Gilmore Girls To End This Month

The CW Network and Warner Brothers have announced today that Gilmore Girls will end with tihs season’s final episode, scheduled to air May 15. Rory Gilmore graduates from Yale next week, with her future remaining in doubt. Reportedly the final episode will show Rory finally meeting her long-time idol, Christiiane Aranpour. AP quotes Lauren Graham from an interview earlier in the year as to her thoughts on how the show should end (which might be relevant to how this week’s episode ended with Logan asking Loelei for permission to marry Rory):

As production on the show got under way last fall, its future then uncertain, Graham speculated about the final chapter.

“I care very much how the story ends,” Graham said told the AP. “… It would be my worst nightmare if we end the show with a wedding. To me, the premise of the show was, `What if your parent was your best friend?'”

“That’s the thing you leave people with, the strength of this family and this relationship,” she said.

Bush Not Listed As Among 100 Most Influential by Time

Time Magazine reportedly is putting out their list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World and left out George Bush. They did include Queen Elizabeth, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and numerous entertainers.

I’m not sure if ranking Queen Elizabeth and Brad Pitt as more influential than Bush is more an example of how much influence George Bush has lost, or more an example of the superficiality of the mass media. I really can’t blame conservatives like Ed Morrissey for mocking this. Regardless of what we think of George Bush, he is more influential than a powerless monarch, those who seek his job, and, even if her show was renewed, more influential than Tina Fey. After all, Bush is the Commander Guy.

It will be interesting to see if the article provides their criteria for inclusion, as well as who made the list in previous years.


It’s a running joke that Obama has won thanks to picking up the votes of people who, hearing his name, think he’s Irish. It turns out he really does have Irish background according to the New York Sun.

The New Yorker gives a far more in depth profie on Obama. They even turn the common criticism of Obama being vague on policy issues into a virtue:

In the past couple of months, Obama has hosted health-care forums of his own—in New Hampshire, in Iowa. In these forums, he is tranquil and relaxed, as though on a power-conserve setting. He paces slowly, he revolves, he tilts his head. He comments in a neutral, detached way. He doesn’t express sympathy for sickness, or scorn for bureaucracy, or outrage at unfairness. He says that the system is broken and needs to be fixed, but conveys no particular urgency.

This mode of his is often called professorial, and Obama himself likens these forums to the constitutional-law classes that he taught at the University of Chicago. But “professorial” implies that he seems cerebral or didactic, and he doesn’t. Despite the criticism he has received for being all inspiration and no policy, Obama has so far stuck to what appears to be an instinct that white papers belong on Web sites, not in speeches. It is surprising, given the recent electoral record of Democratic policy wonks, that he is not given more credit for the astuteness of this approach, but it’s true that it’s not just strategy—it’s who he is. “He doesn’t have the handicap that a lot of smart people have, which is that they come across as ‘You’re not smart enough to talk to me,’ ” George Haywood, a private investor and a friend of Obama’s, says. “Adlai Stevenson, another Illinois guy, had that—he came across as an egghead and it was off-putting to people. Barack is the opposite.” Probably one of the reasons for this is that Obama seems not to attach much value to cleverness as such. Even in law school, perhaps the place more than any other where sheer cleverness is prized and love of argument for its own sake is fundamental to the culture, he was not much interested in academic jousting.

The article does describe a number of fine points about Obama. Still, before I vote for someone, I want to know what they plan to do. Its fine if he leaves the white papers to the web sites, as long as they actually show up and provide sufficient detail.

Washington Dining

There’s lots of speculation around who’s having dinner with who, as reported by Reliable Source:

Barack Obama and John Kerry having dinner Tuesday night at the Four Seasons Hotel. The two senators, both in navy blue suits, spent three congenial hours together. Obama ate hamachi salad and scallops; Kerry had the octopus salad and striped bass.

Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel dining together last night at the Palm. The New York mayor had a New York strip steak, the Nebraska senator had wild halibut, and each polished off a glass of merlot and mixed berries for dessert. They were deep in conversation for two hours; since both are mulling presidential bids, who was courting whom?

The first pair raises questions of whether Kerry will endorse a candidate for 2008. Among the top tier, I doubt Clinton or Edwards would get his endorsement unless their nomination was inevitable, but Kerry did invite Obama to give the keynote address at the 2004 convention…

The second is being discussed as a possible ticket for the Unity ’08 movement. There is a lot of speculation that Bloomberg is the one they are after to top the ticket. If this happens I’ll have to take a much closer look at him, especially if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate either Clinton or Edwards.

Bush is The Commander Guy

George Bush has been the decider. Now he is “the Commander Guy.” The Caucus quotes Bush in explaining his veto of the Iraq funding bill which calls for withdrawal of the troops:

“The question is, ‘Who ought to make that decision, the Congress or the commanders?,’’ Mr. Bush said. “As you know, my position is clear – I’m the commander guy.”

If Bush read the Constitution, he would know the actual title is Commander in Chief. If he also read the Constitution, he would also realize thate there are limits on his authority.

Posted in George Bush. Tags: . 8 Comments »

David Brooks Might Respect 75% of Democrats

In some of his columns, David Brooks gives the impression that he considers all Democrats to be far left partisans. Today he presents a more moderate view, even if he overestimates the number of Democrats in the “establishment.”

Let me offer some advice.

Let’s say you’re a Republican appointed to an important job in Washington. You’ll probably find that 90 percent of the people who work in your agency are Democrats, as are 90 percent of the media types who cover you and 90 percent of the academics who comment on your work.

But here’s the thing to remember: There are Democrats, and then there are Democrats. A quarter of the Democrats you’ll work with are partisans. They believe the rantings of the agitprop pundits, and they’ll never be open-minded toward you. But the other three-quarters are honorable, intelligent people. If you treat these people with respect, and find places where you can work together, they will teach you things and make you more effective. If you treat them the way you treat the partisans, they’ll turn into partisans and destroy you.

The choice seems pretty obvious, yet Republican after Republican mucks this up. Which brings us to the case of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.

After discussing how Wolfowitz messed things up, he concludes:

The fact is, you go into politics with the establishment you have, not the establishment you wish you had. For Republicans, this is an establishment that is initially suspicious, but is filled with human beings who can be worked with. They need to feel respected. They need to be consulted on things they know a lot about. If they feel disrespected, they’ll cut you no slack, and a small misstep could be career-ending. They will make it impossible for you to do your job.

This has happened to dozens of Republicans (and unpopular Democrats), and it is happening to Wolfowitz. And the only question is when will these appointees start learning the simple rules of effective democratic leadership?

I’m not terribly interesed in Wolfowitz, but am sure surprised to see such respect offered to seventy-five percent of Democrats by Brooks.