Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged bennyhollywood, Breaking News, celeb news, Hollywood, Humor, nancy-pelosi, politics, stars
Opening Tuesday’s World News with the workplace shooting in Manchester, Connecticut, anchor Diane Sawyer saw it as one in a long line of incidents involving a “worker with a gun and grudge” as she described the nine killed as “the worst rampage since 13 were killed last November at Fort Hood, Texas.” Army Major Nidal Hasan’s business cards identified him as a “Soldier of Allah” and his actions at Fort Hood, clearly motivated by Islamic jihadism, hardly fits in the same category as an aggrieved worker with a gun who has gone on a rampage. Nonetheless, Sawyer’s led the August 3 newscast: Good evening. Another American tragedy tonight, another worker with a gun and a grudge. This time, nine people are dead, the worst rampage since 13 were killed last November at Fort Hood, Texas. In the normally quiet down of Manchester, Connecticut, this morning one shift was letting off, another was starting the day at a beer distribution center.
Here is the original post:
ABC’s Sawyer Paints Ft. Hood’s Nidal Hasan as Just ‘Another Worker with a Gun and a Grudge’
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged celeb news, Connecticut, crime, diane sawyer, Hollywood, major-nidal, opening-tuesday, politics, workplace
Nondescript Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is pretty much 100% going to run for president in 2012. What’s his strategy to make anyone care? Apparently it’s to strut around his “red-hot smoking wife” before the salivating crowds. More
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, TV
Tagged celeb news, designer-suing, elections, Hollywood, iowa, mma, politics, pretty-much, red-hot-smoking, stars, timpawlenty, TMZ, wtf celeb
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on Republicans' New Image (Part 1) From: truthdig Views: 161 2 ratings Time: 08:16 More in News & Politics
Read this article:
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on Republicans’ New Image (Part 1)
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged bennyhollywood, News, politics, Robert, robert-scheer, table-cellspacing, truthdig, upate
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on Republicans' New Image (Part 4) From: truthdig Views: 46 1 ratings Time: 03:34 More in News & Politics
More here:
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on Republicans’ New Image (Part 4)
Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged Hollywood, image, News, politics, Robert, robert-scheer, table-cellspacing, TMZ, upate
It seems that not even the truth can possibly overturn the narrative that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have brought transparency to Washington. Last Wednesday I wrote about how the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill Obama signed into law last month contains a provision exempting the Securities and Exchange Commission from Freedom of Information Act requests. Such an exemption would surely have been grounds for a media outcry during the Bush administration, yet apart from The Wall Street Journal and CNN, only blogs have been following the developments. The latter opted simply to parrot the administration’s claims without challenge. Other media ouetlets, such as National Public Radio and MSNBC, completely ignored the controversy, in stark contrast to their extensive coverage of the Bush administration’s attempts to curtail the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. NPR’s Don Gonyea said “When conflicts arise over what should or should not be open, the administration does not hesitate to invoke the memory of 9/11. And while it’s true that 9/11 changed the security landscape, it’s also true that the administration was tightening the control of information much earlier . . .” Some journalists are simply accepting the official SEC double-talk at face value. Unlike The Wall Street Journal , which actually bothered to talk to people familiar with the SEC and the bill, CNN just repeated what Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in her letters, starting off their story with: “The Securities and Exchange Commission was not seeking a blanket exemption from public information laws . . .” Contrast this “see no evil” approach with CNN’s coverage of similar controversies during the Bush administration. In August of 2007, CNN’s Jack Cafferty covered the Bush administration’s attempt to exempt the White House Office of Administration from FOIA, noting the administration’s claims that certain federal officers were exempt from the law. “What do you suppose is in the millions of missing White House e-mails that President Bush doesn’t want anyone to see?” Cafferty asked, rhetorically. And in March of 2004, CNN analyst Ron Brownstein hammered home the alleged lack of transparency in the Bush administration, as evinced by its stance on FOIA. “They’re [the Bush administration] very tough on executive privilege in general, and on the flow of information more broadly than that,” Brownstein claimed. “Everything from the Freedom of Information Act to the Cheney Commission on Energy.” But with Obama in office, CNN doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned about the SEC’s apparent disdain for transparency. All it’s doing is reprinting talking points, after all. MSNBC, another news outlet that has yet to devote a single word to the SEC exemption, was also far more concerned with openness during the previous administration. Mike Barnicle, guest-hosting Hardball in 2007, said in reference to Bush’s Office of Administration: “The White House says the Freedom of Information act doesn’t apply to the office that handles their e-mails, even though their Web site says it does. Are they breaking the law?” Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow claimed on the day after Obama’s inauguration that secrecy was “the hallmark of the Bush years, the thing that often made Bush administration law-breaking possible because nobody knew it was happening. The best tool that we, the people, have to break through government secrecy is often the Freedom of Information Act. It was treated as an annoyance, an obstacle to be overcome by the Bush administration.” Again, these are a concerns this cable network has yet to extend to the SEC. Chairwoman Schapiro has written letters to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) explaining that the law doesn’t really exempt them from responding to FOIA requests. She asserted that entities regulated by her agency under the new financial “reform” legislation must “be able to provide us with access to confidential information without concern that the information will later be made public.” Schapiro claimed in her letter that the provisions in question are “not designed to protect the SEC as an agency from public oversight and accountability.” The mainstream press has apparently decided to take her word for it. How nice of them. It’s not like federal bureaucrats have ever failed to follow their agency’s guidelines . . . This press’s attitude, of course, stands in sharp contrast to just a few years ago, when members of the media were outraged by Republican attempts to restrict FOIA requests. Many in the media have, like NPR, decried the Bush administration’s use of 9/11 to curtail transparency, but thus far no one has criticized the current administration’s use of financial reform for the same goals. The double standard is telling.
Read the original here:
SEC Claims Information Opacity, But Media No Longer So Concerned With Transparency
Army Spc. Bradley Manning may face some serious charges for allegedly leaking tens of thousands of classified military documents to the website WikiLeaks. The leak could have serious consequences for the war effort. Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen claimed that WikiLeaks “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.” In investigating the leak, will the media explore every plausible motivation on Manning’s part, even in spite of strong resistance from the forces of political correctness? We’re about to find out. Manning was openly gay, and possibly transgendered. The UK Telegraph gleaned a number of posts from his Facebook page in which he expressed what seems like intense depression, and occasionally disdain for the US military. There is evidence that he took part in protests against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Did he leak the information in question as an act of protest or vendetta against military policies of which he disapproved? It’s not at all clear. But shouldn’t the mainstream press at least note that possibility? The evidence of that motivation, mind you, is at this point far from conclusive. But given the evidence, it is appropriate to pose the question. The UK Telegraph reported last week (emphasis added): The US Army intelligence analyst, who is half British and went to school in Wales, appeared to sink into depression after a relationship break-up, saying he didn’t “have anything left” and was “beyond frustrated”. In an apparent swipe at the army, he also wrote: “Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment,” and quoted a joke about “military intelligence” being an oxymoron… Mr Manning, who is openly homosexual, began his gloomy postings on January 12, saying: “Bradley Manning didn’t want this fight. Too much to lose, too fast.” At the beginning of May, when he was serving at a US military base near Baghdad, he changed his status to: “Bradley Manning is now left with the sinking feeling that he doesn’t have anything left.” Five days later he said he was “livid” after being “lectured by ex-boyfriend”, then later the same day said he was “not a piece of equipment” and was “beyond frustrated with people and society at large”. His tagline on his personal page reads: “Take me for who I am, or face the consequences!” … Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield” . Does the possibility that Manning’s opinions on DADT motivated him to leak the documents in question have any bearing on the validity of the policy itself? Of course not. No one is suggesting that Manning’s homosexuality in itself motivated him to allegedly leak these documents, and therefore that homosexuals should be banned from the military. The only relevant issue is Manning’s motivation in committing the alleged offense – the rantings on his Facebok page provide a key insight into a possible motivation that any responsible reporter would be remiss in dismissing out of some concern for political correctness. Of course the media has not been keen on drawing out possible motives when the explicit mention of those motives could offend some protected group. We saw the same trend after the Fort Hood shootings, when journalists simply could not bring themselves to proclaim that Maj. Nidal Hasan was a Muslim and motivated by his faith. He may have yelled “Allahu Akhbar” while opening fire on unarmed servicemen, but the first five media outlets to report on the shooting didn’t mention the shooter’s religion. Chris Matthews wondered whether it was “a crime to call al Qaeda” – as Hasan had – and CNN actually misquoted a soldier shot by Hasan to cast doubt on the cries of “Allahu Akbar”. So far in the case of Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, the mainstream press seems similarly averse to even considering the possibility that the Army Specialist was acting out against military policy to which he was strongly opposed. Ace contends that “If it doesn’t advance The Narrative, it never really happened,” and that the press will remain silent. Is he right? We’ll see.
Read the original:
Was WikiLeaks Leaker Lashing Out Against ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’?
There’s something oddly funny about the cluelessness of liberal media companies when their ratings fall or their subscriptions collapse. They just refuse to admit, even consider that the business problem could be (at least in part) their own incessant liberal agitating. Instead, they seem to double down and make things even worse. ABC’s Sunday show “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” could never beat NBC, so what did the ABC braintrust do? They promoted the Bill Clinton spin artist to an everyday anchor job on “Good Morning America.” Then they doubled down and replaced him with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who is married to another Bill Clinton spin artist, Jamie Rubin. Can it get more insular? Here’s another case in point: Newsweek’s subscriptions collapsed a couple of years back. How could it not be (at least in part) the umpteen Obama-worshipping cover stories that caused some subscribers to cancel. Then they really abandoned the “News” half of their title and wrote cover stories like “We’re All Socialists Now” and “Is Your Baby Racist?” Newsweek was put on the market, and the market has spoken: a $1 sale. Washington Post Company chieftain Don Graham wasn’t going to let the unwashed “rabble” of journalism win this Cracker Jack prize. So he turned away the conservatives at Newsmax magazine, as well as the publishers of the National Enquirer and TV Guide. “In seeking a buyer for Newsweek, we wanted someone who feels as strongly as we do about the importance of quality journalism,” Graham said in a statement. That means nobody broke up into laughter in front of him over whether the notion of “quality journalism” is demonstrated by racist-baby exclusives. Of course, The Washington Post wasn’t going to take that dollar (and unload its obligations) with some conniving Murdoch. They obviously wanted another liberal elitist to take the reins, and so they accepted the bid of Sidney Harman, the husband of Rep. Jane Harman (D.-Calif.). This passed with flying colors for radicals like Katrina VandenHeuvel of The Nation, who hailed him on Twitter as a “decent & longtime liberal.” Twitter also contained lots of mockery. Jim Geraghty of National Review joked: “Sidney Harman bought Newsweek, the institution, for $4.95 less than the cost of Newsweek, the print edition.” And: “Newsweek’s cover story next week is ‘MERCIFUL ATHENA: How Jane Harman balances toughness and tenderness in a dangerous world.’” Mr. Harman has donated $85,000 to the Democratic National Committee (most recently $25,000 in 2004). He’s also contributed to liberal politicians from Ted Kennedy to Barbara Boxer to Geraldine Ferraro. There’s only one Republican on the list, Scott McInnis of Colorado in 2001. As for the potential that Harman would do his wife’s bidding, there are occasions where both Harmans contributed to Democrats at the same time, according to federal election records. Both donated to leftist Mark Green on July 9, 1997; to Ellen Tauscher on February 6, 1998; to Max Cleland on June 29, 2001; to Paul Wellstone on August 21, 2002; to Joe Lieberman on March 31, 2003; and to John Kerry on April 16, 2003. Even without the major conflict of interest that the owner of Newsweek is married to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Harman has liberal-elite credentials. He was president of Friends World College, a “worldwide experimental Quaker” peace college, in the early 1970s. He’s on the board of the Aspen Institute. Harman was an undersecretary of commerce under Jimmy Carter and is a trustee emeritus of the Carter Center and a former board member of the Martin Luther King Center for Social Change. But the media elite still sold this unconvincingly as one “centrist” selling to another. Mike Allen of Politico relayed that Washington Post Company chieftain Donald Graham “felt comfortable with Harman’s centrist politics, and was comforted by the idea of selling to a stalwart of the Washington establishment.” This is the magazine that couldn’t send one greenhorn reporter to the scene of the earthquake in Haiti this year, choosing instead to rely for its “quality journalism” on a cover story written by (and about) President Obama. Two months later, they awarded their cover story to Michelle Obama to publicize her initiative on childhood obesity. With this kind of shilling for the White House, it won’t be at all shocking if Sidney Harman’s Newsweek seems run by a left-wing activist. That would mean the status quo is intact. But that wouldn’t mean that Newsweek will stop losing money. This ship is still sinking, and the captains have no plans to plug the leaks.
Go here to read the rest:
Bozell Column: Newsweek, Still Devolving
In today’s “People In Glass Houses” segment, Chris Matthews accused Fox News of being shills for the Republican Party just minutes before he said “the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin.” MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Tuesday began with a lengthy segment in which Matthews, with the help of co-conspirators from the Huffington Post and Media Matters for America, made the case that the Fox News Channel was a platform to assist Republican candidates to get elected. Obviously missing the irony, the very next piece dealt with why President Obama ought to replace Vice President Biden with Hillary Clinton to not only assist him in getting reelected in 2012, but also set her up to win in 2016. Still oblivious to the hypocrisy, Matthews ended the program with his take on why the thought of Palin becoming president is scaring “tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats.” To give you an idea of the absurdity of this hour of television, let’s start with quotes from the first segment (videos and partial transcripts follow with commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS: I want to ask you a larger thing, Eric, now that I have you on, and also Ryan. We just looked at the Gallup poll, the highest favorabilities among Republican potential candidates — potential candidates — for 2012 — I mean, potentially. We don`t know who`s going to run. Palin, Newt and Mike Huckabee — that`s the top three. ERIC BOEHLERT, MEDIA MATTER FOR AMERICA: Right. MATTHEWS: All three are on the payroll of Fox — BOEHLERT: Absolutely! MATTHEWS: — as commentators. But you have to ask yourself — these people have a lot of options. Are they on there as candidates? Are they using Fox as a platform, the way that Sharron [Angle] thinks she can use it as a candidate — BOEHLERT: Right. MATTHEWS: — for 2010? In other words, is she a little ahead of schedule? They`re looking towards 2012 using Fox, she`s trying to use it openly and flagrantly — BOEHLERT: Right. Right. MATTHEWS: — as a vehicle for reelection — or for election to the United States Senate. BOEHLERT: Right. The Fox Green Room is now sort of the GOP convention in waiting for 2012. They`re all on the payroll. I think they`re all — they want to use it to make a lot of money either on Fox News or with books or appearances. And then they`re just going to sort of wait and see how it — see how it plays out. In the meantime, they`ve got this national audience whenever they want it. They`ve got a paycheck, and they`ve got the Fox News, you know, recommendation or seal of approval. MATTHEWS: Yes. BOEHLERT: It`s perfect for them as they wait. As a little background, the segment began with a video clip of Nevada senatorial candidate Sharron Angle telling Fox News’s Carl Cameron how she needs the press to be her friend and how her campaign “wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.” From this, Matthews, Boehlert, and Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim – notice the absence of any conservatives to go against the consensus! – divined that this meant Fox was actively assisting Republican candidates. And that’s where the fun really began, for after a commercial break, Matthews brought on exclusively left-leaning guests to make the case that Obama should replace Biden with Clinton so as to assure his reelection in 2012 and position her to be president the following eight years. Assisting him to put forward this strategy was former Virginia governor Doug Wilder – who wrote a piece about this for Politico Monday – followed by New York magazine’s John Heilemann: JOHN HEILEMANN, “NEW YORK”: The thing that Governor Wilder is right about and I know that you see is that it`s possible that, in 2012, what President Obama will need most of all is to be able to connect to a set of voters, particularly white working-class and rural voters, that he has trouble with. MATTHEWS: Yes. HEILEMANN: And there would be no bigger asset for him than not just Hillary Clinton Enhanced Coverage LinkingHillary Clinton on the ticket, but having both Clintons out full force on his side in 2012. MATTHEWS: Even if it means — even if it means laying the groundwork for a Clinton ascendancy? HEILEMANN: I think she`s going to run in 2016, no matter what. MATTHEWS: OK. MATTHEWS: An interesting thought from you. HEILEMANN: And she`s going to — and she`s going to run in 2016. And she`s going to — right now, the schedule, I think, for her is, she will do four years and four years only as secretary of state. And if she is an outgoing secretary of state, a lame-duck secretary of state in 2012, she won`t be in the political position to really help Obama. She will do thinking about doing something like going and becoming the chancellor of the University of Iowa to set herself up to run for 2016. MATTHEWS: I agree. HEILEMANN: So, Obama is faced with the notion of Clinton following him anyway. So, why not make the best of that situation and put it to his advantage? MATTHEWS: I don`t know. I had never heard this before. All her people deny that, of course, right? HEILEMANN: Well, of course they do. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think it`s fascinating. I think she`s done a great job. (CROSSTALK) HEILEMANN: I don`t think there`s almost anybody who believes them. MATTHEWS: And I agree with you. I think she would help him in Pennsylvania, help in Ohio. And, by the way, I think the general election of 2012 now looks like a nail-biter, closely run. It will have to be. You`re right. And they are not going to win much south of the Mason-Dixon Line. They have got to win those old Democratic states that the Clintons are dominant in, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, et cetera, et cetera, New York. She would ground him up. I just think it has to be handled the way you say if it ever does come to pass. HEILEMANN: Well — MATTHEWS: Joe Biden has got to be happy with this. HEILEMANN: Yes. MATTHEWS: He`s got to have a smile on his face. And he`s got to say, I can`t wait to get to Foggy Bottom and be secretary of state, convincingly, if this ever happens. (CROSSTALK) HEILEMANN: And I think he could say that, Chris, because, as you know, before Obama urged him to become vice president, picked him, that was what Biden had his eye on. He wanted to be secretary of state. MATTHEWS: Well, it`s a great job. HEILEMANN: He`s wanted to be secretary of state his whole life. And on the question of what has to happen in 2012, I think you`re exactly right. I think it`s going to be a nail-biter. You remember, Barack Obama won, what, 42 or 43 percent of the white vote, a really high percentage of the white vote, better than John Kerry — MATTHEWS: Yes. HEILEMANN: — better than Al Gore in 2000. He`s right now running at about 35 percent approval rating with the white vote. And if he`s going to — you can`t win the presidency with 35 percent of the white vote. MATTHEWS: No. HEILEMANN: He needs to do something to solve that problem. Joe Biden is good with those people — MATTHEWS: OK. HEILEMANN: — but Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are better. MATTHEWS: Well, this will be the ultimate example of President Obama being a transactional politician. I`ll tell you, it looks a little cold on the outside. You may be able to warm it up, John Heilemann. (LAUGHTER) MATTHEWS: You would have another “Game Change.” Here’s maybe the best part of this sequence – when Matthews says his guest is a liberal writer: Thank you. Congratulations, the best book on politics. Nancy Reagan — I was just out there at the Reagan Library — she loves your book. And I know this will offend you as somewhat of a liberal writer, but she says, Ronnie would have loved it, too. There`s a — he`s a pol, too. How nice. So, what we’ve had so far were too liberal guests talking to an admittedly liberal host about how Fox News is a shill network promoting Republican candidates. Next, we had a Democrat introduce an idea specifically designed to assist Obama in his reelection efforts whilst also putting Hillary Clinton in position to win the White House in 2016 thereby ushering in another twelve years of Democrat control of the executive branch of our government. Then, a so-called journalist that Matthews admits is liberal discusses with the host why Wilder’s idea makes sense – all this happening immediately after a segment accusing Fox of being shills for Republicans. Really makes you wonder how everybody involved in the production of this show completely missed the glaring hypocrisy on display. But don’t leave your seats for the concession stand or the restroom just yet, for really putting the icing on the cake the host concluded the show with a monologue about why the scariest three words in the English language are “President Sarah Palin”: MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with the fact that for tens of millions of Americans, and not just Democrats, the scariest three words in the English language are: President Sarah Palin. Those words could, if events go a certain way, get a hell of a lot scarier. I`ve noticed how Palin has been positioning herself as the Christian woman in national Republican politics. This gives her incredible leg up in the first in the country Iowa Republican caucuses where the Reverend Pat Robertson once triumphed. The shape of the 2012 Republican presidential field in the Iowa caucuses would be Sarah Palin against a field of Republican men. And with the possible exception of Mike Huckabee, all more secular than she is. The results, the Christian woman beats out the four or five men running somewhere to her left. No one gets to her right — and as long as nobody does, this lone woman in the Republican field, the one openly running as a religious fundamentalist beats the competition, hands down. Get this number into your head. Sarah Palin`s latest Gallup Poll favorable rating among Republican voters nationwide is 76 percent, by far the highest of any contender. So she wins Iowa. Next, New Hampshire. Even if Mitt Romney outpolls Palin in the Granite State, it will be a fact dismissed by the national political press. Why? Because New Hampshire is the Boston media market. It`s right in it and therefore seen as home base for the former Massachusetts governor. Next, Palin trucks down to South Carolina where she made Nikki Haley governor and wins among fellow religious fundamentalists. Another win in Palin country, an increasingly wide expansion in Republican politics. Now for the knockout. Palin has said that Michigan where Romney`s father was governor was overlooked by Republicans last time. She started her book tour there. Republican women who lined up to buy “Going Rogue” are her first round of investors. With two or three men besides Romney still appearing on the ballot, she pulls it out in Michigan. Now, anything is possible at this point. Nominated in Tampa, Florida, and the Republican National Convention in an economy that might still be shaky, the political situation of this country becomes frighteningly dicey. All can I say is that I remember how liberals thought Ronald Reagan could never do it. As we learned in 1980, tough times yield surprising — yes, scary election prospects. That`s HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. And this guy has the nerve to accuse Fox of being shills.
Follow this link:
Chris Matthews Accuses Fox of Being GOP Shills Then Attacks Sarah Palin
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged 2008 presidential, 2010 congressional, Barack Obama, Cbs, country, from-the-upper, Hollywood, joe biden, msnbc, politics, professional, united-states, university
Want more evidence of an elitist vibe coming from the upper echelons of the mainstream media? You ought to remember the Sept. 24, 2008 Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin. It’s been celebrated time and time again as a heralded part of American journalism . However, raw footage appearing to be from Aug. 29, 2008 shows that Couric, anchor of the “CBS Evening News,” was already predisposed not to have a high regard for the Alaska governor long before that interview. (h/t Conservatives4Palin.com ) Outtakes of CBS’s “Evening News” show Couric taking a few petty shots at the Palin in her coverage leading up to the 2008 Republican National Convention. This five-minute clip has several highlights, showing Couric favoring “moose burgers and beauty pageants,” instead of her professional credentials as mayor of Wasilla, a town Couric has trouble announcing, and her tenure as governor of Alaska. Highlights include the following: Couric mocking Palin’s oldest son’s name: “Her oldest son, 19-year-old Track-Where the hell do they get these [names]?” [laughter] (1:09) “She hunts, fishes and eats moose burgers. Her parents, Sally and Chuck Heath, were out hunting caribou when they got the news. You can’t make this up – OK hold on a second. [laughter]” (1:43) “I’m saying I’m glad you took out the feminine side because you can be feminine and play basketball, right Jerry?” (1:59) Struggles with the pronunciation of the name of the town Wasilla. (4:05) This isn’t the first time Couric has been caught on camera and the footage leaked out. In 2007, footage of Couric openly mocking her predecessor Dan Rather found its way on the Internet.
Continued here:
‘CBS Evening News’ Anchor Couric Ridiculed Palin from Day One; Mocks Son’s Name
Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News
Tagged 2008 presidential, Cbs, couric, from-the-upper, her-predecessor, mainstream, media bias debate, politics, professional, stars, TMZ
Breaking Sports Video
Pac-12 NCAA Sports
Justin Bieber Fan Site Breaking News
