« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

Secrets and Spies

June 29, 2007 1:06 PM

The director of the National Security Archive tells me all about the CIA's "Family jewels" uncovered this week…why the CIA hired the Mob to whack Castro, whether revealing secrets makes this country stronger or weaker, and on and on. Enjoy.

CLICK HERE

-- jpt

June 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Adios, amigo

June 29, 2007 9:44 AM

President Bush came before the cameras to bury the immigration reform bill, not to praise it.

Here's the FREE VIDEO of our story on the controversial bill's death knell.

In today's Washington Post, our friend Peter Baker takes a look (LINK) at how, "for a president who makes a point of never giving in, even when he loses, it was a striking moment, underscoring the depth of his political travails."

One place the president CAN claim a legacy is clearly the Supreme Court, where John Roberts and Sam Alito will change the shape of America for years to come.  The splendid Jan Crawford Greenburg takes a look at how Roberts trimmed precedents in her story HERE.

What would you like to see in President Bush's remaining 570 days in office? What do you think he could get done?

-- jpt

June 29, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

Immigration reform dies…again

June 28, 2007 5:03 PM

The resurrected immigration reform bill died again today (LINK). No shocker.

I guess the only surprise is that the president had such little influence. 12 Republicans voted for the measure. 37 voted against it.

Did President Bush do as much as he could to change votes?

All the supporters of the bill, Democrat and Republicans, say he did.

But I cant help but think there was not enough outreach to conservatives, to the constituents of the Republican Senators, to the opinion-makers and talk-radio hosts.

Why didn't the president dispatch Vice President Dick Cheney to go on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, etc etc? Just grab the list of the Top 20 from Talkers Magazine (LINK) and dispatch the Veep from his undisclosed location.

At the very least Cheney could have perhaps muted some of the criticism if not actually convinced a few people that there were legitimate homeland security provisions in the bill that would make the nation safer.

Why didn't they do that, if they truly cared?

-- jpt

June 28, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Unfairness to Coulter?

June 28, 2007 10:33 AM

Conservative provocateur Ann Coulter is often unfair, and cruel. But that doesn't mean we in the media are allowed to treat her with equal dishonesty.

Coulter on Monday's Good Morning America, asked about the time she used an anti-gay slur to impugn former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, said: "I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you could go into rehab for using that word. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So, I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

I've seen major media outlets only quote that last sentence -- "If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

That's not fair.

Even if you think Coulter is vile, even if you believe her joking about Edwards' death at all is inappropriate, to quote just that last bit isn't an accurate representation to viewers or readers of what she said.

Just because she is one-sided and dishonest does not mean the media is allowed to be when we cover her.

But while we're on the subject of out-of-context quotes, let's take a look at what Bill Maher actually said. Because Coulter was not quoting him accurately. He decidedly did NOT say he wished the Vice President had been killed in a terrorist attack.

Earlier this year, Maher asked why Arianna Huffington of the liberal website the Huffington Post removed postings expressing disappointment that Cheney had not been killed in an assassination attempt in Afghanistan. Others thought it was "hate speech"; Maher thought they should have the right to say that.

When pressed on the matter, Maher said, "I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people would not be dying needlessly tomorrow."

Asked MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough, "If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say --"

"I think he did," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

"Okay," said Scarborough. "Did you say --"

"No, no," said Maher. "I quoted that."

"You don’t believe that?" asked Frank.

"No, I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live," said Maher. "That’s a fact."

Now, you might disagree with that thought, but it is NOT - as Coulter would have it - either a joke, nor is it a declared wish that Cheney would die in a terrorist attack.

Watch the video HERE.

P.S., speaking of the Huffington Post, little-known Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, bashes Hillary Clinton in THIS POST. Worth a read.

What do you think?

-- jpt

June 28, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink | User Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Vetoing Domestic Partnerships

June 27, 2007 11:46 AM

In his October 26,. 2004, interview with Charlie Gibson, President George W. Bush said he didn't have an issue with states supporting domestic partnerships or civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

"I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so," the president said, just days before Election Day. "(S)tates ought to be able to have the right to pass ... laws that enable people to, you know, be able to have rights, like others."
Apparently either the president has changed his mind, or this position does not extend to the D.C. government.

Yesterday the Bush administration issued a veto threat of the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act -- which funds certain federal government and DC agencies -- because of a domestic partnership provision to allow same-sex couples to qualify for the same benefits as straight couples.

In its statement on the bill (LINK ), the Office of Management and Budget writes:

"The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule. If the final version of H.R. 2829 does not include this longstanding provision, the President’s senior advisors would recommend he veto the bill."  (Emphasis theirs.)

Says Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese: “He has issued a veto threat on funding for the District of Columbia because long-term, committed couples want to have such basic rights as visiting each other in the hospital and making medical decisions for their partner. The anti-gay zeal of this Administration has reached a new low.”

No doubt those conservative activists upset at the president's 2004 statement will be heartened, however, such as Bob Knight of the Culture and Family Institute, who at the time said "civil unions are a government endorsement of homosexuality. But I don't think President Bush has thought about it in that way."

What sayeth you?

-- jpt

June 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)

Edwards takes on Coulter

June 27, 2007 8:01 AM

....ELIZABETH Edwards, that is.

Last night on MSNBC's "Hardball," which featured conservative provacateur Ann Coulter as a guest, Elizabeth Edwards -- the wife of presidential candidate And former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC -- called in and challenged the author to stop making personal attacks.  Watch the video HERE.

It was pretty compelling:

*

Chris Matthews: You know who's on the line? Somebody to respond to what you said Edwards yesterday morning -- Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today we said she could. Elizabeth Edwards go on the line you're on the line with Ann Coulter

Elizabeth Edwards: Hello, Chris.

CM: You wanna say something directly to the person who's with me?

EE: I'm calling you … in the south when we -- when someone does something that displeases us, we wanna ask them politely to stop doing it. Uh - I'd like to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

Ann Coulter: OK, so I made a joke -- let's see six months ago -- and as you point out they've been raising money off of it for six months since then.

CM: This is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

AC: I didn't say anything about him actually either time.

EE: Ann, you know that's not true. And once more its been going on for sometime.

AC: I don't mind you trying to raise money. I mean it's better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor.

EE: I'm asking you

AC: Just to use my name on the Web pages…

EE: I'm asking you politely…

AC: … but as for a debate with me, um yeah, sure. Yeah, we'll have a debate

EE: I'm asking you politely to stop personal attacks.

AC: How bout you stop raising money on the Web page then?

EE: It didn't start it did not

AC: No you don't have cause I don't mind

EE: It did not start with that you had a column a number of years ago

AC: OK, great the wife of a presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking

CM: Let her finish the point...

AC: You're asking me to stop speaking stop writing your columns, stop writing your books.

CM: OK, Ann. Please.

AC: OK

EE: You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This is not legitimate political dialogue.

AC: That's now three years ago

EE: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language.

(Audience member yells something.)

AC: Yeah why isn't John Edwards making this call?

CM: Well do you want to respond and we'll end this conversation?

EE: I haven't talked to John about his call.

AC: This is just another attempt for –

EE: I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of that boy who died. My children participate -- these young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

(Audience applauds.)

CM: Thank you very much

Elizabeth Edwards. Do you want to -- you have all the time in the world to respond.

AC: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

*

Hmmmm. That's not what I heard Elizabeth Edwards ask Coulter to do, though Coulter is certainly right that the Edwards presidential campaign has used her incendiary comments about him -- she essentially called him a "f-ggot" -- to raise cash and gin up liberal activists.

I assume most of us would agree that making light of someone's dead son is beyond the pale.... But what do you think?

-- jpt

June 27, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (233) | TrackBack (0)

Hillary and the Authenticity Question

June 26, 2007 10:53 AM

One of the hurdles Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, faces in her run for the White House may come from her public speaking style. To some, the junior senator from New York can seem in speeches to be warm, compelling, amusing, human -- the way her friends and supports say she is in private. But I've also heard many Democrats complain that she can also seem cold, hard, and unpleasant. And they fear nominating a candidate like that.

I'm convinced, completely unscientifically, that there is an American Idol factor when it comes to elections, beyond substance, beyond positions on issues, in which Americans ask themselves: Who do I want to listen to for the next four years?

It's tough to quantify such an X factor, but I do think it's there.

During the first debate between then-Gov. George W. Bush and then-VP Al Gore, that the Democrat seemed hectoring and scolding. While Bush certainly had his own issues, and ultimately Gore did win the popular vote, at a time of unprecedented peace and prosperity some might argue (Bill Clinton, for instance), that Gore should have won that election in a cakewalk.

While there are ever so many reasons why Gore didn't end up sending a U-Haul to Pennsylvania Avenue (CLICK HERE FOR SOME OF THEM), many Democratic officials have told me that they think, in the guts of some voters, there may have been a reluctance to watch him on their TVs for four years.

Now, whether Hillary Clinton has this issue is an open question. But I bring you these blog postings about an exchange that raises the issue

(Following the lead of master-blogger Andrew Sullivan LINK, no Hillary fan, I should say.)

It starts with the website "Wilshire and Hollywood" (LINK) where Variety managing editor Ted Johnson reports on a fundraiser at the home of Tinseltown's Roland Emmerich, auteur of Independence Day, Godzilla, and The Day After Tomorrow.

Writes Johnson: "Clinton called on a girl in the seventh grade, who asked her about breaking through glass ceilings. She then answered more questions, including one about health care, before calling on one man who suggested that her answers were a bit too scripted. Some donors booed the man. Looking a little miffed, Clinton responded to the so-called 'authenticity question.' I don't have the direct quote, but Clinton apparently pointed to the fact that she has been giving many speeches a day --- why doesn't he try doing that? And she drew cheers when she ended the response with,  'And that wasn't a canned answer.'"

At Huffington Post, the booed man -- playwright and screenwriter Jon Robin Baitz -- responds (LINK):
         

From the Wilshire & Washington blog today, in a piece about a fundraiser for Senator Clinton at the Hollywood Hills home of Roland Emmerich held last Friday evening:

"I am the man who suggested that the senator's answer to a single question felt -- well, sorry -- a little bit like a set-up. In retrospect, I was not particularly polite, though I didn't set out to be rude, and did preface my inquiry with a declaration of hope that she becomes the next president, which I repeated even through the smattering of boos and gasps that were directed my way. (Maybe in Manhattan, the response would have been different.) And moreover, I had been pleasantly surprised and impressed by Ms. Clinton's discourse until the moment described above. She spoke about the things I care most about - health care, children's welfare, and our credibility with the rest of the world. She talked intelligently on Iraq. She talked of sexual equality, which needed to be addressed in a heavily gay crowd. She was inspiring on a number of points, and felt human and empathetic even. So, when she called on the charming young lady in the pretty dress to her left, and it all turned into rote, I sighed, deflated, and looked around, and saw a few people rolling their eyes at the obviousness of the moment, and I quietly got angrier than anyone else gathered beside the gorgeous Hollywood pool."

Baitz says that his "question was spiked away easily by the candidate. I had set up a volleyball serve and she'd spiked it back hard and glib. I did her more good than the lovely young girl with the glass ceiling thing. People applauded her and glared at me. The young lady in charge of the mike hissed at me, and a couple I knew accused me of being cynical AND naive at the same time. (True, that.)"

His larger point was that he "felt gypped for a moment by her, at the moment when I felt let down (again!), something snapped. And when I bemoaned it, more out of worry -- if you're fake here, where the hell will you be real? -- she bristled at me. And when her answer to my criticism was merely, 'You try delivering twelve of these a week,' I knew that she bristled simply because she knows how vulnerable she is when it comes to being over-rehearsed. Because she knows that there has been a kind of life-long coarsening that we all write off as collateral damage to being in the business of elections for as long as she has. I wanted to say, 'your answer wasn't canned but it sure wasn't honest'...

"But by then, the microphone was already being wrenched away from me by a fleshy, sunburnt functionary of the night, which prevented me from really losing my cool and saying, 'Lady, that's the gig, that's the gig, I don't care how HARD it is -- and if you can't give a consistent, spontaneous, genuine answer to someone who is essentially on your side, than how are you gonna wow them where they're not inclined to give you the time of day...?' …

"I was looking for the authentic, the real, and the righteous. And all I saw was the peeved. I gave as much money as I could to the thing. I suppose if this election plays out the way I think it may, she could get my vote. But I don't think she'll ever make my heart sing. Is such a thing even possible now?"

What do you think?

-- jpt

June 26, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Hillaryis44

June 25, 2007 6:26 PM

What's this mysterious website? "Hillaryis44.com"….a strange eruption of pro-Clinton and anti-anyone-who-isn't-Hillary propaganda.

"We are not affiliated with the Hillary For President Exploratory Committee, or any official Hillary Clinton organization in any way," says "Hillaryis44.com," the creators of which are anonymous and elusive.

Conservative commentator Peggy Noonan says the website "reads like The Warrior's Id ... In tone the site is very Tokyo Rose. Encouraging readers to send in 'confidential tips,' its primary target and obvious obsession is Barack Obama."

Various passages say: "Senator Barack Obama (D-Rezko) is busy lately lying about President Bill Clinton" and "attacking entire communities."

And: "the Obama campaign is pursuing a unique strategy: Let the public know Obama is a lurchlike lunkhead."

Not that the website ignores former Sen. Johnny Reid Edwards, D-NC! "The Edwards campaign is simply a mess," it says. "We will examine his mess of a campaign in a later post which will probably have to include a table of contents to catalog all the mistakes this mess of a campaign has made."

Asked if it had anything to do with the website, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign says: "No."

Vedy intellestink.

- jpt

June 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (13) | TrackBack (0)

What Would Jesus Do?

June 25, 2007 10:12 AM

Lots of questions of faith and politics swirling around these days…

Most prominently, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's support of abortion rights is finding critics in his Catholic Church, as the NYT details today (LINK)…

A new website (LINK) purports to explain "Mormonism and Mitt to an Underinformed World," and he takes issue (LINK) with comments I made (LINK) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos yesterday.

The subject came within the context of the campaigns of Giuliani, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz, and Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, apologizing to Romney for various activities their staffers did that were seen as denigrating to Mormonism.

I noted that at the same time Romney is opening the door to some of this himself. As I've previously blogged about (LINK), Romney has seemingy tried to fuzz the differences between his faith and those more traditionaly Christian beliefs, especially pertaining to whether he believes Jesus will come to Jackson County, Missouri.

He's a man of faith who campaigns as a man of faith, so I do not believe asking what is in his faith is bigotry.

In the same way it's fair to ask Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind-Conn., why the Georgetown synaogogue he prays in separates women from men and gives the women worse seats. Or whether or not George W. Bush looks at the conflict in the Middle East with any input from the Book of Revelation.

We are a nation that has faith. Probably so much so that no self-proclaimed atheist or agnostic could get elected president. So why are we theologically afraid to delve deeper than general outlines? If Mitt Romney believes that when a man (not a woman) dies, he gets his own planet and becomes a God, why am I not allowed to ask him about that?

There's a big difference between asking the questions and making derogatory judgments.

What do you think?

-- jpt

June 25, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

Talk talk talk

June 22, 2007 8:58 AM

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okl, claims he overheard Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barbara Boxer, D-Calf, chatting about how out of control talk radio had become.

"They said we've got to do something about this," Inhofe told a talk radio host. (LINK) "That 'these are nothing but far right wing extremists, we've got to have a balance, there's got to be a legislative fix to this.'"

I'm still waiting for comment from Clinton's and Boxer's offices….but this comes on the heels of a new study by a liberal group (LINK) that claims that in Spring 2007 "of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners, 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative."

Even Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., has complained about talk radio as of late, saying last week "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem" and “I'm sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk-radio people who don't even know what's in the bill."

(Lott was complaining about the immigration reform bill being scuttled.)

“The people that he’s actually complaining and whining about now are the ones that tried to defend him when everybody else was throwing him overboard when he made those joking comments at a tribute to Strom Thurmond,” groused the omnipotent Rush Limbaugh (LINK)

What do you think?

--jpt

UPDATE: Boxer's and Clinton's offices got back to me.

"Senator Boxer told me that either her friend Senator Inhofe needs new glasses or he needs to have his hearing checked, because that conversation never happened," says Natalie Ravitz, the communications director for Boxer.

"Jim Inhofe is wrong," says Philippe Reines, Clinton's press secretary. "This supposed conversation never happened - not in his presence or anywhere else."

AFTERNOON UPDATE:  Even though Inhofe prefaced this story by saying "I was going over to vote the other day," the Oklahoman this afternoon told Fox News' Neil Cavuto that this alleged conversation took place "about three years ago."

That's kind of weak.

June 22, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (752) | TrackBack (0)

Giuliani and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

June 21, 2007 9:15 AM

y,"I went to sleep with gum in my mouth and now there's gum in my hair and when I got out of bed this morning I tripped on the skateboard and by mistake I dropped my sweater in the sink while the water was running and I could tell it was going to be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day," says Alexander.

That's how the famous CHILDREN'S BOOK begins, and the GOP frontrunner must know how he feels.
Within a more-or-less 24 hour period…

Serious questions were raised about why former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group (LINK)…

His protégé left the GOP and hinted that he might want to pursue the presidency himself (LINK)...

His South Carolina chairman was indicted for dealing cocaine (LINK)…

His chief Iowa adviser was tapped to become the new director of the Office of Management and Budget (LINK)…(Quick quiz -- which fate is worse? Jail or OMB?)

And the guru of Iowa reporters, offended by Hizzoner's lateness to an event, called him "rude" (LINK)

“In politics, some weeks are more interesting than others. This week was a case in point," says Giuliani spox Katie Levinson. "Our campaign is looking forward and we’re thrilled about the support Rudy continues to receive across the country."

-- jpt

June 21, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

In Full Bloomberg

June 20, 2007 4:06 PM

"I've got the greatest job in the world and I intend to keep doing it," said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Wednesday afternoon, denying he currently has any plans to run for president as an independent.

Bloomberg has said this publicly for years even as he privately discussed the notion with friends -- "I could easily put up half a billion," he speculated at one dinner party -- and even while his underlings continue to talk about the ways a Bloomberg Presidency could happen.

It's all part of the Bloomberg Dance.

The questions at today's press conference came on the heels of Bloomberg's decision to leave the GOP, immediately after his participation in a conference about bridging the partisan divide, and following a trip on which he said American politicians are failing the public and Washington, DC, is "sinking into a swamp of dysfunction."

Right after his insistence today he has no plans to run for president, the billionaire said that when it comes to the presidential race, "I'm confident that this country will have options. I do think the more people that run for office the better."

And he said the public needs someone else to provide leadership. "I think there's a great challenge ahead. We have international challenges, we have domestic challenges."

"I'm particularly upset that the big issues of the times keep getting pushed to the back and we focus on small things that are only important inside the beltway," said the man not running for president.

"When you talk to people around the country they care who is going to pay their Social Security, they care about who is going to pay their medical care, they care about immigration they care about our reputation overseas," he continued. "It's issue after issue."

Bloomberg spoke disdainfully about the presidential debates -- and the participants. "Listen to the dialogue about overseas things, particularly Iraq," he said. "We keep talking about how we got to where we are instead of how we are going forward." Said the former CEO, "it is easy to criticize it is much more complex to come up with solutions for the future."

Said the man who has been a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent within the course of six years, "it's my perception that government at all levels is becoming more partisan instead of less."

Bloomberg said that he's "going to speak out on those issues and by not being affiliated with a party I'm going to have a better opportunity to do that."

I'll bet.

- jpt

June 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Sicko

June 20, 2007 9:12 AM

Filmmaker/provocateur Michael Moore comes to Capitol Hill today to talk about universal health care, alongside Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, John Conyers of Michigan and Fortney "Pete" Stark of California.

There's some interesting fact-checking going on of Moore's new film "Sicko" (LINK) -- but regardless I'm certain it will find an audience. The NYT REPORTS that the movie is being released ahead of schedule and a "Scrubs for Sicko" promotional BUS) carrying nurses in favor of universal health care arrived in DC last night to help gin up interest in the film and the issue...

Having not yet seen the film, I shan't yet weigh in. The studio is holding a big premiere tonight in D.C….

In 2008 news...

This morning we took a look at the possible independent presidential bid to be launched by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (LINK) …you can watch it HERE.

Hillary Clinton's campaign song by Celine Dion was originally written for Air Canada (LINK)…

A blogger on the Huffington Post questions why former Gov. Mitt Romney is not bothered by all the porn Marriott Hotels profits from (LINK)...

Former Sen. Fred Thompson went to London -- more on that HERE…

More later --

jpt

June 20, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

Arnold and Bloomy's 'Post-Partisan' Love-Fest

June 19, 2007 5:55 PM

"I have no plans to announce a candidacy because I plan to be mayor for the next nine hundred and twenty six days," said New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg at today's conference on what fellow attendee Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calls "post-partisanship."

Entitled "Ceasefire! Bridging the Political Divide," Bloomberg kicked off the conference last night, with Schwarzenegger delivering the keynote address this morning. The meeting is sponsored by the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. “The point of this conference is clear," Bloomberg said last night. "We do not have to settle for the same old politics. We do not have to accept the tired debate between the left and right, between Democrats and Republicans, between Congress and the White House. We can and we must declare a ceasefire – and move America forward."

"Division seems to be the order of the day in our national politics," said Schwarzenegger in his keynote address this morning. "It's all about divide and conquer. You find that an issue that splits the country in half and crack it just enough, so that you come out ahead."

Ah-nuld said the current impasse on immigration reform is a perfect example. "It's a classic example of an issue that Republicans and Democrats must work on together in order to fix the problem, but they seem to fail each time.  ...One side says, 'Send all the illegals back where they came from and build a big border fence.'  And the other side says, 'Forget about it, give everyone amnesty.'

"Hey, I have an idea," said the Governator. "How about being realistic and just solving the problem?  There's a totally reasonable centrist approach to the issue, and it is this; secure our borders while at the same time recognizing the economic and social reality by providing a guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here, and who meet certain criteria, like pay a fine for coming here illegally, learning the English language, and being law abiding citizens.  That is a mainstream solution, and it is time we introduce the concept of the mainstream back into the American political life, and the place to start with is immigration."

Added the governor in comments to the press after his speech, "We believe strongly to cross the party aisle and make things happen."

But lest you think that's where speculation about the Bloomberg boomlet ends, the governor of Cuhl-ee-fornya had his own say as well on the matter.

"I myself think he would make an excellent candidate," Schwarzenegger said. "It’s all about fixing problems, and creating a great vision for the future."

And they were asked about a possible Schwarzenegger/Bloomberg (Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger?) ticket.

"The governor and I never have had that conversation," Bloomberg said. "But I can tell you how that conversation would go. There would be a fight to see who would be the presidential candidate and who would want to be the vice presidential candidate. He would want to wrestle for the top spot; I would want to check the Constitution."

Bloomberg's speech to Ceasefire! Can be read HERE. 

Schwarzenegger's can be read/watched HERE.

June 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

What did Johnny Mean?

June 19, 2007 11:46 AM

Former Sen. Johnny Reid Edwards, D-N.C., is raising some eyebrows with remarks he made Sunday in Carroll, Iowa, (LINK) in a meeting with white, elderly rural voters.

Edwards was arguing that he would be a more palatable Democratic presidential nominee with whom congressional candidates in contested swing states can campaign.

"It's not just a question of who you like," Edwards said. "It's not just a question of whose vision you are impressed with. It's also a question of who is most likely to win the general election. It's a pretty simple thing. Who will be a stronger candidate in the general election here in the State of Iowa? Who can go to other parts of the country when we have swing candidates running for the Congress and the Senate? Is the candidate going to have to say, 'Don't come here. Don't come here and campaign with me. I can't win if you campaign with me.'"

At another point, Edwards said, "I think it's just a reality that I can campaign anyplace in America."

At a media appearance, Edwards said (LINK), "I can be competitive in rural America."

The suggestion is clearly that Edwards is more attractive to swing and or rural voters than are either Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., or Barack Obama, D-Ill. -- a claim I'm not certain is borne out by facts in Obama's case. But some are interpreting it to mean that Edwards is saying as a white male Southerner he is more attractive to swing voters than either a woman or an African-American.

I'm not certain that's what Edwards meant. What do you think?

-- jpt

June 19, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Update: Latter-Day Saints

June 18, 2007 8:48 PM

See Jake Tapper's previous post

UPDATE: ABC News' Julia Bain Reports: Brownback has apologized to Romney. Brownback spokesman Brian Hart says the Kansas senator told Romney, "My campaign will not be in the business of theological comparisons.”

Click HERE to see the video.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden tells ABC News that the former Massachusetts governor spoke to Brownback while campaigning in Florida, and Romney has accepted the apology.

The email, forwarded to Iowa Republican leaders from the personal account of a Brownback field director, raised questions about the similarities between Mormonism and Christianity. The staffer, Emma Nemecek, has subsequently been reprimanded for violating campaign policy.

Both Brownback and Romney will be competing in the upcoming Iowa straw poll on Aug 11th. In recent weeks, the Brownback campaign has issued several emails directly attacking Romney's credentials on abortion, in an attempt to outflank him among conservative voters.

Brownback is currently on a 4 day, 27 stop bus tour of Iowa.

June 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Obama's Staff

June 18, 2007 5:23 PM

For my part, let me just say that I like the presidential campaign staff of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

They generally seem very nice and helpful, smart and professional.

I say this because they may be a bit beleaguered right now, having been trashed once again…by Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

In his first public comments about the controversial opposition research his campaign prepared about Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, trying to tie her to outsourcing in India, Obama today blamed -- for the third time in 5 months -- his staff.

"It was a screw-up on the part of our research team," Obama told the Des Moines Register (LINK). "It wasn't anything I had seen or my senior staff had seen."

The document in question linked Clinton and her husband to various companies that outsource American jobs to India, and included a headline that referred to Clinton as the Democratic senator from Punjab, a reference to a joke Clinton had made at a fundraiser.

The Obama campaign provided it to a reporter on a not-for-attribution basis, and the reporter shared it with the Clinton campaign, which shared it with the world.

Over at the website of South Asians for Obama 2008, one writer wrote (LINK) that the memo, "(a)lthough intended to draw attention to Senator Clinton's hypocritical position on outsourcing, the memo was laced with criticism of Senator Clinton's longstanding support among the Indian American community. In addition to being offended by the clear anti-Indian sentiment in the memo, we were particularly disturbed because the memo flies in the face of what we respect most about Senator Obama -- his inclusive message and his ability to relate to people of all backgrounds."

Said Obama today, "I thought it was stupid and caustic and not only didn't reflect my view of the complicated issue of outsourcing ... it also didn't reflect the fact that I have longstanding support and friendships within the Indian-American community."

He added that he takes "responsibility for it, as does our campaign. and we quickly apologized and are communicating that in various circles around the country."

Obama has blamed his staffers for other campaign mishaps.

In February, after Obama contributor David Geffen slammed Bill and Hillary Clinton in Maureen Down's New York Times column, the Clinton campaign demanded that Obama return money Geffen had raised for them. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said "We aren’t going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom." (LINK)

Obama later distanced himself from that comment, telling reporters he had been flying from Los Angeles to Iowa during the whole dustup and that, "I told my staff that I don’t want us to be a party to these kinds of distractions because I want to make sure that we’re spending time talking about issues. My preference going forward is that we have to be careful not to slip into playing the game as it customarily is played.”

In May, Obama blamed staffers for his missing an event with firefighters in New Hampshire. "I have to tell you, I wish I was there," Obama said over a speakerphone. "My staff had already scheduled some things and they couldn't wiggle out if it. They heard from me a little bit because I wasn't happy I couldn't be there personally." (LINK)

Boy, it must be tough to be so continually disappointed with your staff.

Not to mention to have a campaign you have so little control over!

-- jpt

June 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Tony Sleeps with the Fishes

June 18, 2007 4:04 PM

Over on his blog (LINK), TV writer Bob Harris makes a most compelling argument that it's not even a question that Tony Soprano was whacked in the final episode of The Sopranos.

"Tony Soprano didn’t just get whacked; he practically got a funeral," Harris writes.

Harris says there are so many clues dropped it may actually be embarrassing that whether Tony lived or died was even a question.

Look, for instance, at the image that begins the final episode:

Is this not obviously Tony in his coffin?

For those familiar with Catholic theology, there are the "SIX BELLS" as the various characters enter, and the communion-wafer-way all three -- Carmella, A.J., then Tony -- down their onion rings. The framing of Tony in the restaurant is so evocative of The Last Supper it's almost a two-by-four to the head.

For those familiar with The Godfather, there's Tony eating an ORANGE earlier in the episode, Tony saying that the onion rings are "best in the state" (a la Sollozzo in The Godfather telling Michael Corleone "Try the veal, best in the city.")

For those familiar with previous episode of The Sopranos, there's Bobby Bacala's pondering what it must be like when you get whacked ("You probably don't even hear it when it happens, right?"), the fact that the would-be hit man is wearing a Members Only jacket (and is billed that way in the credits) and Episode 68, when Uncle Junior shoots Tony, is entitled "Members Only."

And then there's all the focus on the would-be hit man walking into the bathroom, which upon second viewing is pretty obvious is there for a reason.

Paolo Colendrea, the Italy-born Pennsylvania pizzeria owner who played the man in the Members Only jacket SAYS something very definitely happened after he walked out of the bathroom, something "shocking," though he cannot say what.

As creator David Chase said in his one interview on the subject, post-finale (LINK), "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there."

R.I.P., Tony Soprano

-- jpt

June 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Latter-Day Saints

June 18, 2007 12:14 PM

What do you know about Mormonism (LINK) beyond Donne and Marie (LINK) or the "All About Mormons" episode of South Park (LINK)?

It seems there are a lot of questions out there as former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass. -- who aims to be the first Mormon US President -- continues to climb in the polls.

Much of this is fueled by the fact that many of the same conservative evangelical Christians Romney is trying to woo have concerns about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Indeed, when Romney spoke at Regent University, founded by Rev. Pat Robertson, earlier this year, he was speaking to some people who had been instructed by Robertson's own Christian Broadcasting Network that Mormonism is a "cult."

I asked Romney (LINK) why he didn't push back on that at the time. "I'm not running for pastor in chief and I'm not running as someone who defends my religion or explains my religion," he said. "I'm running for a secular office, the presidency of the United States."

In terms of actually addressing the Christian Broadcasting Network and Regent University, Romney said, "You know if my church wants to respond, they're certainly welcome to. But that's not what I'm doing."
In the last two weeks, two rival campaigns have sent out emails questioning different tenets of Mormonism.

In this email obtained by ABC News (LINK), Emma Nemecek, a paid field director for the presidential campaign of Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, forwarded an email on her personal account asking whether Mormonism is truly a Christian religion. Nemecek asked more than a dozen people if any factoids about the Church of Latter Day Saints in the email were inaccurate, such as "the LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith" or "The LDS church has never been accepted by the Christian Council of Churches."

Similarly, a campaign staffer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent out an email (LINK) containing this news story from the Salt Lake Tribune (LINK) about a controversial Mormon prophesy that a Mormon will save the US constitution

Both the Brownback and Giuliani campaigns have apologized for bringing faith into this debate -- though Giuliani has apologized personally to Romney, and Brownback has not.

Romney himself has opened the door for some questions, seeming to blur the distinction between his church and mainstream Christianity. In George Stephanopoulos's "This Week" interview with Romney (LINK), Stephanopoulos said that Mormonism "teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years."

Romney disputed that. "That doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my church," he said. "Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth. It's the same as the other Christian tradition."

But that's not quite right, according to a Mormon church official speaking to Salt Lake City's Deseret News.

"We believe in multiple appearances of the savior" -- in both Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri, the official said.

"Brother Romney is playing a little bit of a political game with his answer."

It seems likely more games will be played on this sensitive subject in the coming months.

What do you think?

-- jpt

(Note: I have since corrected an earlier mistake, the full name "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" I regret the error.)

June 18, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (63) | TrackBack (0)

Control (Now I'm All Grown Up)

June 14, 2007 10:48 AM

One thing you likely won't read about on "HillaryHub" this morning -- the fact that she and her husband, former President Bill, may have close to $50 million in the bank….As well as the fact that he earned $10.2 million in speeches last year that he gave to IBM and General Motors and other big powerful corporations that likely want to befriend not just the former president but the potential next one as well. (Read more HERE)

For the uninitiated, HillaryHub (link) is the Democratic frontrunner's attempt to control her own media by setting up a safe Drudge-like site that links to puff pieces, good polling news, positive lefty blog reviews, and speeches via Youtube.

There's also the occasional link to a dis -- such as THIS ONE to a negative blog entry about Clinton biographer Carl Bernstein.

It's an attempt by the control freaks at the Clinton campaign (and I use that term lovingly, Howard) to grab a hold of the Clinton image/message in an increasingly uncontrollable internet and media environment, as seen with the "1984" ad against her, or the brand spanking new "I Got a Crush on Obama" viral video (READ ABOUT IT HERE or WATCH IT HERE)

As the Politico points out in its take on HillaryHub (LINK), Team Clinton chose to announce that she had won the coveted endorsement of Steven Spielberg on HillaryHub, rather than through another venue.

Bottom line -- they would prefer that you read the stories they select for you to read, not the ones we do.

Will they succeed?

-- jpt

UPDATE: Since posting this blog post, those imps at the Clinton campaign have linked to this somewhat critical blog post with the title "Hillary Hub Dishes Latest Campaign News." 

Clearly that's not really quite what this blog post was about, and that gets to another way the Clinton campaign is using Hillary Hub -- to frame stories the way they want them to be seen. 

This was perhaps best seen by the deft way her campaign slapped down two weighty biographies by three Pulitzer Prize winning journalists, framing them as nothing new when in fact both tomes contain new and potentially damaging information (though both books contained plenty of admirable information about the Senator as well). We spoke to the co-author of "Her Way," Don Van Natta Jr, for our ABC News Shuffle podcast this week (LINK).

But now HillaryHub is taking this to a new level, framing relevant stories with the headlines they want to give them. So when The Politico posted an internal memo from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, about how to raise expectations for Clinton's fundraising, the HillaryHub headline was: "Obama Camp Touts Hillary's Poll Numbers and Endorsements."

Crafty. (Suggested HillaryHub headline: "ABC News lauds Clinton's brilliance.")

June 14, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (20) | TrackBack (0)

Obamamania

June 13, 2007 6:51 PM

Yeah, in addition to cover the important matters relating to the war in Iraq and US Attorneys controversy today, we also took a look at a new viral video -- a lusty love song to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

HERE is our dot-com look.

What do you think? Youlikes?

-- jpt

June 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Mitt takes it on the chin

June 13, 2007 1:41 PM

As former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney soars in the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he is the only Republican running TV ads, his competitors are attacking him with a new level of verve and gusto.

On Wednesday the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., issued a press release attacking him, for instance, for being a flip-flopper on abortion.

Romney has claimed that during a meeting with a researcher on embryonic stem cells, Dr. Douglas Melton, on Nov. 9, 2004, he was struck that society had devalued human life. (Melton disagrees with Romney's account of this meeting, you can read more about it HERE).

A new Youtube video Team McCain unleashed today (LINK), from May 27, 2005 -- six months after meeting with Melton -- where then-Gov. Romney says at a press conference that he wasn't going to push any anti-abortion legislation.

"I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice," Romney says. "And so far I've been able to successfully do that. And my personal philosophical views about this issue is not something that I think would do anything other than distract from what I think is a more critical agenda  which relates to the topic we're talking about today but also jobs, education and health care."

Says McCain spokesman Matt David: "Mitt Romney's biggest challenge in this election will be convincing Republicans he has principled positions on important issues, especially now that it's known that he remained committed to pro-choice policies after his 'epiphany' on abortion in 2004. In stark contrast, John McCain has a consistent 24 year pro-life record."

When you probe a little deeper, though, it turns out on that same day, May 27, 2005, Romney was certainly acting like an anti-abortion governor.

That day he vetoed a state bill funding embryonic stem cell research because it allowed the cloning of human embryos. As the state legislature debated the bill, Romney requested that lawmakers include various amendments, all of which would then be considered anti-abortion: 1) defining life as beginning at the moment of conception; 2) banning embryo creation for other research; and 3) limiting how much women who donate their eggs can be paid. All the amendments were rejected.

More fireworks are expected in two days, Friday, in Kansas City, Mo., when the National Right to Life Convention (LINK) will be held.

Confirmed attendees include Romney and the candidate who seems most irked by Romney's conversion on abortion, Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.

Most recently, Brownback has been trying to out-flank Romney by pressing him on whether or not he thinks abortion is "murder."

When asked if he thought abortion is murder at an "Ask Mitt Anything Town Meeting" at the Belknap Mill in Laconia, NH, at the end of May, Romney demurred, saying that the term "murder" "means different things to different people," but that in general he thought as a the moment of conception "it is alive and it is human."

Responded Martin Gillespie, political director of Brownback for President: (HERE) "Mitt Romney's flip-flops on abortion throughout the years make more sense now. Every different Romney flip-flop on abortion has coincided perfectly with the most politically expedient position of the campaign he was in. Romney says life begins at conception, but doesn't think abortion is murder and Romney says he's pro-life but he thinks states should be able to choose to allow abortion. Every time he tries to clarify, as he tried to do last week, it becomes more and more confusing."

What do you think?

-- jpt

June 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (69) | TrackBack (0)

Right, said Fred

June 13, 2007 8:36 AM

"Let me ask you a question," said Jay Leno last night to former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. "Would you like the job of president of the United States?"

"I've never craved the job of president," Thompson replied. "But I want to do some things that only a president can do. So the answer is yes."

And the Tonight Show crowd applauded.

The path of Thompson's non-candidacy (and his non-WEBSITE) has been savvily chartered, with myriad high-profile visits to non-threatening interviewers like Leno and the folks at Fred-friendly Fox.

Last week after the GOP debate was broadcast on CNN, you may recall, Thompson emerged after the debate alongside Sean Hannity to offer charming bromides, delivered in his winning, aw-shucks Southern-fried style, a voice like bourbon poured onto gravel.

("I've often said if I had his voice, I'd be president of the United States," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has said.)

"We cannot continue down the same road that we're traveling as far as Social Security, and Medicare, and entitlements are concerned," Thompson said. "We're bankrupting the programs and pitting one generation against another."

Mr. Thompson was not asked what changes he would propose to these programs.

The strategy has worked well for Thompson -- he has vaulted to second place, behind only former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of Republican White House hopefuls.

This morning on Good Morning America we took a look at Mr. Thompson.  (FREE VIDEO CAN BE WATCHED HERE)....Specifically: is it possible that whatever formal announcement comes next will be a letdown?

"Everybody loves a second-string quarterback," said Steve Gill, author of "The Fred Factor. "On the sidelines, everybody looks like a superstar. Can he make that transition from the sidelines into the game without having a fumble, an interception or a sack that causes everybody to say, 'Hey, put the starting quarterback back in!'"

For instance, despite his star turns on Law & Order and Die Hard 2, Thompson has spent much more of his career as a lobbyist than in any other profession, working on behalf of clients including the Teamsters Pension Fund, a German mining company, and former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide two weeks after he was overthrown (HERE'S A LINK TO HIS ARISTIDE LOBBYING FORM).

He also lobbied on behalf of a firm established by an insurance company to manage its liability related to asbestos. (MORE HERE)

In 1994, Thompson's Democratic opponent in his race for the Senate brought up his lobbying ties every chance he got, to no avail.  And it's more than possible that the lobbying won't matter much this time around either, especially considering frontrunner Giuliani has his own issues related to his consulting and lobbying firms.

But it's just one of many things about Thompson that voters do not know -- an ignorance that at this point may be helping him.

What do you think?

Oh...last night on World News we covered President Bush's apparently fruitless trip to Capitol Hill to lobby GOP Senators on immigration reform. (DOT COM STORY HERE and FREE VIDEO HERE)…

-- jpt

June 13, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Gangsters

June 12, 2007 10:25 AM

Seaguewaying from Mr. Soprano to the man whom the President has nicknamed Fredo….

Last night the Democrats' attempt to express "no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales failed (LINK), though it should be said that 53 Senators -- including 7 Republicans -- saying they don't trust him, hardly anything to crow about.

Gangsta-rap-wise…..Timbaland, the fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, got himself into some trouble during a bar brawl in Germany (LINK)

As for the presidential candidate who loves to recite lines from The Godfather (LINK), this morning in Bedford, NH, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani introcuced what he called "Twelve Commitments to the American People." They are:

"I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists’ War on Us. 
"I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation. 
"I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.   
"I will cut taxes and reform the tax code. 
"I will impose accountability on Washington.
"I will lead America towards energy independence.   
"I will give Americans more control over, and access to, healthcare with affordable and portable free-market solutions. 
"I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
"I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
"I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
"I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
"I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world."

He will spend much of the summer detailing the Big 12.

Thoughts?

-- jt

June 12, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Arrivederci, Tony

June 11, 2007 9:05 AM

"You probably don't even hear it when it happens, right?"

So asked Bobby Bacala when he and Tony Soprano were out fishing earlier this season.

So is that what we're to think when the screen went black, the sound silent, at the end of the final episode of HBO's "The Sopranos" last night?

Here's my take. The Sopranos has always been about the ambiguities of life. Balls are left in the air. False clues are dropped. Life is, well, life.

So at the end of the day, Tony will always have the threat of an indictment hanging over his head, and he won't be sure as to who is speaking to the grand jury. (If you're unclear who Carlo is, by the way, he has his own Wikipedia entry HERE).

His kids will be spoiled little brats, with Meadow never having anything worse than an annoying parallel parking challenge facing her, A.J. an amoral Tony-in-training.

And yes, there will always be someone lurking -- a would-be trucker in a "USA" baseball cap, a swarthy single male striding from the counter to the bathroom -- who could pose a threat, whether legal or lethal.

We wanted a catharsis -- an ending. Tony dead, Tony safe, Tony in the witness protection program. But that's not life. It would not have been true to the antihero we watched for the last decade to neatly wrap things up.

Although I have to say the demise of Phil Leotardo (aka "Shinebox" from Goodfellas) was a vicious, guilty pleasure.

Writing in 2001, the late Ellen Willis saw Tony as representative of humanity, writ large. She wrote (LINK): "The murderous mobster is the predatory lust and aggression in all of us; his lies and cover-ups are ours; the therapist's fear is our own collective terror of peeling away those lies. The problem is that we can't live with the lies, either. So facing down the terror, a little at a time, becomes the only route to sanity, if not salvation."

Peggy Noonan too saw something universal in Tony's struggles. "One of the reasons the show was so popular--one of the reasons it resonated--is that it captured a widespread feeling that our institutions are failing, all of them, the church, the media, the law, the government, that there's no one to trust, that Mighty Mouse will not save the day," she wrote (LINK). "In Mr. Chase's world, everyone's a gangster as long as he can find a gang. Those who don't are free-lancers."

But how about this final episode?

In the Boston Globe (LINK), Matthew Gilbert interpreted the ending as creator David Chase saying: "Fill in the blank. It’s up to you. If you want Tony Soprano punished for a life of murder, adultery, and narcissism, imagine gunshots and blood spatter. If you want Tony saved, save him."

Hollywood troublemaker Nikki Finke disagrees (LINK) quite strongly, writing: "Chase needed to exert himself to a concoct an artful denouement. But he took the lazy way out. The show we all loved deserved a decent burial. Instead, it went into a black hole."

At Salon, the lovely and talented Heather Havrilesky wonders (LINK) if this wasn't Chase acting out. "Creating a cultural phenomenon this huge is an experience that can change a sensitive soul, after all, and make him act out against his fans. Look at J.D. Salinger. His books were obscenely popular, but no one understood! They were all jackasses, as far as he was concerned. Was Sunday night's finale Chase's way of telling us all to f--- right off?"

What do you think?

Oh…we're now going to be introducing a new feature to the blog, whenever I have time -- caricatures.

Enjoy.

-- Jake

June 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Hilton's Wish

June 09, 2007 9:37 PM

"I would hope going forward that the public and the media will focus on more important things like the men and women serving our country in Iraq and other places around the world."

-- Paris Hilton, June 8, 2007

God bless you, Paris Hilton!!

(Cue National anthem)

-- jpt

June 9, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Foleygate News!

June 08, 2007 11:11 AM

Jeff Trandahl, the former US House clerk in the center of the Mark Foley storm finally has spoken publicly about the Foley mess...

On a panel discussion about gay-rights aboard an all-gay trans-Atlantic crossing of the Queen Mary 2, Trandahl said that over the years he had "dozens" of confrontations with Foley about his inappropriate contact with House pages.

"Foley was a ticking time bomb," Trandahl said. "His case shows how dangerous closeted gays can be for openly gay people."

The gay newspaper the Washington Blade has the dets (LINK)...

The story of Foley's inappropriate internet messages was broken by ABC News, as you may recall…

- jpt

June 8, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

The Legislation Immigrates Into Obscurity

June 08, 2007 9:55 AM

Late night on Capitol Hill, with the immigration reform compromise essentially dead. (READ MORE ABOUT IT HERE).

This morning, on my way out of the Russell Senate Office Building after doing my GMA live shot, I ran into Sen. Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, an opponent of the deal, who told me the bill wasn't necessarily dead, but on "life support."

I'll hold my tongue on this Washington Post story from Monday (LI