#943: A Scintilla of Sanity?

           Reps. Adam Schiff & Anna Paulina Luna

The way things go these days of future passed (a reference to the Moody Blues, not the X-Men franchise which is, btw, “. . . future past), many hopeful, potentially ground-breaking news stories never make it into the headlines, but rather - as Grandpa Doc used to refer to it - “ . . . just beneath the truss ads on page 47.” Case in point: While virtually every network, cable, and print media outlet made loud, large headlines out of FPOTUS Donald J. Trump’s pleading innocent to 37 federal charges in a Miami court the other day, little to nothing was mentioned about the fact that 20 - count ‘em 20 - House Republicans refused to support Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s (née Meyerhofer) censure resolution concerning Democrat Adam Schiff.

Seeking to vault herself into the topflight rank of MAGA extremists (ala MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, and Higgins) the first-term Republican who represents Florida’s 13th C.D. moved to expel Schiff - the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee and lead impeachment manager (prosecutor) in the first impeachment trial of then-POTUS Trump. In addition to seeking Schiff’s expulsion from the House, Luna’s resolution also called for the California Democrat to be fined an astounding $16 million. In introducing H. Res 412, Luna told an empty House chamber: “Adam Schiff lied to the American people. He used his position on House Intelligence to push a lie that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars and abused the trust placed in him as Chairman. He is a dishonor to the House of Representatives . . . The Durham Report makes clear that the Russian Collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country.”

(n.b. The “Durham Report,” which was named after Trump-era special counsel John Durham, who was tasked with reviewing the origins of the FBI's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Four years after his probe began, Durham concluded the Justice Department and FBI "failed to uphold their important mission of strict fidelity to the law" about the events during the 2016 election. He also found senior FBI personnel "displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor toward the information they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons and entities." And he concluded the FBI had relied heavily on investigative leads provided by Trump opponents. 

But much of the information disclosed in Durham's report had already been revealed in a 2019 examination conducted by the Justice Department inspector general into the origins of the FBI's probe into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. That investigation identified several procedural errors, but overall concluded there was no "political bias" at the bureau.)

Outside of attempting to earn some street cred and score some points with her colleagues on the LUNAtic right, I can think of no other reason why the Florida fresher would ever take on a man of Adam Schiff’s stature.  Ever since the days when Schiff, then serving as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central District of California won a major conviction in the trial of Richard Miller, a former FBI agent who spied for the Soviet Union, he has been on virtually every political cognoscenti’s watch list.  In many, many ways, Adam Schiff has always impressed me as the living embodiment of John Cheever’s "Larry Crutchman” (from his brilliant 1958 short, short story The Worm in the Apple): too good, too successful, too even-tempered, too meritorious to be true  . . . at least for cynics.  But like Larry Crutchman, with Adam Schiff, what you see is what you get . . . he’s just that good.  So in what world could a political neophyte like Anna Paulina Luna ever believe she could bring down a congressional colossus like the gentleman from California’s 28th C.D.?

She must have been dreaming . . . or else taking nips from the bottle of MAGA merlot.

In his more than two-decade House career, Adam Schiff has as mentioned above, served as chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, manager of Donald Trump’s first impeachment, and as one of seven Democratic members of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6, 2021 Attack on the U.S. Capitol. In comparison, Ms. Luna, in addition to trying to expel Mr. Schiff from the House and fine him $16 million, has cosponsored H.Res.113 - Ukraine Fatigue Resolution, (sponsored by Florida Representative Matt Gaetz, which would suspend all foreign aid for the War in Ukraine and demand that all combatants in this conflict reach a peace agreement immediately. She was also among 52 Republicans who voted in favor H. Con. Res. 30, (sponsored by Matt Gaetz) which would remove American troops from Somalia. In baseball terms, Anna Paulina Luna is the Aberdeen IronWorks (the Oriole’s single-A affiliate) challenging the Los Angeles Dodgers and expecting to beat them hands-down.   

In addition to all his accomplishments in the public arena, Adam Schiff is also a truly great writer and a masterly orator . . . when the situation calls for it. (At one point he wanted to be a screenwriter. I personally have had the pleasure of reading some of his stuff through the generosity of his father Ed.)  Adam’s concluding speech before the vote on impeaching Donald Trump the first time has received some of the highest accolades imaginable. He began his speech  with a quote from a letter that Alexander Hamilton wrote to President George Washington, at the height of the Panic of 1792, a financial credit crisis that shook our young nation:

“When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

He also quoted Abraham Lincoln’s message to Congress in December 1862: “Fellow citizens we cannot escape history. We of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.”

The response to Chairman Schiff’s speech was - except on the part of Trump supporters in the media - overwhelmingly - even historically - positive:

• Greg Miller national security correspondent for the Washington Post who contended that Schiff is perhaps the most “underestimated” politician California has ever produced, predicted that the speech “will leave a mark on history, exceeding nearly all contemporaries.”

• Richard Stengel, the former editor of Time magazine declared: “When we get back to teaching civics in this country—as we must do—Adam Schiff’s sweeping, beautifully-wrought opening argument, should be on the syllabus.”

• The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin insisted that Schiff had delivered “the most brilliant legal presentation I have heard. None comes close. The tone, the facts, the anticipated defenses. I am in awe.”

• Former Mueller probe investigator Andrew Weissmann, said that Schiff’s speech reminded him of a quote (perhaps falsely) attributed to Lincoln: “’To sin by silence, when they should protest, Makes a coward of men.’ That’s the people who are thinking it’s better to stay silent and ‘I can do better by trying to do the right thing.’ This is really an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment where people really need to stand up.”

• Former Bill Clinton advisor Paul Begala, claimed Schiff’s oratory was, “Sweeping yet specific. Eloquent yet clear. Relentless recitation of damning facts, but with a tone more of sadness than anger. Rooted in our deepest traditions – opening with Alexander Hamilton – yet as current as Trump’s latest tweet. Brilliant.”

And yet, despite all the facts favoring Adam Schiff - at least on paper would have him retaining his seat - the odds seemed long that the MAGA-controlled House would permit Rep. Luna’s H. Res. 142 to go down to defeat.  

And then, something remarkable happened: a scintilla of sanity swept over the House of Representatives. When the final vote was tallied, (20, count ‘em 20) Republicans voted to block the resolution of censure! The final vote was 225-196-7 in favor of killing the measure . . . at least for now. Schiff, in comments after the vote, said he was “frankly surprised.” “And I think it showed a lot of courage for Republican members to stand up to the crazy MAGA folks,” he said “I’m astounded by the vote frankly; it was basically almost 1 of 10 Republicans voted against this resolution,” Schiff later added.  Rep. Luna, who up until the day of the vote Adam Schiff had never met, has promised to come back with another try.

 For the record, the 20 Republicans voting in favor of tabling the resolution were: Reps. Kelly Armstrong (N.D.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Tom Cole (Okla.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Kay Granger (Texas), Garret Graves (La.), Thomas Kean Jr. (N.J.), Kevin Kiley (Calif.), Young Kim (Calif.), Mike Lawler (N.Y.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Mark Molinaro (N.Y.), Jay Obernolte (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Mike Turner (Ohio), David Valadao (Calif.) and Steve Womack (Ark.).

Interestingly,  Rep. George Santos, the House “Liar-in-Chief” who hours earlier had posted a video on Twitter arguing that Schiff needed to be investigated, wound up voting “present” - certifying that he was there, but chose not to vote. Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie, who voted in favor of tabling the resolution, proved that it is possible for one to do the right thing for the wrong reason. In his statement explaining his vote, he said he would vote against the censure resolution, aligning with Democrats

 “Adam Schiff acted unethically but if a resolution to fine him $16 million comes to the floor, I will vote to table it. (Vote against it) In fact, I’m still litigating a federal lawsuit against Pelosi over a salary reduction she imposed on me for my refusal to wear a mask,” Massie tweeted.

 In other words, Massie couldn't vote for this idiotic censure/expulsion/financial fine measure because it might complicate his equally idiotic lawsuit against Nancy Pelosi. Gift horses, you know. Mouths.

 Whatever their reasons, the fact that one-in-ten Republicans turned against Rep. Luna(tic)’s resolution is a very good thing. Could it indicate that a measure of mental health, a scintilla of sanity has, even if but for a moment, returned to the House of Representatives? Could it mean that for the first time in a long time, merely being opposed to a person’s politics need not mean that the person you disagree with should have their career, their life’s work emblazoned with a scarlet letter . . . or in this case, perhaps, a yellow star?

 One can only hope.

 Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

The Clown Car is All Gassed Up . . . But With No Place to Go

Whether the great unwashed majority realizes it or not, we the American people have just gone through the eeriest, most divisive week of political danse macbre in at least the past 150 years. It took 15 votes - 15 VOTES - over 4 days for Kevin McCarthy to fulfill his lifelong dream of becoming Speaker of the House of Representatives. He managed to accomplish his single-vote victory by trading away virtually all the powers historically vested in the Speaker. He ran a race fueled not by a set of political goals or principles, but solely by the power of his ego. And so, within less than 168 hours, the House went from being a body run by Nancy Pelosi, one of the strongest, most powerful and politically adroit Speakers in all American history, to Kevin McCarthy, whose speakership could come crashing down with a mere finger snap on the part of Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert or any of a number of Freedom Caucus clowns.  Indeed, the House has quickly gone from a body led by a cunning tigress to one that whose leader is both defanged and likely on the road to political defenestration.

Precisely what Speaker McCarthy had to give in to in order to win the gavel is, at this point, unknown. Bits and pieces of his most craven concessions may be easily assumed, such as bestowing plumb committee assignments (Rules, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Judiciary) and chairmanships of various subcommittees to Freedom Caucus disrupters and election deniers. We already know that a minimum of 3 Freedom Caucus members will be appointed to House Rules, easily the most crucial committee under the dome.

Unlike most other committees, Rules is not concerned with policy substance; rather, it is what incoming chair, Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma explained to VOX, “. . . is a process committee.” Its role is to set the terms of debate and decide whether bills are subject to amendments on the floor . . . and whether they need to be germane to the subject at hand. It has long been the redoubt (e.g., protective barrier) of House leadership in both parties and exists, in Cole’s words, to “make sure [legislation] gets to the floor in the form that the speaker thinks [or in the case of Kevin McCarthy, is told he thinks] is most likely to pass.” Even more importantly, this committee can keep any bill they don’t like from ever reaching the floor . . . without the House resorting to what is called a discharge petition . . . a means of bringing a bill out of committee and to the floor for consideration without a report from the committee. The problem is, according to clause 2 of rule XV of the Rules of the House, it requires a majority vote in order to succeed.  Good luck!

From what has been learned, McCarthy’s highest-profile concession: to allow any one member — down from his previous compromise of five — to force a House-wide no-confidence vote in the speaker at any time (known as “a motion to vacate”).  Under Speaker Pelosi, a motion to vacate could be offered on the House floor only if a majority of either party agreed to it.  Prior to Pelosi’s revolution, a motion to vacate could be put forth at the instigation of a single member . . . that which McCarthy has relented to.  Therefore, the issue isn’t even that a single member could topple a speaker; it would still take a majority vote of the entire House to actually vacate the seat. Instead, the real issue is that the current, 10-seat Republican majority is so small — and McCarthy’s speakership victory so slim — that the threat of defection is likely to loom over every bill, giving the same rebels who have paralyzed Congress this week endless opportunities to do the same thing again and again.  

What this adds up to is an extraordinary amount of leverage for a miniscule group of men and women who were, in large part, Congressional instigators and backers of the January 6 rebellion.  

These are people who have no political agenda or platform.  They aren’t, when all is said and done, true conservatives,  What they are is a gaggle of libertarians, Christian Nationalists, White Supremacists, “Great Replacement” theorists and QAnon-believing conspirators bent on shrinking the federal government to the point where it can fit into a ditty bag.  

The most frightening thing about all this is that people like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Eli Crane, Bob Good, Matt Rosendale, Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz (the “Ken & Barbie” of Capitol Hill) will, without blinking an eye, do everything in their power to make  sure the debt ceiling is not raised (which will cause America to default, thus causing the stock market to crash, I.R.A.s to become worthless and likely bring on an international Depression (and in their hopes and dreams the Second Coming); cut off all future aid to Ukraine and restore Jim Crow laws.  And they will do all this in the name of “Making America great again!”  And Speaker McCarthy won’t be able to do a thing about it . . . for fear that a single passenger on the Congressional Clown Car will call for a motion to vacate.  And you know what?  He won’t have anyone to blame save himself and his Brobdingnagian ego. The House will be thrown back into utter chaos.

This is no time for Democratic schadenfreude - deriving pleasure from another’s complete misfortune; if the Republicans stomp on the clown car brakes, we all - and I mean we all will suffer. Merely saying “Well, these mental schlubs brought it on themselves” won’t accomplish a damn thing So what can be done? If Democrats band together and refuse to lift a finger of assistance to Speaker McCarthy, it is likely that come 2024, Republicans will suffer a cataclysmic fall the likes of which has never been seen in all American history. But then too, so will all of us. Perhaps under Minority Leader Jeffries (who, by the way gave a historic, brilliant speech stressing the “A-to-Zs” of what Democrats stand for) could, working with his own caucus add just enough votes to keep McCarthy out of the political snake pit whenever he (meaning McCarthy) faces a motion to vacate. In theory, that could force the speaker and the so-called “moderate” Republicans to cut the Democrats a bit of slack out of gratitude. Then too, during a future motion to vacate, perhaps the Democrats could put together a kind of coalition approach to House governance that would essentially throw the clowns off the bus.

Whatever the case, there is no question but that we are going to continue to be observers - if not participants - in history’s eeriest political danse macabre.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone

George Santos, Theda Bara and Other Fabulists

A note to you, my beloved readers: I had been intending for this end-of-the-year essay to be a wrap-up of the 1-6 Committee’s mammoth 945-page final report. Try as I might, I simply could not finish reading it in its entirety before my personal deadline. It is both a work of historic importance and a world-class page-turner. It reads like a finely composed novel . . . and yet is both meticulously-well researched and filled with more verifiable footnotes than the Babylonian Talmud. I promise you that in the next several weeks, I will post an essay that gathers my thoughts, and attempts to put this singular work into its proper historic context . . . In the meantime, let’s spend a little time with Representative-Elect George Santos . . . and such long-forgotten silent movie superstars as Theda Bara, Olga Petrova and Jetta Goudal . . . all of whom have something in common . . .  KFS)

Next to politicians and their campaign handlers, there have likely never been more successful fabulists (liars, that is) on the face of the earth than Golden-Age Hollywood P.R. Directors and the stars they created. Like all you, I have been reading about all the lies Rep.-Elect George Santo ran on this past election season. He managed to mislead voters about his work and educational history, his family’s heritage, his past philanthropic efforts and his business dealings. He claimed he was Jewish and that his maternal grandparents were European “Holocaust refugees.” (They actually were from Brazil, and he actually is Catholic.) He claimed to have graduated from Baruch College in 2010 and to have attended New York University. He repeatedly claimed that his mother Fatimah Devolder, who died of cancer in 2016, was a 9/11 survivor who was “in her office in the South Tower on September 11, 2001,” and “passed away a few years later when she lost her battle to cancer.”  He claimed to have lost four employees in the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., in 2016, and that he worked for Citigroup and for Goldman Sachs on Wall Street. None of that appears true — and that is only a partial list.

 As the Biblical Kohelet (King Solomon, writing under a pseudonym) famously claimed, “There is nothing new under the sun.” When it comes to both the famous and infamous of my hometown, Hollywood, California, this is triply true. Oh so many of our neighbors were known to the public by names (and biographies) fabricated by studio press agents rather than given by their parents. (Constant readers may recall a piece I posted nearly 3 1/2 years ago on my “Tales From Hollywood and Vine” blog entitled What’s In a Name? which introduced readers to the real (e.g. birth) names of tens of dozens of Hollywood stars, directors and screenwriters. In our house, Mom (a.k.a. “Madam”) was a master; she knew virtually everyone’s real name, where they were born, and who they really were before becoming famous.

A couple of famous examples:

• Although not the first silent movie vamp, Theda Bara (at left) was certainly the most popular and successful. According to information released by her studio (Wm. Fox), this slightly zoftig seductress who, with one sultry glance could drive any man over the edge, was sold to the public as "the daughter of an Arab sheik and a French woman, born in the Sahara" (Other press releases had her mother being the daughter of an Italian nobleman and baby Theda’s birthplace being in “the shadow of the Sphinx). And her name, fans were told, was an anagram for “Arab Death.” In truth, she was born Theodosia Goodman in the Avondale section of Cincinnati in late July 1885, the daughter of a prosperous Jewish tailor from Poland named Bernard Goodman. Bernie and his wife, Pauline, named their daughter Theodosia, after a daughter of the late U.S. Vice President, Aaron Burr. And so, Theodosia (nicknamed “Teddy” from her youth), would, by age 29, become the highest-paid movie star in the world, playing Cleopatra and other assorted man-devouring vamps. At her height, she made $4,000 a week (more than $60,000 in 2023 dollars . . . and without having  to pay income tax), was able to retire by age 35, and spend the rest of her life as a wealthy matron in Beverly Hills.

• Muriel Harding, born and raised in the distinctly non-glamorous English port town of Hull, somehow, despite her lower-class upbringing and distinctive Yorkshire accent, would be one day become Olga Petrova, one of early filmdom’s most exotic feminists. Built up as a daughter of Russian royalty, in the early teens, she was a widely popular actress, starring in more than 30 full-length motion pictures for Solax, the first studio owned and run by a woman, the producer/director Alice Guy.  Always billed as “Madame Petrova,” she starred on Broadway, wrote numerous plays, a fascinating (though utterly untruthful) autobiography Butter With My Bread,  and spent her retirement in Clearwater, Florida, passing away at age 93 on the last day of November, 1977. 

• Last but not least, let’s not forget the ultimate filmland diva, Jetta Goudal (1891-1985). In her heyday, the darkly exotic Ms. Goudal (her name being pronounced Zah-hettah Goo-doll) was a star who rivaled Gloria Swanson, starring in such classic films as Salome of the Tenements and D.W. Griffith’s Lady of the Pavements.  Arriving in the United States at the close of World War I (after a career on the European stage), she presented herself as “Jetta Goudal, Parisienne-born in Versailles in 1901 and the daughter of a prominent lawyer.”  In matter of fact, she was Julie Henriette Goudeket, born in Amsterdam ten years earlier (1891) to Wolf Mozes Goudeket, a wealthy Orthodox Jewish diamond cutter. Coming to the United States wound up saving her life; virtually her entire family died in Nazi death camps.  Following her film career, she and her longtime (1930-1985) husband, Harold Grieve, became two of the most popular interior decorators in the community. No one - save native Hollywoodites - knew of her family background or history. (n,b.: imperious to the end (she lived to 94) Jetta actually sued Volkswagen over “Copyright Infringement” for calling one of the new line of autos the “Jetta.”  The case died a quick death.)  

Few, if any would ever think of holding made-up names and family histories against actors, dancers, directors and studio p.r. staffs.  That Jonas Sternberg would start calling himself Josef von Sternberg, Jacob Krantz Ricardo Cortez, Spangler Arlington Brugh Robert Taylor,  or Texas-born Tula Ellice Finklea Cyd Charisse (and occasionally Maria Istomina, Felia Sidorova and Natacha Tulaelis) is pretty much de rigueur in art forms based on the creation of fictional characters.  But politics?  That’s a whole other slab of cheese.  During the current George Santos imbroglio, one occasionally hears Republicans gleefully reminding their followers of the lies of President Joseph R. Biden and Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal . . . and once in a blue moon, a Democrat will bring up Ronald Reagan’s conflated record in WWII.  (Nearly all of Reagan’s wartime stories and recollections took place at the old Hal Roach Studios (lovingly referred to as “Fort Roach”) where he made training films.  The studio was located at 8822 Washington Boulevard in Culver City.

So far as  Biden and Blumenthal, they both have been caught in telling tales.  In his closing remarks at a 1987 Democratic presidential debate, Biden lifted passages from one of British Labour Party Leader’s Neil  Kinnock’s most moving speeches without attribution.  Biden’s boo-boo was discovered, he both admitted and apologized for his error; it likely cost him the nomination.  Interestingly, in 2020, Kinnock, by now a Labour Peer, interviewed about the 1987 plagiarism ‘scandal’ said that he had always considered it “an innocent mistake.”  “Joe’s an honest guy. If Trump had done it, I would know that he was lying.”  

Then there was Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal. During the September 2018 hearings on Brett Kavanaugh for a acant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, there was much back-and-forth on Kavanaugh’s credibility . . . especially in the area of taking unwanted liberties with women. At one point, Senator Blumenthal told MSNBC that proceeding with Kavanaugh's nomination would "forever stain the Supreme Court.” That quickly brought back the issue of Blumenthal’s successful 2010 campaign for the United States Senate during which the then long-serving Connecticut A.G. said that he had "misspoken" about his military service during the Vietnam War after the New York Times obtained his Selective Service Record, which showed he received five separate draft deferments while a college student and then, when those deferments ran out, secured a spot in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves (serving stateside, not in Vietnam). The issue quickly died down and he went on to win. But to this day, Republicans use it against him as proof that he is no more honest than Donald Trump . . . or George Santos.

Ah but there is a huge difference here: both Biden and Blumenthal have nearly 85 years in elected office between them; their fables have been far and few between; they have a lengthy, lengthy record of positive service which more than outweighs their past errors. Such is not the case with George Santos; without even having taken the oath of office (which could occur tomorrow, January 3), he has yet to be truthful about anything.

A couple of questions emerge at this time:

1.    How could such a pathological liar ever get elected in the first place

2.    What should be done about him?

As to the first question, it would be easy to blame the Democrats for falling down in their opposition  research and the Republicans for turning a blind eye and keeping their mouths shut.  In point of face, there was quite a bit of information available on the man many Republicans in New York’s 3rd District were already referring to as “George Scam-tos.”  The Long Island North Shore Leader revealed quite a bit about him months before the election: “In a list of complaints about the candidate, the paper called out Santos’ policy stances on abortion and Ukraine. It also pointed out that his claim to real estate ownership was false “He brags about his ‘wealth’ and his ‘mansions’ in the Hamptons – but he really lives in a row house in Queens,” the paper wrote. They said he was involved in a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme shut down by the SEC, questioned the use of money raised for his campaign, and his net-worth.  “Santos had no visible campaign until a few weeks ago - no offices, no signs, no mailings, no significant ‘voter contact,’” the paper reported.  The failure is on both sides of the aisle.  Opposition  research (and conversely, the investigation of one’s own candidate, the idea being “If we can find out the dirt about our candidate, so can they”) is cheap, readily accomplished and absolutely essential.  I remember doing research on one our our guys back in the early ‘70s . . . and this was long before Google, Lexus-Nexus and the like. It was pretty easy . . . 

As to the second question, Santos, I firmly believe, is about to become the Republican’s eternal 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, and the Democrat’s oh-so-easy chip-shot . . . to put things into pre-Super Bowl terms.  Come tomorrow, Kevin McCarthy is going to need Santos’ vote in order to become Speaker of the House. He (or whomsoever ultimately wins) will either refuse to give George Santos committee assignments or merely seat him on such duds as The Joint Committee on Printing or the Joint Committee on the Library, on neither of which can he do any harm or gain any press coverage.  Then too, he could resign (possible),be expelled (highly unlikely) or be arrested (there are, after-all, already federal finance cases in the works).  The chances of his ever being reelected are about a million-to-one. The changes of a Democrat replacing him are pretty good.

 No one but true movie buffs and real Hollywood Brats remember Theda Bara, Olga Petrova or Jetta Goudal. They all had their day in the sun, scaled the heights, made their fortunes and wound up living long lives of abundance, far away from the kleig lights of yesteryear. I don’t predict such idyllic circumstances for George Santos. He neither deserves nor or is worth it.

May you reign as the butt of late-night talk show jokes. You’ve certainly earned it.

Wishing one and all a yom slyvester samayach - “A happy Sylvester Day!” which is the Israeli greeting for the secular new year. May 2023 be filled with good health, the ebbing of hatred and increasing santiy.

Copyright©2023 Kurt F. Stone