berating Obama as the visual summation of all the disrespect shown to Obama by white antagonists from Joe “You lie!” Wilson to Glenn Beck to Gingrich.

Let's approach these pieces of evidence one by one, shall we?
 

(1) Empirically, President Obama is the food stamp president.  Food stamp usage has spiked to a record high during his presidency with nearly 15 percent of the US population -- white, black, and green -- receiving subsidies.  Nearly as many Americans have been put on food stamps during Obama's partial term as were added to the rolls during President Bush's two full terms in office.  Gingrich has also said that his goal is to transition millions of Americans (again, of all races) from states of dependency to self-reliance through the dignity of work, which also plays into Newt's controversial ideas about child labor  He's also dinged his GOP opponent Mitt Romney for his "little food stamp" mentality.  Is this also racist, somehow?

(2) In the context of this story, the term "angry black woman" was uttered by Michelle Obama herself, responding to unspecified criticisms she perceived in a book written about the Obama White House by a New York Times correspondent. 

(3) That Obama's abandoning the white working class report came from a New York Times piece written by Thomas Edsall, formerly of the Huffington Post. 

(4) Hopes for a post-racial election "vanished" when Gov. Jan Brewer pointing her finger at President Obama during a heated exchange that he instigated?  Does anyone at Politico actually read their own stuff?  The Obama Justice Department has been highly racialized from day one of this administration, and Obama partisans have consistently seen racism around every corner as a means of disqualifying legitimate dissent.  The Brewer finger-pointing incident has to be one of the silliest "racism" charges to date, yet Politico elevates it as some sort of a defining moment.  How ridiculous.

(5) Rep. Joe Wilson may have been out of line when he heckled the president during his 2010 healthcare address to Congress.  To ascribe his outburst to racism is baseless and slanderous.  And despite his poor form, he was right on substance: President Obama was not telling the truth in the passage that raised Wilson's ire. 

Every example Politico cites as a troubling omen of our incipient racial tempest falls into one of two categories.  Either they are factual statements being drowned out by people who abhor uncomfortable truths, or they're quotes and/or reports from liberals about liberals.  This is the game the media will play.  They'll establish a Democrat-friendly narrative ("why, this election is going to be wildly racial because our black president is up for re-election!") and then fill the "evidence" in later.  Someone gesitculates while disagreeing with Obama?  That's racial.  Someone else (accurately) accuses him of lying?  Racial.  The first lady denies she's an "angry black woman," based on a book written by a liberal?  Racial.  That's the beauty of the plan: It doesn't matter who's fueling the story.  The story in and of itself is the goal, designed to insulate Obama from the sort of attacks that characterize all contemporary political races.  As I've written before, this strategy is cynical and tragic.  It's cynical because it does lasting damage to the soul of the country by intentionally inflaming racial tensions, all in order to gain cheap, fleeting partisan advantage.  It's tragic because authentic racism does still exist in today's America, and crying wolf on matters of racial bigotry cheapens the accusation, rendering it less powerful when it is accurately leveled.

Parting thoughts: (1) As liberals -- including, disappointingly, the great Juan Williams -- lecture us about "dog whistles" and "code words," take mental note of how often Democrats and their allies mention Mitt Romney's religion, should he become the nominee.  Keep your eyes peeled for thumb-sucking MSM stories like this, which merely "raise questions" about Mormon Mitt Romney's Mormony Mormonism. (2) How will independents, who rallied to Obama in 2008 and pushed him over the top, react when they're incessantly informed by the Left that they've somehow morphed into knuckle-dragging racists over the last four years?

This could get very ugly.  Heritage's Lachlan Markay has the exclusive:
 

The “Occupy DC” protest group is planning to disrupt the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference using a range of potentially illegal tactics that could even include violence against participants, Scribe has learned. During a Thursday meeting at McPherson Square, until Saturday the epicenter of the protests, Occupiers brainstormed tactics for shutting down or disrupting the conference, according to a source who was present at the meeting. The protesters suggested pulling fire alarms in the hotel where the conference will take place, screaming “fire” during conference activities, “glitter-bombing” participants, cutting electrical power, and barricading entrances to the hotel, according to the source, who requested anonymity.

That covers the "distruption" bit, but what about the whispers of violence?
 

“Speakers will be physically assaulted, not just verbally confronted,” the source told Scribe in an email. Two Occupiers, who the source also identified as members of the New Black Panther Party, “said they would be disappointed if they didn’t get arrested and planned to ‘make it count.’” The source quoted another protester as saying, “Mitt [Romney] has Secret Service now, but [Newt] Gingrich and [Andrew] Breitbart don’t,” seemingly suggesting that the latter two would not be as heavily guarded.

Yeah, why not "make it count?"  Eric Holder might summarily drop the charges, after all.  Seriously, those are chilling quotes -- regardless of whether they're declarations of real intent or just chest-puffery.  CPAC organizers say they're beefing up security for the weekend, but it may be tough to head-off chaos generated by embedded infiltrators:
 

An attendee of the Thursday meeting, who claimed to handle relations with labor organizations, said the AFL-CIO had booked rooms for Occupiers at the Marriott hotel, with the intention of allowing them to bypass security measures at the door. Contacted by Scribe, an AFL-CIO spokesman insisted the Occupiers’ claims were untrue. The AFL-CIO has aided Occupy DC before, most recently in storing Occupiers’ belongings at its headquarters in advance of the National Park Service’s enforcement actions.

But Occupiers are apparently planning other means of infiltration. Representatives from the American University and George Washington University “Occupy” groups said they intended to actually register their members for CPAC. Student passes are heavily discounted, and allow full access to the conference. They also said they would produce counterfeit credentials and hand them out to non-students who still wished to enter the protest. “In order to avoid having to shower and dress in business attire to blend in,” Scribe’s source said, “they plan to wear Ron Paul 2012 gear because they believe Paul supporters ‘generally look like hippies.’”

The AFL-CIO can deny, deny, deny, but as Kevin posted over the weekend, unions have been planning some CPAC subterfuge of their own.  In any case, the Occupiers are getting pretty excited about the opportunity to wreak havoc.  Via its website, here's a taste the movement's "official" description of the nation's largest annual conservative conference -- which Allahpundit accurately describes as "unparodyable:"
 

On February 9^th through February 11^th, a who’s who of dastardly politicians will be holding the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Marriot Wardman Park Hotel at 2660 Woodley Road, NW. Similar to the Alfalfa Club dinner, this event is another gathering of bigots, media mouthpieces, corrupt politicians, and their 1 percent elite puppet masters. CPAC will parade and attempt to perpetuate the radical right wing’s imperialist ideologies with keynote speakers, movies and banquets dedicated to pursuing its racist, sexist, patriarchal and exploitative agenda.
 

Remember, though: Republicans, Tea Partiers, and conservatives are the dangerous, terroristic violence-mongers.  Townhall is again a major sponsor of CPAC this year, and we'll have our full editorial team on hand to cover the conference from wire to wire (hopefully without turning black and blue).

What a night for Rick Santorum, who shocked the political world by winning all three of Tuesday's presidential contests.  Even though no delegates were technically awarded based on the results in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota, Santorum's clean sweep slammed the breaks on Mitt Romney's momentum, and again cast the frontrunner's inevitability into serious doubt.  An ebullient  -- and perhaps even slightly surprised -- Santorum greeted cheering supporters in the Show Me State, declaring that "conservatism is alive and well in Missouri and Minnesota."  The former Senator delivered his victory speech before Colorado fell into his column, which represented the biggest stunner of the night, by far:
 

Breitbart TV has the rest of the speech, which was delivered without notes or prepared remarks.  On one hand, it's clear that Santorum is fluent in conservatism.  He has lived and breathed the movement for his entire career, a few voting record blemishes notwithstanding.  On the other hand, tonight was a big stage for him, and a tighter, more focused message would have served him well.  Delivery aside (and style points can be fixed) Santorum's message was strong.  He hit President Obama and Romney on healthcare.  He stuck a chord with conservatives by deriding the president's arrogance ("he thinks he's smarter than you").  And he slammed Obama's recent unconstitutional mandate rulings that erode religious freedom.  Santorum was outspent and out-organized, yet he still pulled off a huge night.  I'd be willing to bet his coffers will start to fill up tomorrow; ballot box success tends to breed fundraising prowess.  As February unfolds ahead of March and Super Tuesday, one thing -- and maybe only one thing -- is clear: This race ain't over.

Another minor winner tonight is Ron Paul, who clinched second place in Minnesota's caucuses.  This represents Paul's first second top-two finish this year, although where he goes from here isn't clear.  Now, onto the evening's losers.  Mitt Romney seemed to be cruising after wins in Florida and Nevada, but his journey to Tampa has been jolted by a distant second place finish in Missouri (where Santorum won every single county) and by coming in third in Minnesota (how's that Pawlenty endorsement working out?).  The governor gave a workmanlike concession speech, congratulating Santorum on his wins before quickly pivoting to criticisms of Obama.  He also flashed a quick tell of his upcoming 'sink Santorum' strategy, which will involve attacks on Washington insiders and the former Senator's dearth of executive experience.  Although they would have loved to have taken Missouri or Minnesota, Colorado is the lost prize that really stings for Team Romney; they were fully expecting a relatively smooth win there.  Not only did they end up losing the Centennial State, it wasn't even that close.  Wow.  One minor side note: After his brief address, Romney worked the rope line, where he dodged a "glitter bomb" attack from a Leftist.  Secret Service agents rushed the young perpetrator out of the room:
 

Tuesday's titanic loser was Newt Gingrich.  Ahead of the results, his campaign attempted to project a sense of insouciance by holding rallies in Ohio and releasing statements downplaying the importance of this week's contents.  After Santorum's monster showing, no one's going to buy that act.  Yes, Missouri's primary was totally non-binding, and yes, the two caucuses didn't assign any delegates.  But votes are votes, and votes dictate momentum.  Newt's entire rationale for his continued candidacy is that he's the only conservative alternative who is viable against the former Massachusetts governor.  Santorum has now carried four states, compared to Gingrich's lone victory in South Carolina.  Santorum's process argument against Newt will now be twofold:  First, scoreboard.  Second, even though it was essentially a beauty contest, I thumped Romney one-on-one in a swing state -- where you failed to even qualify for the ballot.  That's a compelling one-two punch.  Rick's team has ballot access issues of its own to contend with, but for now, Gingrich's insistence that he's "the guy" to carry the Not Romney banner is less convincing than ever.

Up Next: Arizona and Michigan on the 28th, with a debate six days earlier in Mesa, AZ.  Both states are thought to be favorable terrain for Romney, but who really knows at this point?  This cycle has shown that conventional wisdom can shift in a nanosecond, so the next three weeks will feel like a political eternity.  (I should also note that Maine, with its unusual caucus process and handful of delegates, finishes voting this weekend). 

UPDATE - I'm seeing a lot of analysis online and on television regarding Romney's poor showing in Colorado vis-a-vis his 2008 numbers, when he coasted to a blow-out win.  These comparisons ignore a significant paradigm, and are therefore pretty useless.  In 2008, Mitt Romney emerged as the anti-McCain, anti-squish candidate.  Today, Romney has supplanted McCain in that dynamic, and Santorum and Gingrich are battling to be the '08 Romney of '12. 

On Tuesday, Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri will host statewide elections in what will certainly be the most important 24 hours – until Super Tuesday – of the 2012 Republican primary. Interestingly, while there are technically 76 delegates up for grabs in Colorado and Minnesota (Missouri will not deliver any delegates), none will be actually be awarded until next month. The Los Angeles Times has the scoop:

But regardless of the outcome, the action will be largely symbolic. The voting won't result in the selection of delegates required to support a particular presidential candidate at the party's national convention.

In Missouri, voters will participate in what's known as a "beauty contest" primary that has no connection to the delegate process. A light turnout is forecast.

The election was required under state law, and the Missouri Legislature failed to approve a measure to move the date into next month.

Voting before March 1 would violate Republican Party rules, if the primary results were binding --- resulting in a penalty that would cost Missouri half of its delegate slots at the convention in Tampa in late August. State Republicans will hold caucuses instead, starting at the precinct level on St. Patrick's Day.

Minnesota and Colorado Republicans will avoid similar penalties by waiting until March or April to select their delegates. The two states will report the results of a straw poll of caucus attendees tonight

These facts notwithstanding, the results tonight could change the trajectory of the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Since polling has been sporadic in recent months, each candidate is looking to exceed expectations and gain some much-needed momentum. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, for example, desperately needs to prove -- as the nominal frontrunner -- he’s coalescing Tea Partiers, conservatives and moderates behind his candidacy. Nevertheless, he faces an especially tough contest in Minnesota, which I suspect will be the most closely watched race of the evening. Indeed, if Rick Santorum wins both Minnesota and Missouri, (he will almost certainly win the latter since Newt Gingrich will not appear on the ballot), the former Pennsylvania Senator could emerge as the strongest and most appealing conservative candidate in the GOP field.

The question, however, is what happens if Newt Gingrich loses all three primaries? Though he’s made it abundantly clear he will stay in the race until the Republican convention, an exceedingly poor showing tonight could severely undermine his chances of clinching the nomination. That being said, none of the candidates have campaigned particularly hard in Colorado, Minnesota or Missouri. And since zero delegates will be awarded tonight, the former Speaker is perhaps better off spending his time courting voters in Ohio, a crucially important battleground state.

In any case, all polls will officially close tonight at 9:00 pm (EST). As always, be sure to check out the Townhall elections results page starting at 7:00 pm!

Prominent conservatives led by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin like to describe Barack Obama as a “Saul Alinsky radical,” thereby linking the president to a Chicago community organizer and leftwing theorist of the 1950s and ’60’s. White House defenders reject the label, insisting Obama was only ten when Alinsky died and that his later work as a community organizer focused on practical help for the poor, not sweeping social transformation.

Regardless of the president’s possible affinity for Alinsky’s philosophy, it’s dumb politics to obsess on a forgotten activist few Americans could pick from a police lineup. To discredit the president through possible Alinsky associations you’d first have to explain who Alinsky was. Instead of wasting time describing an agitator’s bad ideas from last generation, conservatives should concentrate on exposing President Obama’s bad policies from last year.

A prominent medical professor at the University of Connecticut stands accused of fraudulent research on the purported health benefits of drinking red wine. Dr. Dipak K. Das published more than 500 articles promoting his ideas but now a 60,000 page federal report finds 145 instances of falsification of data and outright fabrication.

To make matters worse, Dr. Das took $890,000 from the federal government to pursue this phony research—a prime example of the corrupting influence of wasteful federal spending. This sum doesn’t even include the cost of 60,000 pages to expose his lies. Why should the taxpayer, instead of some winemakers association, have ever financed dubious investigations on the glories of Merlot and Cabernet in the first place? Washington bureaucrats don’t need wine-promoting fraud in order to spend public money like drunken sailors.

In a 2-1 ruling on Tuesday, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned “Prop 8”, which banned same-sex marriages in California. The ban was put in place by the 2008 referendum on the issue after a state Supreme Court legalized the marriages; 52.30% of voters were in favor of the proposition.

In the majority opinion, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

The decision upheld a lower court’s ruling in 2010 by former Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker’s own sexual orientation, publicly disclosed after he retired, led some to question whether the judge should have recused himself in 2010; the issue was again brought up by some conservative groups last spring, which delayed the ruling.

Though the decision is what American Foundation for Equal Rights President Chad Griffin calls “a historic victory”, same-sex marriages won’t resume immediately.

Opponents, including senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, Brian Raum, want to see the issue brought to a larger 9^th Circuit panel and to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage — tried in San Francisco — turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court."

Since Californians did vote in favor of Proposition 8, we’ll just have to wait and see whether it’s the people or the courts that have the final say.

He's an ardent believer in money-out-of-politics good government, you see, except when those lofty principles complicate the all-surpassing goal of attaining and fortifying political power:
 

On a conference call with members of President Obama’s 2012 reelection committee Monday evening, campaign manager Jim Messina announced that donors should start funding Priorities USA, the Democratic super PAC run by two former White House staffers, Bill Burton and Sean Sweeney. The move was a remarkable shift in approach toward the independent political expenditure groups, whose role in the political process Obama has criticized and from which his campaign had sought to keep distance. Just seven months earlier, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt assured, “Neither the President nor his campaign staff or aides will fundraise for super PACs,” according to the LA Times.

Not only has our pious president "criticized" these independent groups, he's actually labeled them "a threat to our democracy." Indeed, these Super PACS are such a mortal threat to the American Way that Obama supporters are now compelled to embrace them.  Funny how that works.  The impetus for this "remarkable shift"?  The Koch Brothers, natch:
 

Messina noted that “the President, Vice President, and First Lady will not be a part of this effort; their political activity will remain focused on the President’s campaign.” “As has become evident in the past month, the only enthusiasm in the Republican Party is among oil company billionaires and investment bankers on Wall Street looking to defeat President Obama,” Burton said in a statement. “We’re committed to providing a balance to Karl Rove and the Koch brothers who have pledged more than half a billion dollars to their effort.”

Ah yes.  Blame a few Lefty betes noires and those devious Wall Street types -- who, you may recall, generously bankrolled Obama's 2008 campaign.  Messina and company claim they have no choice but to fight back against the building tidal wave of right-wing cash that could (heaven forbid!) "buy the election."  This ignores the fact that Democrats out-spent Republicans in 2008 and 2010 by hundreds of millions of dollars, and that Team Obama set out to raise one billion dollars for 2012.  In order to fight back against the well-oiled Democrat Money Machine, the Right has embraced Super PACs as a mechanism to begin to level the playing field.  Don't misunderstand, there's nothing wrong with liberals recognizing an emerging disadvantage in this realm and counter-punching.  But spare us the sanctimonious garbage about how your noble aspirations were sullied by nasty conservatives who "forced" you to abandon your "principles." The truth is that when push comes to shove, the Left has zero objections to raising and spending towering mountains of greenbacks to help elect their people.  Everything else is self-congratulatory window dressing. One liberal hero who genuinely believes this stuff is former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who is blasting Team Obama for selling out:
 

Liberal ex-Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) is ripping President Obama's decision to embrace super-PACs. Feingold, who co-authored landmark campaign finance legislation with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to regulate campaigns, said Obama is "dancing with the devil" by deciding to fully support Priorities USA, a Democratic political action committee. He also said it would turn Democrats into "corporate-lite." "This is dancing with the devil. I know a lot of Democrats in D.C. don’t agree, and I understand the desire to do everything possible to win," Feingold said in a statement. "But this decision will push Democrats to become corporate-lite, and will send us head-on into a battle we know we will lose, because Republicans like Mitt Romney and his friends have and will spend more money."

Here, Feingold repeats the canard that Republicans are the Big Money party who can overwhelm "little guy" Democrats by purchasing elections.  I'd simply direct him to the links in my previous paragraph for the dirty reality.  Sorry, Russ; this ship sailed years ago.  I'll leave you with two clips.  The first is the MSNBC set wringing their hands over Obama's "cynical" decision.  Enjoy the indignation while it lasts, folks, because tomorrow it'll back to screaming about Moneybags Mormon Mitt.   The second is a fun flashback to Obama's first major foray into campaign financing hypocrisy.  John Heilemann lays out the background nicely in the first video, so I thought I'd provide 2008's shameless follow-through, which Obama has reprised this week:
 

It galls me every time I watch Obama cheerfully abandon this particular pledge while wrapping himself in the banner of electoral rectitude.  The ends always justify the means with this guy.  Always.

UPDATE - Who needs Super PACs when you can raise beaucoup bucks from the family of a notorious Mexican fugitive?  (The Obama campaign says it is refunding the money).
 

UPDATE II - A great catch by the RNC research team.  Here's The One waxing poetic in 2007 about sticking to principle, especially when it conflicts with one's own self interest.  Note the context -- he's talking about outside groups' electoral expenditures.  The really rich hypocrisy begins roughly one minute into the clip.  Remember, guys, "you can't just talk the talk:"