The Anti-Jindal Racism Begins

February 26th, 2009 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

From the usual suspects, of course.  The usual suspects meaning the Democrats.  If this is true, reporter and very openly liberally biased journalist Helen Thomas is the first to throw a shot at Jindal, allegedly making a remark at his Indian heritage.  So says White House correspondent Christina Bellantoni.

Bobby Jindal was ‘pitiful,’ Helen Thomas tells film crew, right before making a ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ crack

Or does she say so?  Maybe not:

In re: lots of Thomas questions – I overheard taping by a film crew fr Barcelona, & didn’t get exact quote and don’t know when taping, sorry

Whatever the truth is, I’m sure Jindal is prepared for it.  He has undoubtedly gotten enough of it during his life to know what to do.  He doesn’t seem like the guy who would get particularly angry from any racism thrown his way, which is a credit to him.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. ChrisWWW
    February 26th, 2009 at 17:10
    Reply | Quote | #1

    The usual suspects meaning the Democrats.

    This is the sort of 2+2=5 kinda talk right? Or should I say it’s the kind of “There’s no place like home” wishful thinking?

  2. ChrisWWW
    February 27th, 2009 at 00:53
    Reply | Quote | #2

    SLIWA: Because he is — when guys look at him and young women look at him — they say oh, that’s the slumdog millionaire, governor. So, give me some slum love.

    STEELE: I love it. (inaudible) … some slum love out to my buddy. Gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin’ awesome job in his state. He’s really turned around on some core principles — like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff … the easy stuff.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0209/Steele_offers_Jindal_slum_love.html?showall

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.