Tag Archives: president

Amateur Hour at CNN: Error-Filled Chyron During Beck Rally

There is something about CNN and the people writing chyrons for the alleged “most trusted name in news” with the “best political team on television.” Last week, these geniuses clarified the White House’s position on President Barack Obama’s religion. However on CNN Aug. 28 coverage of Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, which CNN reporters and anchors seemingly held their collective noses up and reported on throughout the event, the chyron on the screen was something likened to one of those parlor games where you circle the numerous errors involved. (h/t Inside Cable News ) First off, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s name was misspelled. Second, she was identified as a former presidential candidate, when she was actually the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008. And finally, it’s labeling Beck as Palin. Just not a good day for CNN.

Original post:
Amateur Hour at CNN: Error-Filled Chyron During Beck Rally

CBS to Black Beck Rally Attendees: ‘I’m Noticing that There Aren’t a Lot of Minorities Here Today’

CBS and the rest of the MSM have decided the Tea Party movement is racist and hostile to non-whites, and it’s a mantra they’re going to illustrate whenever they see an opportunity. Reporter Nancy Cordes saw a “nearly all-white crowd” at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally in Washington, DC, as she (at least an off-camera female voice) demanded of two black women who weren’t afraid to attend: “I’m noticing that there aren’t a lot of minorities here today. Why do you think that is?” One of the women shot back: “They’re probably over there with Al Sharpton.” In her story for Saturday’s CBS Evening News, Cordes had a very specific attendee number: “According to a tally commissioned by CBS News, roughly 87,000 people gathered here at this event today, thronging both sides of the reflecting pool, stretching all the way to the World War II memorial. That’s the largest gathering here on the mall since President Obama was inaugurated.” NBC anchor Lester Holt was more generous with his crowd guesstimate (“tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands”) before he described the Beck rally as “steeped in patriotism, rooted in the nation’s cultural divide and greeted by suspicion.” Holt opened the August 28 NBC Nightly News: Good evening. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people from all over the country gathered at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington today for a rally steeped in patriotism, rooted in the nation’s cultural divide and greeted by suspicion. It was organized by provocative conservative talk show host Glenn Beck who was joined on stage by Sarah Palin. And if that wasn’t enough to trigger reaction from activists on the left, the timing and place of the rally certainly was – the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech delivered from those same steps 47 years ago today. Flashback to April: “ White NBC Reporter Confronts Black Man at Tea Party Rally: ‘Have You Ever Felt Uncomfortable? ‘” Back to the CBS Evening News and Cordes, a little of what led into the exchange quoted above: NANCY CORDES: Beck, who is a converted Mormon, likes to call himself a clown, but today he played the role of ring-master, preaching racial tolerance to the nearly all-white crowd. A change in tone from the Fox News host who notoriously called President Obama [Beck: “a racist.”] CORDES (or at least a female voice) TO TWO BLACK WOMEN: I’m noticing that there aren’t a lot of minorities here today. Why do you think that is? WOMAN: They’re probably over there with Al Sharpton. (There was no World News on ABC on Saturday night, at least in the EDT and CDT zones, because of the Little League World Series Texas v Hawaii playoff game. Hawaii won.)

More here:
CBS to Black Beck Rally Attendees: ‘I’m Noticing that There Aren’t a Lot of Minorities Here Today’

Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

It will be “very difficult for Democrats to demonize” George W. Bush “again” during this campaign season, liberal nationally syndicated columnist Mark Shields despaired on Friday’s Inside Washington, because he’s “a circumspect and discreet former President.” Quite unlike, he didn’t say, the often boorish Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Reacting to Vice President Joe Biden’s indictment of the supposed disastrous results from the Bush administration’s economic policies, Shields fretted: The problem for the Democrats is this, that the energizer bunny for the 2006, 2008 campaigns has disappeared because of George W. Bush’s being a circumspect and discreet former President it makes it very difficult for Democrats to demonize him again. He’s become a non-person. He shows up at a ball game once in a while, he greets soldiers coming back. He hasn’t said anything controversial and that makes it a tougher fight for Joe Biden to make. Charles Krauthammer is a regular on the weekly program, so I’ll use that as a hook to highlight his latest column, “ The last refuge of a liberal ,” which includes this well-framed observation: Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking. Krauthammer elaborated: — Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. — Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. — Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. — Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Another great formulation, about how those tricky Tea Party activists weren’t clever enough to fool the liberal media: When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president’s proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.   ( Inside Washington is a weekly show produced by ABC’s Washington, DC affiliate, which airs it Sunday morning after it runs Friday night on DC’s PBS affiliate, WETA-TV channel 26, and Saturday on local cable’s TBD TV .)

See original here:
Columnist Mark Shields Despairs George W. Bush Too Honorable to Use as Bogeyman

Rachel Maddow’s Shabby Reportage on Iraq Extends to Iraq Itself

Here is how the Wall Street Journal began its lead editorial, “Victory in Iraq,” on Aug. 20 — When the men and women of Fourth Brigade, Second Infantry Division deployed to Iraq in April 2007 as part of President Bush’s surge, American soldiers were being killed or wounded at a rate of about 750 a month, the country was falling into sectarian mayhem, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had declared that the war was ‘lost.’ On Wednesday, the ‘Raiders’ became the last combat brigade to leave Iraq, having helped to defeat an insurgency, secure a democracy and uphold the honor of American arms. For viewers of NBC and MSNBC earlier that week, the title of Fourth Brigade, Second Infantry Division would likely have struck a chord — on Aug. 18, both networks interrupted their scheduled broadcasts with exclusive live coverage of the brigade crossing the border into Kuwait, the last US combat brigade to leave Iraq. The two networks’ coverage went far beyond that, however. NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, was embedded with the brigade as it left Iraq while MSNBC cable show host Rachel Maddow weighed in from Baghdad. Maddow remained in Iraq for the rest of the week, broadcasting four hours of her show from there, an hour more than usual. Yet through all that coverage, much of it focused on this specific combat brigade’s departure from Iraq, at no time did Maddow (nor any of her NBC/MSNBC colleagues appearing on her show) mention when the brigade went to Iraq — in April 2007, at the start of the much-maligned surge that was surely doomed to fail. Or so we were repeatedly told. Not that Maddow was obligated to mention the surge in her lede, as it were, as did the Wall Street Journal (on the opposite side of the political divide) in its editorial. But surely she could have cited it even once during her three days in Baghdad. Then there was Maddow’s arch retelling of recent Iraqi history (first part of embedded video) — The history of Iraq for the last generation is, Saddam taking power, a decade of the war with Iran, where we took Iraq’s side, then the first American war, then a decade of sanctions, then the second American war, toppling Saddam, presiding over a civil war, and now there’s us leaving. After all that, good luck! Hope it all works out for you guys! I was reminded of this specific Maddow revisionism while watching her show on Wednesday, when she began a segment claiming this (second part of video) — I am a crier. Some people cry at the sound of Harry Chapin’s ‘Cat’s in the Cradle,’ others at ‘Old Yeller’ or the end of ‘Where the Red Fern Grows’ where Billy visits his dogs’ graves. I cry at those things too. But the one surefire way to see tears streaming down these cheeks is a live rendition of our nation’s national anthem. It doesn’t matter if it’s a baseball game or an ad for a pickup truck or, God forbid, a busker on the subway, it’s just one of those things, some people like me are hard-wired to sob by the time the broad stripes and bright stars are so gallantly streaming. How noble indeed. More people might believe this if Maddow were not so willing to imply moral equivalence between the butchery of Saddam’s totalitarian regime and American efforts to thwart his lawlessness after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. At the end of her stint in Baghdad, Maddow reported from the home of a “working class, poor Shiite family” (third and final part of video) — … and they’ve agreed to talk with me a little bit about, you know, what everybody likes to talk about over dinner — politics, war and George Bush. … followed by Bush not coming up in the discussion, as can be seen in the segment in its entirety on Maddow’s MSNBC site. Here was an infrequent example of something on Maddow’s show that piqued my interest — what would a “working class, poor Shiite family” in Baghdad say about George W. Bush? One safely assumes from the fact Maddow is teasing this that the Iraqis will excoriate Bush. But if they did, it somehow didn’t make it into the segment that ran. Most likely scenario — Maddow said this before the interview when she intended to ask her Iraqi hosts about Bush, followed by her forgetting to do so and them not mentioning him. Another scenario that can’t be ruled out — any of the Iraqis praising Bush, thereby ensuring that such blasphemy would not be heard by Americans watching MSNBC.

Originally posted here:
Rachel Maddow’s Shabby Reportage on Iraq Extends to Iraq Itself

Lefties Upset By Murdoch Donation Take Note: 88 Percent of Network Donations Went to Dems

With liberals up in arms over News Corp’s political contributions, here’s an interesting fact worth noting: of the roughly $1.15 million network TV employees gave to political candidates in 2008, a full 88 percent of it went to Democrats. Barack Obama received almost half a million dollars from those same execs, while John McCain received just over $25,000. The discrepancy between donations to the Democratic and Republican parties was also enormous. Though the numbers are striking, the imbalance is not altogether surprising. But they do help to put in prospect the left’s righteous indignation over the political activities of Fox News’s parent company. According to the Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott : The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744… President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709, Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881. Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805… Notable contributors found in the CBS data include “journalist” Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio “host” Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and “journalist” Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama. Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, NBC Universal “editor” David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain.

Read more from the original source:
Lefties Upset By Murdoch Donation Take Note: 88 Percent of Network Donations Went to Dems

Gary Johnson: Legalize Marijuana to Stop the Drug Cartels

By Gary Johnson, Former Governor of New Mexico–The Huffington Post There were 72 bodies found on a ranch ninety miles south of the Texas border — obvious victims of a drug cartel massacre. Bullets have been hitting public buildings in El Paso, and the Washington Post is reporting that at least $20 billion a year in cash is being smuggled across the U. S. border each year. What is it going to take to convince the federal government that current drug policies are not working? The fact is that the current drug laws are contributing to an all-out war on our southern border — all in the name of a modern-day prohibition that is no more logical or realistic than the one we abandoned 75 years ago. Mexican drug cartels make at least 60 percent of their revenue from selling marijuana in the United States, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The FBI estimates that the cartels now control distribution in more than 230 American cities, from the Southwest to New England. How are they able to do this? Because America's policy for nearly 70 years has been to keep marijuana — arguably no more harmful than alcohol and used by 15 million Americans every month — confined to the illicit market, meaning we've given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that U.S. researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined. We have implemented laws that are not enforceable, which has thereby created a thriving black market. By denying reality and not regulating and taxing marijuana, we are fueling not only this massive illicit economy, but a war that we are clearly losing. In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced a new military offensive against his country's drug cartels. Since then, more than 28,000 people have been killed in prohibition-fueled violence, and the cartels are more powerful than ever, financed primarily by marijuana sales. Realizing that his hard-line approach has not worked, earlier this month Calderon said the time has come for Mexico to have an open debate about regulating drugs as a way to combat the cartels. Ignoring this problem, Mr. Calderon said, “is an unacceptable option.” Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, went even further, writing on his blog that “we should consider legalizing the production, sale and distribution of drugs” as a way to “weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to earn huge profits… Radical prohibition strategies have never worked.” Fox is not alone. His predecessor, as well as former presidents of Brazil and Colombia, has also spoken out for the need to end prohibition. And they're right. Crime was rampant during alcohol prohibition as well. Back then it was led by gangsters like Al Capone. Now it's lead by cartels. The violence in Mexico is out of control and is destroying the country. Journalists fear reporting the daily shootouts because of threats from the cartels. Some schools are even teaching their students to duck and cover in order to avoid the crossfire. Politicians are being targeted for assassination. The havoc has spread into the United States. In March, hit men executed three people linked to the U.S. Consulate in Juarez, an act that President Obama condemned. And the same cartels that are selling marijuana in the United States are destroying treasured environmental resources by growing marijuana illegally in protected park lands. By regulating marijuana, such illegal grows would cease to exist. The problem has been out of hand for quite some time, and a new approach is desperately needed. Sadly, U.S. officials refuse to even acknowledge that such a debate is taking place. Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has said repeatedly that the Obama administration is not open to a debate on ending marijuana prohibition. Even worse, we've continued to fund Mexico's horribly failed drug war (to the tune of $1.4 billion through the Merida Initiative), while refusing to be honest with our neighbors who are urgently seeking a new direction. This November, Californians will decide whether to legalize marijuana for adults 21 and older. U.S. officials need to welcome the debate on marijuana regulation. It's probably the only practical way to weaken the drug cartels — something both the U.S. and Mexico would benefit from immeasurably. We need a new solution to stop this violence. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-johnson/legalize-marijuana-to-sto_b_696430.ht… added by: ScottyT

Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto/ Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation’s 2008 990 Form). “The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.” Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.” News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program. Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.” A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.” The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.” cont. added by: JanforGore

The New Apartheid: World Silent on S. African Black v. White Genocide

In the 1980s, the world outcry was loud against racist Apartheid in South Africa. We heard the “Free South Africa” slogan often, and many companies that did business with the country were boycotted. But now that the shoe is on the other foot–and has been for some years since Black extremists took over the South African government, race-based mobs rule much of the country. The same goes for some other African nations with White populations, such as Zimbabwe, where White-owned farms have been seized by the government and there is an epidemic of racist rapes of White women. South Africa’s wacko President, Jacob Zuma, an African National Congress leader, is basically a Marxist, a proud polygamist, and a friend and supporter of Islamic extremists. And ANC figures, including Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu are openly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. Nothing more than Marxist, racist thugs long allied with the P.L.O. So much for civilization. And speaking of civilization and the civilized, a White South African farmer filed a petition with the United Nations alleging that South Africa is practicing genocide against its White people. Given the figures–whether you accept his or the official number–it looks like he is correct. There is now tremendous anti-White racism run amok in the country. A white farmer has accused the South African government of genocide in a petition submitted to the United Nations. The man, who has remained anonymous for fear of reprisals, blamed the African National Congress’ (ANC) policies for a wave of murders and criminal attacks against what he called the “Afrikaner Boer”. At least 3,000 white farmers have been killed in South Africa since the end of apartheid. Official figures suggest around 3,020 white farmers have been murdered since 1990, but the petition claims the true figure is 36,500. The ANC is accused of colluding with criminals to eradicate the white minority in South Africa. Will the UN and the world take notice the way they did with the anti-Black Apartheid once present in South Africa? Don’t hold your breath. Black-on-White racism doesn’t fit the preferred liberal narrative. So, it will be ignored. It’s important to remember that many White South Africans fought for equal rights for South Africa’s Black and mixed race people. It’s because of them–and not just world pressure–that South Africa ended anti-Black Apartheid. Now, that there’s a new Apartheid in town, I doubt you’ll see many Black South Africans–or anyone else in the world–giving a whit. added by: crystalman

Wyclef Jean Laments Failed Haitian Presidential Bid In Song

‘Prizon for the CEP’ goes back and forth between English and Creole. By Gil Kaufman Wyclef Jean (file) Photo: PictureGroup Wyclef Jean is protesting his exclusion from the upcoming presidential election in Haiti the only way he knows how: by releasing a song. The former Fugees leader posted a new track called “Prizon Pou K.E.P.A.” (which translates into “Prison for the CEP”) on Wednesday, in which he compares the rigorous scrutiny he faced to a child receiving a failing report card. The title is a pointed reference to the Haitian election commission, CEP, which ruled that he was not eligible to run for office in his birth nation. “I am contesting, I am going to the court, I am contesting/ I don’t agree, I am contesting, I am going to the court, I am contesting,” Wyclef sings. “Look, they gave Wyclef a report card/ They say Wyclef, you don’t speak Creole/ You are the Diaspora’s candidate.” Over a subtle, skittering beat and gently picked acoustic guitar, ‘Clef, 40, sings about his disappointment in the ruling in the island’s native language of Creole. “Even my own Haitians curse me out on Facebook when they hear I want to be president,” he says before calling out former bandmate Pras for the Fugees member’s negative reaction to Wyclef’s attempts. “Even my friends say to give Wyclef a report card/ Even the Catholic priests are surprised, they told me to leave Tigoav, come to Les Cayes/ All weekend I was celebrating Our Lady [Notre Dame].” His tone is sedate and conversational for most of the tune, but at just past the two-minute mark, he breaks into a Bob Marley-like wail, during which his vocals take on a pained, urgent quaver. The decision to pour out his heart in Creole in the nearly four-minute song is a pointed bid to speak directly to the Haitian people, as well as a possible winking rebuke to actor Sean Penn , who wrote a stinging column for the Huffington Post this week questioning ‘Clef’s motives in his failed presidential bid, as well as his fluency in the island nation’s two main languages: French and Creole. Jean has pointed words for the nation’s current president as well, Ren

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