Tue03032015

Last updateMon, 02 Mar 2015 7pm

LOS ANGELES Tuesday, March 3rd 2015 12:14

  • Issue: Could LA Parks Department Run the Greek Theatre?

    Emily Alpert Reyes and Catherine Saillant

    Date: Mar 3, 2015 

    Entertainment titans have battled for months over who should run Los Angeles' Greek Theatre.

    A city commission recommended Live Nation for the job, but the City Council disagreed with that pick. Neighborhood groups have pressed for longtime operator Nederlander to stay in charge of the Griffith Park venue alongside its new partner, AEG. 

    That debate has triggered legal threats, played a part in political campaigns and set off an avalanche of lobbying at City Hall. Now the saga could take an unexpected turn: Parks officials have suggested that the city could operate the theater. 

    Parks department officials are recommending that the city commission toss out its last request for proposals to run the Greek, as lawmakers had urged them to do. It could then redo the process -- or it could operate the Greek itself as an “open venue,” department officials said. 

    Running the Greek would let the city maintain control of the concert calendar, a department report says. Instead of a single promoter such as Live Nation running the venue, different promoters could confirm performers with the parks department on “a non-exclusive basis.”  (Read the rest.) 

 



Doggie tantrum. Wet and pissed!

Is Rich Little’s career over? Impressions time.

Hell No I Won’t Go! Cockatoo finds out he’s going to the vet

 

 

  

 

 


Bought the Farm

 

This term was used during World War 2 whenever a Allied Pilot would have to make a crash landing into a European farm/house. WW2 pilots who did this were actually charged for the damages they caused and actually in a sense: 
"bought the farm"

 


 

What Jeb Bush Really Said

GUEST WORDS - Tax-ayatollah Grover Norquist called it “foolish” and “bizarre,” but former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush made a bid for party leadership with his calculated remarks praising Ronald Reagan and criticizing his party’s no-compromise leadership.

What got less attention was Bush’s implicit disrespect to his party’s nominee, Mitt Romney – as well as his apparent lack of confidence in Romney’s ability to defeat President Obama in November. “Back to my dad’s time or Ronald Reagan’s time, they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support that right now would be difficult to imagine happening,” Bush famously said, declaring Reagan and George H.W. Bush “would have had a hard time [in the GOP] if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement.”

Bush is attacking a point of view that Romney has essentially embraced. The presumptive GOP nominee has avoided every opportunity to stand up to Tea Party crazies, whether by distancing himself from birther bully Donald Trump, or being the only person during the Republican primaries who would accept a theoretical 10-to-1, spending-cuts-to-revenue deficit “grand bargain.”

(In fact, just last week Bush said he hoped Romney would accept such a deal as president, earning an earlier rebuke from Norquist, who called it an “insult” to Romney.)

Although his Reagan remarks got more attention, Bush was even more directly critical of Romney on immigration. “Don’t just talk about Hispanics and say immediately we must have controlled borders,” said Bush, who is a member of the candidate’s Hispanic Steering Committee (presumably because his wife is from Colombia?). “It’s kind of insulting when you think about it. Change the tone would be the first thing. Second, on immigration, I think we need to have a broader approach.”

Finally, Bush deflated the premise of Romney’s entire campaign, insisting there isn’t much any president could do to rev up the economy right now. “I think we’re in a period here for the next year of pretty slow growth; I don’t see how we get out, notwithstanding who’s president,” Bush said. “We’ve got major headwinds with Europe and a slow down for Asia as well.”

That’s a comment every bit as newsworthy as President Clinton suggesting Romney has a “sterling” business record, but it got little attention.

So while Bush has officially endorsed Romney, his remarks this week are a not-so-subtle vote of no-confidence in his November chances. These were not the comments of a party leader confident his team is going to rack up a big win in November.

Bush’s dire warnings are the kind of truth-telling – or political spin wrapped as truth-telling – more common in the week after one side is crushed in a landslide (as a Democrat, I recognize it from experience).

Bush himself is no profile in courage, however. His complaints might have made a difference in 2012 had he made them during the Florida primary, in the course of endorsing Mitt Romney. Romney won Florida anyway, and Bush endorsed him later, but the former Florida governor missed an opportunity to embrace the least right-wing 2012 candidate early, as well as chasten that candidate by delivering an endorsement that came with a warning.

A lot of people have raised questions about exactly what Bush is doing with his Reagan-Romney comparison, but I think it’s pretty clear he’s setting himself up for 2016, despite his wistful musing last week that he may have missed his window to run for president, and the time was “probably now.”

But if Romney loses, there will be a bloody battle for the direction of the GOP, and Bush’s argument won’t necessarily be the one that prevails. I’m sure he’ll be joined by mainstream Republicans like Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe and others who’ve either been thrown out or driven out by the Tea Party.

But look for the far right to be just as critical as Bush, from the other direction.

No amount of Romney pandering can change the fact that he wasn’t the base’s candidate – together, the right-wing “not-Romney” candidates always did better than Romney when the primary field was more crowded.

If the former Massachusetts governor loses, conservatives are likely to denounce him as another John McCain, a “moderate” pushed on the base by the party’s establishment leaders who nonetheless couldn’t beat Barack Obama.

Another famous Texas politician’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, is likely to be as influential as Jeb Bush in a post-defeat blame game, if not more so.

(Joan Walsh is editor at large at Salon.com where this article was first posted. As a columnist for San Francisco Magazine, she won Western Magazine Awards in 2004 and 2005 for writing about local politics. She's written for everyone from the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to Vogue and the Nation.  Salon.com is a leading progressive news site with the core mission: Our core mission: uncover what truly matters in the world of news and culture. We do this through three core areas of coverage (Politics, Arts, Life), and through our vibrant, reader-fueled blog network, Open Salon.)
-cw


Tags: Joan Walsh, Jeb Busch, Mitt Romney, politics, Ronald Reagan





CityWatch
Vol 10 Issue 48
Pub: June 15, 2012

Share