Should Donald Trump be afraid of Bob Woodward? Sounds like it:
In
the worldwide capital of leaks and anonymous dishing that is Washington,
secrets can be almost impossible to keep.
But
somehow over the past 19 months, the fact that America’s most famous
investigative journalist was quietly chipping away at a book that delves into
the dysfunctions of President Trump’s White House remained largely unknown. On
Monday night, that veil of secrecy will be lifted when Simon & Schuster
plans to announce that it will publish “Fear: Trump in the White House” by Bob
Woodward on Sept. 11, according to a copy of the release obtained by The
Washington Post.
In
the book, Woodward’s 19th, the 75-year-old journalist and author “reveals in
unprecedented detail the harrowing life inside President Donald Trump’s White
House and precisely how he makes decisions on major foreign and domestic
policies,” the publisher’s release states. (From an article at the Washington Post, read it here.)
Woodward's book comes out in six weeks, but we only have to wait two weeks for Omarosa's version of life inside the Trump White House, it comes out August 14:
Woodward's book is more prestigious and will almost certainly be better written, but I'm betting Omarosa's will be juicier. Unless, of course, she's bound by Non-Disclosure Agreements and can't really dish the dirt. Still, her publisher apparently thinks she's got something interesting to spill.
Two books about life inside the Trump White House. I'll make the popcorn... Thursday morning update: I'm on the library waiting list for Unhinged. I admit I'm curious to see what Omarosa has to say and I assume the book will drop with a big splash, especially if she really does have new (and credible) stories to tell.
What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses: Demi Lovato: Hospitalized for an overdose. It happened a week ago, just past the Monday night deadline for last week's issue. There have been so many stories about this at people.com that I can't imagine what's left to write about, but it's a possibility Karlie Kloss: The supermodel is engaged to Joshua Kushner, brother of Jared Kushner Meghan: She turns 37 this Saturday Thomas Markle: Around the time of the wedding I had some sympathy for Meghan's father, because it can't be easy to be in the center of a huge media story, but now he just looks pathetic and desperate Duggar family: Another one is engaged Les Moonves: The Chairman of CBS is accused of sexual misconduct Carole Radziwill: Leaving Real Housewives of New York Omarosa: Her book comes out Aug. 14; the publisher claims it is "explosive and jaw-dropping." If it really is it will be a big deal, but I assume she signed one or more NDAs during her association with Donald Trump, so how truthful can she be? Michelle Williams: A secret wedding Nikki Bella: Cancels her wedding to John Cena, again Mollie Tibbetts: Missing Attractive White Woman Don Jr. and/or Kimberly Guilfoyle: Rumors that they're getting engaged as soon as his divorce is final Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas: Engaged after a very short courtship, he's 11 years younger than she is Nacho!: Would People feature our favorite Argentine polo player? They might. He certainly has cover boy looks and there are cute videos of him with Harry and Meghan Alex Trebek: Thinking about retiring Ivanka Trump: She's closing her business; apparently her father has "joked" that he could have had Tom Brady as a son-in-law, did Ivanka and Tom date at some point? (The Mooch says yes, read about it here.) Grocery Joe, Jordan the obnoxious model, Colton the virgin, etc: Things got pretty wild on the Men Tell All show last night. If tradition holds, next week's cover will feature Becca and her new fiance as the main cover story, but I could see a sidebar story for these guys this week
Stories that appear on the cover of this week's issue will be highlighted in green.
Wednesday morning update: See the new cover, with Demi Lovato as the main story, here.
Could one of the three gentlemen in the picture above be the next Bachelor? Possibly. Jason (on the left) and Colton (in the middle) came in 3rd and 4th on Becca's season, which has traditionally been the best spot from which to get the gig as the next Bach. In a break from tradition, however, Joe (aka Grocery Joe, on the right,) who was eliminated the first night, is also considered to be in contention, along with a few other people, of course, including Ben Higgins and all the various also-rans and wannabees who are still out there. Keep an eye on Bachelor in Paradise, which starts August 7. Joe and Colton won't be the only ones treating it as an audition for the big job. (Word on the street is that Jason didn't go to Paradise. Hmmm??)
Realistically, does Joe have a shot? As I pondered this very important question, I decided to do a deep dive into Bachelor history. Where, exactly, did each of the 22 previous Bachelors come from and how did they get the starring role? What did I learn? Follow along. First, here's the master list of all previous Bachelors, starting with Alex in 2002 right up through Arie in 2018:
Alex Michel
Aaron Buerge
Andrew Firestone
Bob Guiney
Jesse Palmer
Byron Velvick
Charlie O'Connell
Travis Stork
Lorenzo Borghese
Andrew Baldwin
Brad Womack (the first time around)
Matt Grant
Jason Mesnick
Jake Pavelka
Brad Womack (second try)
Ben Flajnik
Sean Lowe
Juan Pablo Galavais
Chris Soules
Ben Higgins
Nick Viall
Arie Luyendyk Jr.
Eleven of the first 12 Bachelors were new to the franchise. They were chosen via casting calls or by applying online. (There was no Bachelor in Paradise in those days, and originally, no Bachelorette show either.) Up until their first episode aired they were completely unknown and they mostly disappeared back into their real lives when their seasons were over.
The exception was Bachelor #4, Bob Guiney, who had come in 5th on the first season of the Bachelorette, starring Trista Rehn (now Sutter.) Bob's season ran in the Fall of 2003, and once it was over, it was back to the old way for the next eight Bachelors (Jesse Palmer through Matt Grant.)
Again, there was no Bachelor In Paradise at the time and during the very early years of the show, no social media. My memory is that the influence of Twitter, Facebook and all the various blogs and forums didn't really kick in until Jason Mesnick's season in 2009, approximately, and it took a few more years after that for it to really explode. The "go on The Bachelor/sell stuff on Instagram" dynamic just bubbled up a few years ago. After appearing on Chris Soules' season in 2015, for example, contestants including Kaitlyn Bristowe, Jade Roper, Carly Waddell, Britt Nilsson, Ashley Iaconetti and Jillian Anderson have been particularly savvy about building and monetizing their brands post-Bachelor.
An interesting side note from Farmer Chris's season: Jade and Carly are both married to men they met on BIP and Ashley I is engaged to one. Kaitlyn had her own season of The Bachelorette and is still engaged to the man she selected, Shawn Booth. Why aren't they married yet? I thought Kaitlyn was holding out for a TV wedding, paid for by ABC, but now I've seen speculation that she and Shawn are close to done and will be announcing a break-up soon. Stay tuned.
The "pick the next Bachelor" process changed with Bachelor #13, Jason Mesnick. An appealing single father, Jason came in second on Bachelorette Deanna Pappas' season and was beloved by fans. Realizing the power of an on-going narrative, and a lead that viewers already knew and liked, producers changed course. Rather than selecting an unknown to be the next Bachelor, they went with Jason, and it worked. Since then every Bachelor has appeared on at least one previous Bachelor franchise show.
After Jason, six of the next seven Bachelors first appeared as contestants on the Bachelorette, then were were chosen to be the very next Bachelor. The exception was Brad Womack, who never appeared on The Bachelorette but starred in two seasons of The Bachelor. I've never read anything that clearly explained exactly why Brad was brought back, but Brad 2.0 got a second chance at love, serving as the 15th Bachelor in 2011. So far he's the only person who has been the star of two seasons. (I think the rumor that Ben Higgins might come back for a second season is unlikely, if not completely out of the question.)
That brings us to Bachelor #21, Nick Viall. This is where the pattern changed. Nick was a contestant on Andi's Bachelorette season in 2014, coming in second. He became a Bachelor Nation villain on the Men Tell All show, when he slut-shamed Andi by talking too candidly about what happened in the Fantasy Suite. The next year he appeared on Kaitlyn's season and came in second there too. That was controversial because he wasn't one of the 25 guys who stepped out of the limos on night 1. He talked his way back onto the show about halfway through the season, which made him pretty unpopular in Bachelor Nation. The idea that Nick could be the Bachelor was improbable, to say the least.
So how did he get the job? He went on Bachelor In Paradise in the summer of 2016 and redeemed himself. He came across as charming and appealing, and with no acceptable candidates among the men on JoJo's season, producers dropped a bombshell and announced that Nick was the Bachelor. Wow. They dropped an even bigger bombshell last summer by not selecting anyone from Rachel's season (or from JoJo's, or Kaitlyn's, or Andi's or Desiree's.) Instead, Arie Luyendyk Jr. got the nod. He had finished 2nd on Emily Maynard's season way back in 2012 and hadn't been seen on any franchise show in the last five years.
Why reach back so far to find the next Bachelor? For a variety of reasons, none of the obvious choices, including Peter, Eric and Dean from Rachel's season and Robby, Chase and Luke from JoJo's season, were deemed to be acceptable. There was a fair amount of sturm und drang last summer, along with a slight aura of desperation as producers scrambled to find a Bachelor, and yes, I wrote about it:
That brings us to this year and Grocery Joe. Unlike most contestants who are eliminated the first night, Joe was featured in an introductory video segment during the first episode of Becca's season. Becca didn't like Joe enough to give him a rose, but lots of fans did, making their thoughts known on Twitter and Instagram. Based on his social media popularity, Joe was considered to be a "fan favorite," and that got him a ticket to Bachelor in Paradise. He also attended the taping of the Men Tell All show, which airs tomorrow night. Reality Steve says Joe was one of six men who were called up to the stage to have a conversation with Chris Harrison, which is also unusual for someone who went home on night one.
Can Joe "pull a Nick" and use his time on Bachelor in Paradise to advance to starring in his own show? I think it's possible. We'll get a clue on Men Tell All tomorrow night. Just like the regular episodes, MTA is heavily edited after many hours of filming. Not everything that's filmed actually appears on the final version of the show. If Joe's time in the spotlight with Chris Harrison is shown, and if he's presented in a positive way, I'll take it as a good sign that Joe is officially being considered. (It also sets up his storyline for Paradise.) If we don't see his segment, I'll be less optimistic about his chances.
Saturday afternoon update: Did Joe blow it on the Men Tell All episode? Could be. Here's what Chris Harrison told USA Today: “Joe
goes on to Paradise, and I also think that you saw [on “Men Tell All”] that Joe
is a man of very few words. It was a little bit like interviewing Shannon
Miller back in the day at the Olympics. If you remember that throwback, it was
like getting one-word answers – it was very difficult. And we kind of need our
Bachelor to emote and articulate their feelings. So while he’s a good guy, I’m
not sure he would be the best Bachelor.” (Read the story here.) Unfortunately ABC's boss of the Bachelor, Robert Mills, appears to feel the same way. On the most recent Bachelorette Live podcast, he and co-host Julia Cunningham both used the same word to describe Joe's time in the hot seat at Men Tell All: "Dull."
Believe it or not I'm not being snarky with the title of this post. I really do believe this is a coincidence. It sure makes for an interesting picture, though, doesn't it? BTW, I had to look twice to find Don Jr., but that's him in the green shirt in line on the right, with Robert Mueller seated on the far left. The picture got enough attention that Mr. Mueller's office issued a statement:
A spokesperson for the
special counsel told Washington Post reporter Matt
Zapotosky that the man in the photo is, in
fact, Robert Mueller, adding, “If it’s accurate that the other person in the
photo was Donald Trump Jr., Mr. Mueller was not aware of him and had no
interaction with him.” (From Slate.com, read the story here.)
Are Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle planning to get engaged as soon as his divorce is final? Radar Online says yes; read about it here.
This is hardly the most important thing happening in the world and it may not even be true. Still, I couldn't stop myself from posting it in the blog.
Friday afternoon update: Was Kimberly Guilfoyle let go from Fox News due to accusations of inappropriate behavior? A story at the Huffington Post says yes:
For
nearly two years — even once rumors eventually kicked up that she might join
the Trump administration — Guilfoyle said that, as a single mother, she had to
think of her son’s financial future and couldn’t afford to leave the
high-paying gig, multiple sources told HuffPost.
Guilfoyle’s
departure was initially billed as her decision. However, as HuffPost first
reported last week, multiple sources said she did not leave the network
voluntarily. They said Guilfoyle was informed her time at Fox News was up following
a human resources investigation into allegations of inappropriate behavior
including sexual misconduct, and that her lawyers had been involved since the
spring. Sources also said that despite being told she would have to leave by
July, Guilfoyle repeatedly attempted to delay her exit and tried to have her
allies appeal to Rupert Murdoch, the executive chairman of 21st Century Fox,
the parent company of Fox News, to let her stay at the network.
This story is based on
interviews conducted over the past year with 21 sources inside and outside Fox
News and 21st Century Fox. All sources spoke to HuffPost on the condition of
anonymity because they aren’t authorized to speak to the press, did not want to
raise Guilfoyle’s ire or have signed nondisclosure agreements that prevent them
from speaking to others about their experiences. (Read the story here.)
A kiss for Harry! Meghan hands over the Sentebale cup to Prince Harry’s team and gives him a congratulatory kiss (after one for captain Nacho Figueras) @peoplepic.twitter.com/6lGgjxTt8r
A sweet kiss for newlyweds Harry and Meghan, but wait! Who's that dark-haired guy Meghan kissed (twice, but only on the cheeks) before turning to her husband? It's our old friend Nacho, still Nachoing up a storm and looking very good doing it!
Bingo! Tom Cruise is front and center this week, part of his publicity tour for Mission: Impossible--Fallout, and, yes, I had him on the Guessing Game list, along with Prince George. (54-year-old Brigitte Nielsen and her new baby were on the list four weeks ago.) Unlike some celebrity cover stories, in which it's clear that People didn't actually interview the celebrity, here they did...
“I’ve wanted to make movies since I was 4 years
old,” he tells PEOPLE in the magazine’s new cover story. “To be able to
entertain an audience, that was my dream.” ... although "Exclusive Details" is presumably less deeply intimate than "People Exclusive" (for example, see Melissa McCarthy's 5/21/18 cover here) and definitely less annoyingly pretentious than "The People Interview," (seen on Mariska Hargitay's 3/28/18 cover, here.) Based on the teaser article at People.com (link above,) "Hollywood's most mysterious star" didn't really spill the beans about anything. My biggest question about Tom Cruise? What, exactly, has he had done to his face?
The big news at People.com this morning is Demi Lovato's overdose and hospitalization, but that happened yesterday, too late for this week's cover. Will it still be big news in a week? We'll see.
Some interesting thoughts from political scientist Jonathan Bernstein, and note that he's just pondering various senarios:
But what if it becomes more and more obvious
that Trump should be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors? Even though
there are good reporters finding no current signs that Republican politicians
would turn against Trump (any more than they have already, at least), I
wouldn’t count on that necessarily holding up. The Watergate example continues
to be relevant. By mid-summer 1973, most of the case against Richard Nixon was
already out — and conservative Republicans in Congress were publicly still loyal
to him. It took a full year that included the Saturday Night Massacre, more
erratic behavior, more revelations and quite a bit more evidence proving what
was already known to get conservative Republicans to ultimately agree to
support impeachment and removal. There’s no way to prove the same thing would
happen if there was an overwhelming case against Trump, but it seems likely to
me. After the midterm elections, one of the key reasons to stick with him is
temporarily gone. If new revelations and evidence hurt him only a little bit,
his re-election prospects will start looking dim; if the midterms go badly for
Republicans, which is likely, more than a few of them are going to wish that
he’d just go away before the 2020 cycle. One thing I’m fairly sure of: If Trump
is ever removed from office, Republicans will rally around Mike Pence and,
within weeks and perhaps days, hardly anyone will be defending Trump. Suppose
Mueller has the goods on Trump but most Republicans stick with him anyway. The
most likely end game then is, again, not particularly ugly: Trump just gets
defeated for re-election. That’s the fate of presidents with approval ratings
in the low 40s or worse, and there’s no reason to believe he’s an exception. We
don’t know whether Trump will remain unpopular in 2020, but if we assume that
compelling new evidence is produced, then it’s a lot harder to see him turning
things around. It’s not at all implausible that, as Blake argues, this all ends
badly. There are plenty of nightmare scenarios, including the possibility of a
narrow loss in 2020 that Trump tries to overturn in the courts, or even worse. Most
likely, however, the system sustains damage — perhaps plenty of it — but proves
resilient. The same reporting that tells us Republican politicians see no way
to actively oppose Trump also tells us that they neither like him very much nor
believe he’s fit for the job. That was also the case with Nixon, especially
late in the game; it was never the case among Republicans with Reagan and
George W. Bush. In the long run, that may prove to be more important than it
seems so far. (From Bernstein's column at Bloomberg, read it here.) Wednesday morning update: An interesting tidbit from Axios. Given how isolated Trump is, and the constant ego-stoking from the sycophants he's surrounded himself with, how surprised will Trump be if, if, Republicans really do start wishing that he'd just go away? President
Trump was unhappy with First Lady Melania after she turned her television on
Air Force One to CNN, a network largely regarded as "fake news" by
her husband, the New York Times' Katie Rogers and Maggie Haberman report.
Why
it matters: This is further indication that Trump is "living in a world of
selected information and bending the truth to his own narrative," Rogers
and Haberman write.
He
demanded that every overseas trip begin with Fox News; officials confirmed to
one another internally, via an email obtained by the NYT, and mandated that
having the TVs on Air Force One turned to Fox would be "standard operating
procedure going forward."
The bottom line: In a time
of increased criticism — over his meeting with Russian President Vladimir
Putin, and now a released recording of a private conversation with his former
lawyer Michael Cohen — Trump continues to be "insulated from the outside
world," Rogers and Haberman note. Update #2: Melania's spokeswoman weighs in: First
lady Melania Trump will watch "any channel she wants," according to
her spokeswoman in an apparent rebuke to the report President Donald Trump was
upset to find her Air Force One television tuned into CNN.
East
Wing communications director Stephanie Grisham told CNN Wednesday everyone
should be focusing on the issues the first lady is seeking to highlight, such
as neonatal abstinence syndrome, rather than what television channel she's
watching or a tape of her husband discussing a payout to a woman who claims to
have had an extramarital affair with him.
"Did you know that
every 15 minutes a baby is born with NAS? Maybe you'd like to talk about the
160,000 kids who skip school every day for fear of being bullied, or that
280,000 students are physically attacked in schools every month," Grisham
said. "Seems kind of silly to worry about what channel she watches on TV
(any channel she wants btw) or if she heard some recording on the news." (From CNN.com, read the article here.)
For the record, Florida's Republican governor, Rick Scott, is running to defeat Democratic senator *Bill* Nelson; Ben Nelson was a Democratic senator from Nebraska for two terms, from 2001 to 2013. In other "wow, they're all incompetent" news, former press secretary edition, consider this, from Jonathan Karl's review of Sean Spicer's new book, posted at the Wall Street Journal: Mr.
Spicer has not been well served by the book’s fact checkers and copy editors.
He refers to the author of the infamous Trump dossier as “Michael Steele,”
who is in truth the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, not
the British ex-spy Christopher Steele. He recounts a reporter asking Mr. Obama
a question at a White House press conference in 1999, a decade before Mr. Obama
was elected. There are also some omissions: He writes about working for Rep.
Mark Foley (R., Fla.), who he says “knew how to manage the news cycle. And on
top of all that, he was good to staff and fun to be around.” He never gets
around to mentioning that Mr. Foley later resigned in disgrace for sending
sexually explicit messages to teenage boys working as congressional pages. Tuesday afternoon update: Some new information about fact-checking. Clara Jeffery is the editor-in-chief of Mother Jones.
PSA: Books are not fact-checked unless writer pays for and oversees that process and not very well copy-edited anymore either. https://t.co/I9IsgHDFHC
Apparently Spicer wasn't willing to pay for a fact-checker, but still. Does he really not know the difference between Michael Steele and Christopher Steele? Does he really not know that Barack Obama wasn't president in 1999? (For the record, it was Bill Clinton. Really.) As I've said before, regarding almost everyone who is, or was, part of the Trump administration, the incompetence, and carelessness, is breathtaking and mind-boggling.
This is the Page Six item Haberman is linking to: Ivanka Trump’s clothing and shoes company is folding, Page Six
has exclusively learned.
Sources say that it will be shuttered “ASAP” and that
staff have been informed that they’re being laid off.
“It’s just never recovered since she stepped away from
the company,” said an insider. Update: From CNN, Ivanka has issued a statement: "When
we first started this brand, no one could have predicted the success that we
would achieve. After 17 months in Washington, I do not know when or if I will
ever return to the business, but I do know that my focus for the foreseeable
future will be the work I am doing here in Washington, so making this decision
now is the only fair outcome for my team and partners," Ivanka Trump said
in a statement.
"I am beyond grateful
for the work of our incredible team who has inspired so many women; each other
and myself included. While we will not continue our mission together, I know
that each of them will thrive in their next chapter." (Read the story here.)
Now consider this, from last night and in all caps, no less:
To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Update: As you would expect there's been a huge response to this tweet. I'm not going to post everything I see but I'll start with this:
Trump must expect and fear, and indeed seems to be panicking about, forthcoming bad news in the Russia investigation. Are new indictments imminent—this time of Americans? What’s in the other Cohen tapes? Has Manafort flipped? https://t.co/ftqfi4sZJX
To say I disagree with Bill Kristol about almost everything is an understatement and it feels strange to be posting one of his tweets here in the blog. While I'm on a roll, however, I'll also post part of his new article at the Weekly Standard titled "A Case of the Mondays." He says some nice things about Brett Kavanaugh, which I don't agree with, then says this (and note, for the record, I did not vote for Donald Trump and I do not agree to any degree with his presidency:)
…like many other prosaic people, I can, in the spirit of The
Federalist, try to contain two thoughts in my mind at the same time.
They are: Donald Trump is in many ways a bad president—bad for
the country, bad for conservatism, bad for the Republican party. His sway over
party and policy should be limited as much as is feasible and his dominance of
our politics not extended any longer than necessary.
And Brett Kavanaugh is a good pick and should be confirmed to
the Supreme Court.
In this spirit, I would also say that one might have voted for
Donald Trump. One might approve to some degree of his presidency so far. But
that does not mean that one approves forever or automatically, or that one is
impervious to evidence of unfitness.
Soon after the midterm elections, it will be worth a step back,
a deep breath, and a hard look. It will be worth asking then—as Americans, as
conservatives, as Republicans—do we want four more years of a Trump presidency?
No need then to relitigate who was right about this or wrong about that in 2016
or 2017 or 2018. What will be needed is to be open-minded about the right
course ahead.
As our greatest president put it: “As our case is new, so we must think
anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our
country.” Can’t we act in the spirit of Lincoln in the age of Trump? (Read the article here.)
What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses:
Issue dated July 30, 2018 (Note: this is Us Weekly, not People.)
Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex: In a cover story (above,) Us Weekly is reporting that she's coming to America for a private visit this Fall. Although the magazine cover refers to "their first official tour of Meghan's homeland," implying that Harry and Meghan are both coming, the online story says she's traveling solo. Given that sloppiness, and the thinness of the reporting, which quotes only an unnamed "source," I'm betting that this story is a tabloid fantasy. (Harry and Meghan are officially visiting Australia in October to attend the Invictus Games.) Meghan's family is also still in the spotlight, with reports that her ridiculous half-sister is in talks to appear on the U.K. version of Celebrity Big Brother (read about it here,) and her half-brother's fiancee was apparently arrested for assault (read about that here) Prince George: Today (Sunday) is his5th birthday, the palace released a cute new picture. The whole Cambridge family is vacationing with Kate's parents on the island of Mustique Jinger Duggar: Gave birth. I fervently hope People continues their recent pattern of *not* featuring anyone from this family on the cover Kimberly Guilfoyle: Don Jr.'s girlfriend is leaving Fox News, possibly not by choice, she may be joining America First, a pro-Trump PAC Tom Cruise: Mission Impossible: Fallout opens Friday Roseanne Barr: An unhinged rant on YouTube Karen McDougal: The Playboy model who had an affair with Donald Trump is back in the news. It's something about the president's previous lawyer, Michael Cohen, secretly recording a conversation with Donald before he was president. Those tapes are apparently now in the hands of the FBI Michael Strahan and Sara Haines: Spinning off to a third hour of GMA? The Coleman Family: 9 members of the family died in a duck boat accident in Missouri The LA Hostage Stand-off: A man held hostages in a Los Angeles Trader Joe's Saturday night after shooting his grandmother. He killed a store manager and wounded several others. I don't think People will put his name or picture on the cover, but they may cover the story Corinne Olympios: The Bachelor alum was pranked by Sacha Baron Cohen (read about it here) Bristol Palin: Apparently she's joining the cast of Teen Mom OG (read about it here,) which is a little strange given that Bristol is now 27 and has three kids. (Is she still married to Dakota Meyer? It was reported that he had filed for divorce a few months ago, then I saw a story that said they're back together. Are they? Not sure, don't care.) Mom Sarah Palin told TMZ that Bristol's not doing this to achieve reality TV stardom, oh, no, no, no. She's doing it to "help people in a hurtin' world." How going on a reality show about pregnant teenagers helps anyone other than Bristol herself, who will get a paycheck for her trouble, I don't really understand, but whatever. If my count is correct, this is the eighth reality show Sarah and/or a member of her family has appeared on. Can you name them? If not, here's a reminder:
Sarah Palin's Alaska (the whole family) Stars Earn Stripes (Todd) Dancing With The Stars (Bristol, with Todd and Sarah in the audience) Life's A Tripp (Bristol) Amazing America with Sarah Palin (On the Sportsman Channel) Celebrity Wife Swap (Bristol and Willow) Dancing With The Stars All Stars (Bristol) There was talk that Sarah was developing some kind of legal show, similar to Judge Judy, but I read that the brave souls in the focus group who watched the pilot pretty much laughed Palin out of the room, and that was the end of that. I said once, in a post years ago, that Sarah Palin probably lies awake nights trying to figure out how to turn her family into the Kardashians. Clearly, she's still trying.
Tuesday morning update: I said above that the Trader Joe's hostage-taker killed a store manager. Now CNN is reporting that she was actually killed by a bullet from a police officer's gun: As Atkins fled in his grandmother's car, he fired shots out the
back window toward pursuing officers, police said. Authorities said the teen he
kidnapped was shot in the head but survived. Officers did not fire at the gunman during the chase. But after
Atkins crashed the car outside a Trader Joe's and continued shooting at police,
officers returned fire, Moore said.
As Atkins fled
into the Trader Joe's, Corado was exiting the grocery store, police said.
That's when Corado was struck by LAPD gunfire. (Read the story here.)
Update #2: Model Karlie Kloss is engaged to a man named Joshua Kushner, who just happens to be the younger brother of presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner. It was just announced this morning, which probably makes it too late for this week's new cover, so hold that thought for next week. This is a high-wattage merger of politics and pop culture; my guess is that stories about it will be everywhere. (Read People's online story here.)
Stories that appear on the cover of this week's issue will be highlighted in green. Wednesday morning, update #3: See the new cover, with Tom Cruise as the main story, here. One more thing: Apologies for the strange spacing in this post. It happens sometimes when I cut-and-paste from other websites. I'm trying to learn how to fix it. Update #4, on August 3: Bristol Palin has announced that she is "freshly divorced." The Washington Post ran a short story, read it here.
After a seven-week gap, Meghan is the main cover story again, with pictures of her outings with the Queen and sister-in-law Kate. If you're counting, this is her seventh "main story" cover of the year and she's also been featured in seven "sidebar" stories. This week's headline mentions "baby plans," any guesses for when the actual pregnancy announcement will come? "Some time in December, after the first trimester, with a birth expected in late spring or early summer" is my best guess. When will we see her on the cover again? This cover doesn't mention it, but she turns 37 on August 4. A "Her First Royal Birthday" cover next week? It's possible.
I had Meghan on the Guessing Game list, along with First Lady Melania, but People's "no Melania" policy is still holding -- even standing side-by-side with Her Majesty The Queen didn't get the First Lady a cover mention. What about George Clooney and his dramatic motorcycle accident? Oops, no. When I heard about George's accident I intended to put him on the list but it slipped my mind. Half credit? Sure, why not.
Some of the other Trumps were front-and-center last year and not in a good way. A year later things have only gotten sleazier for the president, his eldest son, his favorite child and her husband.
A picture of Donald and Melania arriving back at the White House last night, after their grand tour of Europe, and as usual they don't look too happy. It could be jet lag, of course, but it's also being reported that it was during the flight home on Air Force One, during which Donald can watch live TV, that he began to understand how badly he screwed up in Helsinki (and consequently, the large pile of deep doo-doo that was waiting for him at home.) He's supposed to speak in front of reporters this afternoon at 1.00 p.m. Central Time, about 15 minutes from now. It's sure to be interesting.
What will be on the cover of People this week? My guesses:
The Thai soccer players, their coach and/or the rescuers: The current issue, with Whitney Houston on the cover, has a story about this inside the magazine, but at press time last week the rescue operation wasn't finished and the outcome wasn't known POTUS and/or FLOTUS: Their visit to England and the pictures with the Queen Barack Obama: The former president is visiting Kenya and South Africa Kylie Jenner: Featured on the cover of Forbes, she's almost a billionaire (although to call her "self-made" is risible) Serena Williams: Played in the Wimbledon final 10 months after giving birth Kate and Meghan: Their first outing together as "just us girls," or Harry and Meghan, their first trip abroad as a married couple Thomas Markle: Meghan's father is back in the spotlight again, for an interview in which he says that she's "terrified" of her new life Prince George: Turns 5 on July 22. Kensington Palace just released the first official "family of five" pictures (see one of them below,) one of which could used on the cover Sandra Oh: First Asian woman nominated for an Emmy in the "lead actress in a drama" category Kate Upton: Pregnant Tenley Molzhan: The former Bachelor and Bachelor In Paradise contestant got married (read about it here) Arie & Lauren: The most recent Bachelor and his fiancee released engagement pictures Meryl Streep and/or Cher: Or other cast members of Mamma Mia, Here We Go Again, which opens Friday Denzel Washington: Also in a new movie, The Equalizer 2, which also opens Friday Sarah Palin: She's been in the news lately, having been tricked into an interview with Sacha Baron Cohen
It's time for another World Cup post, an every-four-years tradition here at Writing The World. Here's what I said in 2010, in a post titled "Ghana Crushes The American Dream:" I lifted the title of this post from time.com's article about the U.S. team's loss to Ghana in the World Cup and I find myself wondering - why isn't soccer a bigger deal here? It's a big deal right now, sort of, because of World Cup coverage, but I'm talking about the rest of the time. How come soccer isn't as popular in this country, year in and year out, as it is in the rest of the world? This will be a short post because not only do I not know the answer, I don't have any well thought-out musings on the subject. I don't even have any snarky "isn't this lame?" comments on the subject, because like most of my fellow Americans, I just don't care that much about soccer. If I learn anything interesting about it, between now and, you know, whenever, I'll let you know. Monday morning update: Time attempts to explain it. And here's what I was thinking four years later, in a post titled "The Day After:"
After the World Cup, that is. I did watch most of the game, and I don't want to be disrespectful about something that's so important to the rest of the world, but part of me just wants to say, Really? That's what all the fuss is about? 90 minutes of regulation play and the score is zero to zero? Germany finally scored in the "extra time" period and went out in something less than a blaze of glory, definitively beating the Argentines by a whopping 1 to zip. I get that I don't get it. Four years ago, during the 2010 World Cup, I wondered why soccer isn't as big here in the States as it is in the rest of the world, then confessed that I didn't have any well thought-out musings on the subject. It's still true, and unless something truly fascinating happens in soccer-world, I'll meet you back here in 2018 for another "Americans just aren't into soccer" post.
Here we are in 2018 and I still don't have anything interesting to say about soccer. As I'm writing, the final match, between France and Croatia, has just gotten underway. Will they play to a more exciting conclusion than the one to nothing overtime win by Germany over Argentina four years ago? On behalf of soccer fans everywhere, I hope so.
Who writes and sends the tweets that go out on the White House's official Twitter account? (Donald's personal account is @realDonaldTrump. We know he writes and sends that one himself, at least most of the time.) I'm not sure specifically but whoever they are, today they made a really stupid mistake. Consider this tweet, which was sent out this afternoon:
As Tom Wright points out, the tweet has now been deleted. (As usual, however, screen shots live forever.) What's the problem with the tweet? POTUS and FLOTUS went from London to Scotland, which is actually one of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom. (Northern Ireland, Wales and, of course, England, are the other three. For extra credit: Which of the four countries is not part of Great Britain? The answer is at the bottom of the post.) The Trumps didn't "depart the U.K." They just traveled to another part of it.
I recognize that the average non-Anglophile American-on-the-street might not know the four countries of the United Kingdom off the top of their head. Is it too much to expect the president's staff to know such things, especially after weeks of preparation for an important, high profile and symbolic visit to England? The incompetence (and carelessness) is just mind-boggling.
And how was that meeting with the Queen? I like this quote from CBS News:
"They actually have quite a lot in common," royal biographer Robert Hardman told "CBS This Morning" about Mr. Trump and the queen. "They both got Scottish mothers, they both own fairly large parts of Scotland - in her case Balmoral [and] in his case two golf courses - and she's used to dealing with the most appalling despots, monsters, crooks, dictators. I think they're going to get on great." (Read the story here.)
Which country is part of the United Kingdom but not part of Great Britain? Northern Ireland.
Saturday morning update: Donald was his usual self-absorbed, misogynistic and awkward self while walking with the Queen:
I’m not a monarchist by any stretch of the imagination but this is such an insult to Britain. Absolutely clueless, classless, thoughtless, lacking in any dignity and without a shred of respect. pic.twitter.com/RBFXe4yZ9H
Sunday morning, update #2: Does Trump know what the United Kingdom is? Does he know the difference between the UK and Great Britain? Based on this interview with Piers Morgan, I'd say that, as usual, Trump doesn't have a clue:
[Morgan] ‘The sceptic in me would say:
‘What is the incentive for America to do a great deal with the United Kingdom?”
[Trump] ‘We would
make a great deal with the United Kingdom because they have product that we
like. I mean they have a lot of great product. They make phenomenal things, you
know, and you have different names - you can say “England”, you can say “UK”,
you can say “United Kingdom” so many different - you know you have, you have so
many different names - Great Britain. I always say: “Which one do you prefer?
Great Britain? You understand what I’m saying?’ What Piers wanted to say: "No, Donald, I don't understand, in fact, I have no earthly idea what you're saying. You're babbling like an uneducated, illiterate toad."
What Piers actually said:
[Morgan] ‘You know
Great Britain and the United Kingdom aren’t exactly the same thing?’
[Trump] ‘Right,
yeah. You know I know, but a lot of people don’t know that. But you have lots
of different names. The fact is you make great product, you make great things.
Even your farm product is so fantastic.’ (From The Daily Mail, read the article here.) Monday morning, update #3: The Sunday Times says Prince Charles and Prince William refused to meet with Donald Trump last week. The story mentions President Obama's 2016 visit to London, but he and Michelle also made a full state visit to the U.K. in 2011, where they were honored with a full state dinner and stayed overnight at Buckingham Palace. Though officials
from Downing Street and Buckingham Palace denied the reports, saying that Trump
and the Queen were always meant to meet alone, sources and senior courtiers
told the Times differently.
“This business of
Prince Charles and Prince William not being there for the Trump visit was a
snub,” an unnamed source told the Times. “They simply refused to attend. It’s a
very, very unusual thing for the Queen to be there on her own.”
In addition, a
Whitehall official told the Times that the Queen’s interaction with Trump was
“kept to the bare minimum. The Queen will do her duty, but among the wider
family, they were not as enthusiastic as they were when Obama came over.”
Trump’s UK visit
does look very different from that of President Barack Obama.
Per the Times, the
Obamas’ 2016 trip involved a Windsor Castle lunch with the Queen and Prince
Philip, as well as a Kensington Palace dinner with the Duke and Duchess of
Cambridge and Prince Harry. (From a story at Talking Points Memo, read it here.)
Who else was conspicuously not there? Ivanka. Unlike her "famously private" stepmother, Ivanka appears to relish the spotlight (aka brand-building opportunities,) having traveled with her father on several previous international trips. Who can forget this: Where was Ivanka this time? At home stewing, no doubt. She would probably sell her first-born child for the chance to swan around Blenheim Palace with the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough, then be photographed standing next to the Queen. Not this time, Ivanka. I have no doubt that the First Lady made it very clear: Ivanka would share this spotlight over Melania's dead body.
