Tag Archives: ronald-reagan

Couric Crows: Reagan Unlikely To Replace Grant On $50 Bill

“The old general might still have it in him … 145 years after Appomattox, Grant won’t have to surrender this one either.” — Katie Couric, Notebook, 8-25-10 What does it take to get Katie Couric to root for a military man?  Put him in a fight against the MSM’s great bogeyman, Ronald Reagan. The CBS Evening News anchor devoted her Notebook yesterday to the battle to replace Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill with the Gipper.  And Katie left little doubt–witness her concluding lines above–that she’s pulling for the man who’s buried in Grant’s tomb to defeat the president who made Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall. There is, apparently, nowhere that the liberal media won’t extend its fight against conservatives.  In the meantime, Katie presumably prefers to pay with $20 bills, featuring Dem-party founder Andrew Jackson, rounding things off with JFK half-dollars and FDR dimes. Wonder if, when visiting DC, Couric insists on flying into Dulles, to avoid having to patronize that other airport, named after . . . you-know-who?

Read the rest here:
Couric Crows: Reagan Unlikely To Replace Grant On $50 Bill

Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

During the 3 p.m. MSNBC news hour Monday, anchor Chris Jansing asked the question and hosted an expert who supplied the seemingly desired answer. The question: Could President Obama make a mid-term comeback similar to President Reagan in 1982? The answer: Absolutely. The two discussed the similarities of the situations faced by the presidents, and seemed to conclude that if the economy turns around, President Obama would almost certainly be re-elected. It is a big if, but the short segment seemed quite focused on what would happen after the economy turns around. The two didn’t bother to discuss what would happen if the economy continues to be stagnant, or takes a turn for the worse. “Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide,” stated MSNBC anchor Chris Jansing. “Could President Obama make the same comeback?” Guest Allan Lichtman, presidential historian at American University, answered in the affirmative.  “Absolutely,” he responded. “They are kind of mirror images of each other.” After Lichtman explained how the two Presidents’ situations are quite similar, Jansing asked her follow-up question. “If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months…is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election?” “It will follow like night to day,” Lichtman predictably answered. “And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging [Obama] in the primaries.” A full transcript of the segment, which aired on August 23 at 3:40 p.m. EDT, is as follows: KRIS JANSING: Well you have a President facing a deep recession, high unemployment, dropping poll numbers, and a potentially game-changing midterm election. That was Ronald Reagan’s first two years in office. Then, two years later, he won re-election in a landslide. Could President Obama make the same comeback? And with 30 years between them, is it realistic to compare the fate of these two very different presidents? Allan Lichtman is a political analyst and Presidential historian at American University. And we didn’t just come up with this. There are plenty of people who have made this comparison, and especially in recent months, when the poll numbers for President Obama have been dropping so precipitously. Are there fair comparisons to be made with Ronald Reagan? ALLAN LICHTMAN: Absolutely. They are kind of mirror images of each other. Each president won a pretty handy victory coming in against the grain of his times. Ronald Reagan was a conservative elected at the end of a liberal-to-moderate era. Barack Obama was a liberal, elected at the end of a conservative-to-moderate era. Both presidents passed major initiatives. Ronald Reagan with his big tax cuts. Barack Obama with his stimulus plan and his health care plan. Neither one got very much credit for that during their first two years. They both faced biting recessions, they both saw their poll numbers plummet into the low forties, remarkably identical poll numbers. And in both cases, the ideological wings of their parties were very unhappy. Conservatives were really unhappy with Ronald Reagan because he wasn’t cutting the budget, and he wasn’t pushing social issues like abortion, and we know the liberals are very unhappy with Barack Obama because of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and his failure to adopt a more liberal type of health care, and to push harder on global warming. So let me count the ways they are similar, as the poet would say. JANSING: If the economy starts to turn around in the next year to 18 months, if people start to get jobs again, if people start to feel more confident in their jobs, start buying houses and spending money again, is it likely to follow that Barack Obama will have a much easier time with re-election? LICHTMAN: It will follow almost like night to day that Barack Obama will win re-election if the economy picks up. Ronald Reagan faced a tough midterm, he lost a couple of dozen house seats, but the economy began to pick up in 1983, boomed in 1984, and he won one of the biggest landslide re-elections in the history of the United States. The same thing could happen to Barack Obama, although it’s unlikely the economy will boom the same way it did for Ronald Reagan. So he may not be looking towards a landslide, but if the economy significantly improves, especially as we head into the election year, then I think Barack Obama’s re-election is almost certain, particularly given the confusion within the opposition, and the lack of a clear, strong, Republican opponent. And of course this all presumes the Democrats don’t commit internal suicide by challenging him in the primaries. JANSING: Ah, well there’s always that. LICHTMAN: Always that. The Democrats can always snatch defeat from victory.

Originally posted here:
Amidst Obama’s Falling Poll Numbers, MSNBC Tries to Suggest He Could Rebound Like Reagan

CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Obsessed With Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh

CNN anchor Rick Sanchez revisited his vendetta against Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh on Thursday’s Rick’s List. Sanchez brought on outgoing Representative Bob Inglis, who lost a primary challenge to a Tea Party-backed Republican candidate, and when he harped about “flamethrowers” on TV and radio, the anchor pressed him on whether he meant the two radio hosts and his network’s competitor . Sanchez interviewed Rep. Inglis just before the top of the 4 pm Eastern hour. He introduced the politician by emphasizing the South Carolina Republican’s overall conservative record and his recent defeat in the primary: ” My next guest is a conservative firebrand . He is a veteran conservative congressman. In fact, he’s maintained a 93 percent conservative voting record….Pro-choice liberals have called him a ‘zero.’… He was a Ronald Reagan Republican, if there ever one was, and suddenly, he wakes up one day, and he simply is not conservative enough, not for South Carolina Republicans . He lost the recent primary. No- he got killed in the recent primary, 29-71 [percent].” However, what the CNN anchor left out is how Inglis was one of the few House Republicans who voted for a 2007 Democratic-sponsored resolution opposing the troop surge in Iraq , and has criticized skeptics of man-made global warming, as well as opposed offshore drilling . Most prominently, he voted for the 2008 bailout of the financial system . The Republican’s primary opponent used these votes and stances to defeat him. Sanchez first asked the outgoing congressman about an excerpt from his recent interview with the left-wing magazine Mother Jones, where he highlighted a constituent’s conspiracy theory about President Obama: SANCHEZ: [reading from the constituent’s letter] ‘Bob, what don’t you get? Barack Obama is a socialist, communist, Marxist, who wants to destroy the American economy so that he can take over as dictator. Health care is part of that, and he wants to open up the Mexican border and turn the U.S. into a Muslim nation .’…When I read that, I was just struck by the language. You vouch for that, right? That- who was telling you that? Later in the interview, Rep. Inglis criticized “this scapegoating that’s keeping us from the solutions” to issues like Social Security and Medicare. The anchor asked him to explain what he meant and borrowed from a recent argument by CNN contributor John Avlon , that the Tea Party would reject former President Reagan: “What do you mean, ‘scapegoating’? Where is this coming from? Because I said this or asked this of one of my guests yesterday- you know, if Ronald Reagan were running today, he would likely be in the same boat you’re in .” Sanchez pounced when the South Carolina congressman placed the blame on conservative media and grassroots activists, specifically ” Beck, Limbaugh, and the Tea Party wing ,” and took the opportunity to ask about his other favorite target, Fox News: INGLIS: I think that’s true, really. I mean, Reagan would have had a hard time on Tuesday, the 22nd of June, in the Fourth District of South Carolina, because he’s too optimistic. You know, he’s always- morning in America, the best days are still ahead. Way too many of these hot microphones on TV and radio are telling us that- no, our- the best days are behind us. It’s all going to pot. We’re done for, and way too many people are believing that stuff. I mean, the people that sell that are making millions off their books . SANCHEZ: Well, that’s interesting…. Here’s another quote. This is you on outside influences in the Republican Party. It’s what you were just getting at. You say, ‘It’s hard for Republicans in Congress to summon the courage to say no to Beck, Limbaugh, and the Tea Party wing.’ Amplify that thought process, if you would, for us, sir. INGLIS: Well, it’s very important that we basically say to these hot microphones, put down those flame-throwers. Stop running people- forcing people to this cliff that you want us to go over like lemmings. What we need to do to is say to them, stop- America’s best days are not behind us. They are in front of us, if we realize that we’re in this together, and we can solve these challenges of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. That’s where the big dollars are. That’s the crisis we’re facing. But, if we come together, we can actually solve that. It won’t be a 100 percent Republican solution. It won’t be a 100 percent Democrat solution, but it’s got to be an American solution that gets us to balance. So, but what we’re wasting time with is scapegoats. SANCHEZ: It almost you sounds like you’re saying that honorable people in the Republican Party are allowing themselves to be led, rather than leading. INGLIS: Well, I think there’s a big fear of these people with the hot microphones, because they have got powerful flamethrowers, and they throw that flame at you, and they say, get moving, and they get the crowd moving, and, meanwhile, you stop- SANCHEZ: You’re talking about Beck and Limbaugh and people like that? INGLIS: The people that make millions by selling soap and by selling books- SANCHEZ: Fox News? INGLIS: And by selling fear. SANCHEZ: Fox News? INGLIS: Well, they’re the competitor for you. But the idea here is to- SANCHEZ: Well, no. Look, I don’t care . I- I’m asking. I mean, you’re- I don’t know what it’s like to be a Republican congressman getting so much heat from what I believed was my side of the aisle, that it makes me start to wonder if people are pushing me in a direction I don’t want to go to. You’re in a unique position to tell his story to Americans, so I- you know, I’m not putting words in your mouth. I just know who are the people who drive that message out there, and I know that it’s Beck, and I know that it’s Limbaugh, and I know, that in many ways, you could argue it’s Fox News. Is it- do you feel it’s that way? INGLIS: Well, I think that there are a lot of people that are making a lot of money off of selling fear at this point. And there are networks that do that. There are individual talk show hosts that do that, and the sad thing is that an awful lot of Americans are running in fear in front of those folks, and especially, politicians are running in fear in front of those folks. But, really, if you’re going to lead, you need to face those hot microphones, and you need to say, put down the flame-throwers. We’re going to talk facts. The fact is, the President was born in America. The fact is, he is not a socialist. Now, let’s get rid of those non-sensical kind of commentaries and get to the real issues, which are, how do you cope with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? How do you put those on solid footing? On August 2, the CNN anchor hinted that Fox News wasn’t a legitimate news organization after the outlet received a front-row seat at White House press briefings. He did the same on the September 21, 2009 edition of his program.  Earlier that year, on April 8, Sanchez blamed Fox News and “right-wing radio” for the murder of three police officers in Pittsburgh. The anchor has also specifically targeted Beck and Limbaugh on a few occasions. Three weeks earlier, on July 14, Sanchez and CNN contributor Roland Martin slammed the two and their listeners : ” Well, unfortunately, there’s a lot of people in this country that look at legitimate news organizations like The Washington Post and scoff, and actually think that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are legitimate news organizations .” Five days before that, the CNN personality belittled conservative talks show hosts as he made a plausible reference to Limbaugh and Sean Hannity: ” The people who are really leading the charge in this country are the guys on the radio and- many of which don’t even have a college degree .” Most egregiously, he had to apologize in October 2009 after reading a dubious quote attributed to Limbaugh.

Read more:
CNN’s Rick Sanchez: Obsessed With Fox News, Beck, and Limbaugh

MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Assails Hateful Conservatives Who Opposed Women and Blacks

MSNBC News Live guest host Cenk Uygur on Wednesday railed against opposition to gay marriage, asserting that conservatives ” fought against women’s rights and they lost. They fought against civil rights for blacks and they lost .” He also touted the supposed moral superiority of liberals, lecturing, “This country is fundamentally progressive.” [ MP3 audio here.] To bolster this case, Uygur quoted Marting Luther King: “‘Cause as a very smart man once said in the middle of another civil rights battle, ‘The arc of history bends towards justice.'” Yet, liberals hardly have a spotless record when it comes to human rights. In 1972, Jane Fonda famously parroted communist propaganda while sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun. Many progressives have also fawned over the communist murderer Che Guevara . Uygur derided, “And at some point, some conservatives will pretend they were never against [gay marriage] and that they’ve always been for equality for all…We know better. But, all of that will be irrelevant, because in the end there’s only one thing this country does with conservative ideas when they fight against progress, they throw them in the trash bin of history.” Here, Uygur, the host of the liberal radio show The Young Turks , was just being historically sloppy. Ronald Reagan made Martin Luther King’s birthday a holiday. When the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act came up for a vote, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the bill. (Republicans were in favor 138 to 34. Democrats supported it 152-96.) Finally, it was Lincoln and later the Radical Republicans who made the progress for civil rights in the 19 th century. A transcript of the August 4 segment, which aired at 3:07pm EDT, follows: CENK UYGUR: Now, look, let’s go to “My Take.” Will there be gay marriage all across the country one day? Of course there will. Hear me now. Quote me later. It is inevitable. ‘Cause as a very smart man once said in the middle of another civil rights battle, “The arc of history bends towards justice.” This country is fundamentally progressive. When our founding fathers started a revolution for the idea of self-rule and democracy, it was arguably the single most progressive act in history. Conservatives fought against women’s rights and they lost. They fought against civil rights for blacks and they lost . They’re fighting against gay rights and they will lose, because this country believes in progress and human rights. That is what it’s absolutely based on. So, we will go through this drama for some time more, but the final act is clear. And then looking back many years from now, Americans will shake their heads and say how could people have possibly thought that? As they say now about people who fought against integration and a woman’s right to vote. How could they have possibly thought that? And at some point, some conservatives will pretend they were never against it and that they’ve always been for equality for all. And some of them might even pretend to be fans of famous gay rights crusaders like Harvey Milk as some now pretend to be big fans of Martin Luther King. We know better, but all of that will be irrelevant, because in the end there’s only one thing that this country does with conservative ideas when they fight against progress, they throw them in the trash bin of history .

Read the original here:
MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Assails Hateful Conservatives Who Opposed Women and Blacks

Greaser vs. Gipper

RNC Spent Thousands on ‘Office Supplies’ At Ronald Reagan Gift Shop, Liquor Store [Documents]

While we were digging around the itemized disbursements of the Republican National Committee in search of lesbians , we found a couple trips marked “office supplies” that are both wonderful (and wasteful?) in very different ways. On 2/4 and 2/25, someone picked up $200 worth of supplies from Congressional Liquors on Capitol Hill. And in what I like to imagine was the prelude to a night at the lesbian bondage nightclub, someone spent more than $2,200 at the Ronald Reagan Museum Store in Simi Valley, California, on 2/4, the same day as the infamous Voyeur West Hollywood trip. They apparently needed a little bit more of whatever the hell they bought there, because on 2/18 they went back to spend another $215. A wet office is a happy office, so we do not begrudge the RNC their twice-monthly booze runs, but what does $2,424 even get you from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation Museum Store? Hundreds of “Rap Master Ronnie” 12-inches? The original list of names he gave HUAC?

See the article here:
RNC Spent Thousands on ‘Office Supplies’ At Ronald Reagan Gift Shop, Liquor Store [Documents]

Sarah Palin to write a new book.

Publisher HarperCollins announced Wednesday that the former Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate is working on a “celebration of American virtues and strengths.” The book is currently untitled and no release date has been set. Palin’s memoir, “Going Rogue,” released last fall by HarperCollins, has sold more than 2 million copies. Her new work will “include selections from classic and contemporary readings that have inspired her, as well as portraits of some of the extraordinary men and women she admires and who embody her love of country, faith, and family,” the publisher’s statement reads. “She will also draw from her personal experience to amplify these timely — and timeless— themes.” In an e-mail Wednesday, HarperCollins publisher Jonathan Burnham said that “a number of ideas and concepts” were explored with Palin. “This is the idea which appealed the most to her,” he said, adding that she is currently “gathering ideas and identifying favorite texts and examples.” How could anybody publish a book about “virtues and strengths” with Sarah freaking Palin’s name on it? Is it supposed to be ironic? So this will be a who’s who of famous people that Palin will have to google to even identify? Perhaps she can finally name ALL of those founding fathers she is so impressed with. You know like George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Abraham Lincoln, Samuel L. Clemens, Ronald Reagan, Ronald McDonald, and Christopher Columbus. Doesn’t Harper Collins have any shame?

Read more here:
Sarah Palin to write a new book.

Ronald Reagan’s Grandson — Wanted Man

Filed under: Celebrity Justice A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Ronald Reagan’s grandson after dude blew off a court date for a marijuana arrest … an arrest that flew right under the radar. TMZ has learned Cameron Reagan was arrested on November 9, 2009 — after cops … Permalink

See the article here:
Ronald Reagan’s Grandson — Wanted Man

Sarah Palin responds to questions about Teabaggers whilst standing in a Wasilla Winter Wonderland and giving the ghost of Ronald Reagan a handjob.

To paraphrase Reagan a little “There both EASY candidates, and SIMPLE candidates, and I stand before you as both”. Nice to know that if you are NOT a Teabagger you don’t believe in freedom. So I guess freedom from joining a particular movement is not an AMERICAN freedom. Good to know. I should probably write that down. Can I borrow your hand Sarah? “Take over the Republican party Tea Partiers!” Because you know nothing says “democracy” like a hostile take over of a political organization. I do like one of her often repeated statements however “Hey bottom line, we win, you lose.” Perhaps somebody needs to remind her that in the last election Obama won, and she and her and her creepy old uncle lost. And the reason they lost is because when the Republican were in power they damn near destroyed the very foundation of our country. And THAT by the way is what the Teabaggers are really pissed off about, which they could see if they could stop focusing for a minute on the fact that President Obama is a black guy. Does anybody else think that Plain looks a little high strung and agitated? Gee I wonder what could possibly be bothering her? By the way there is really not that much of a delay between the question and the answer when being interviewed in Alaska from the lower forty eight. However if Palin has not had time to write the answers on her hands it takes her an extra few seconds to decide which memorized conservative talking point to vomit forth. “Less taxes!” “Freedom!” “Smaller government!” And if she can’t come up with anything she just licks her botox deadened lips and whispers “Reagan”. That is political porn to the viewers of Fox News.

More here:
Sarah Palin responds to questions about Teabaggers whilst standing in a Wasilla Winter Wonderland and giving the ghost of Ronald Reagan a handjob.

J.D. Salinger Dies

Reclusive ‘Catcher in the Rye’ author was 91. By Kyle Anderson J.D. Salinger in 1951 Photo: Evening Standard/Getty Images The literary world lost a giant Thursday (January 28), as author J.D.

Read more here:
J.D. Salinger Dies