George

George Santos describes ‘rotting facilities,’ vows prison reform

Oct. 19 (UPI) — Former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., a convicted fraudster and identity thief, has said he will work to reform U.S. prisons, having been released from a penitentiary Friday by President Donald Trump.

Trump commuted Santos’s seven-year sentence for wire fraud and identity theft, the latest in a series of moves by Trump to exonerate associates and Republicans involved in criminal activity.

Santos was expelled from the U.S. House in 2023 after refusing to resign following a scathing ethics investigation uncovered his criminal activity. In an interview with the Washington Post, Santos called his time in federal prison “dehumanizing” and “humbling.”

The former representative admitted to stealing the identities of 11 people, including his own family members. He served 84 days in prison before being exonerated by Trump and released from prison Friday night. He also admitted that he embellished and fabricated his biography during his run for Congress in 2020.

Santos called the prison system, and the facility where he was housed, FCI Fairton in N.J., as “broken” with “rotting facilities, and administrators who seem incapable or unwilling to correct it.” He said a large hole in the ceiling exposed “thick, black mold,” and claimed broken air-conditioning systems forced inmates to endure sweltering heat.

“The building itself is hardly fit for long-term habitation: sheet metal walls, shoddy construction, the look and feel of a temporary warehouse rather than a permanent facility,” Santos wrote on The South Shore Press website while he was incarcerated.

As part of his plea deal, Santos agreed to pay $600,000 in restitution and forfeiture costs.

Santos pushed back on critics who claim the former congressman is not being held accountable for his crimes, and said that, beyond repentance, he has “dealt a second chance.”

“I understand people want to make this into “he’s getting away with it. I’m not getting away with it,” Santos said following his release. “I was the first person ever to go to federal prison for a civil violation … I don’t want to focus on trying to rehash the past and want to take the experience and do good and move on with the future.

In announcing Santo’s commutation on social media, Trump claimed that the former congressman had been “horribly mistreated,” and that “at least” the former representative had the “Courage, Conviction, and intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Santos, 37, served fewer than three months of his seven year sentence. He said he has no plans to re-enter politics and would do his best to repay campaign donors based on “whatever the law requires of me.”

Source link

Trump commutes sentence of GOP former Rep. George Santos in federal fraud case

President Trump said Friday that he had commuted the sentence of former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who is serving more than seven years in federal prison after pleading guilty to fraud and identity theft charges.

Joseph Murray, one of Santos’ lawyers, told the Associated Press late Friday that the former lawmaker was released from the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, N.J., around 11 p.m. and was greeted outside the facility by his family.

The New York Republican was sentenced in April after admitting last year to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of 11 people — including his own family members — to make donations to his campaign.

He reported to FCI Fairton on July 25 and was housed in a minimum-security prison camp with fewer than 50 other inmates.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on his social media platform. He said he had “just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY.”

“Good luck George, have a great life!” Trump said.

Santos’ account on X, which has been active throughout his roughly 84 days in prison, reposted a screenshot of Trump’s Truth Social post Friday.

During his time behind bars, Santos has been writing regular dispatches in a local newspaper on Long Island, N.Y., in which he mainly complained about the prison conditions.

In his latest letter, he pleaded to Trump directly, citing his fealty to the president’s agenda and to the Republican Party.

“Sir, I appeal to your sense of justice and humanity — the same qualities that have inspired millions of Americans to believe in you,” he wrote in the South Shore Press on Monday. “I humbly ask that you consider the unusual pain and hardship of this environment and allow me the opportunity to return to my family, my friends, and my community.”

Santos’ commutation is Trump’s latest high-profile act of clemency for former Republican politicians since retaking the White House in January.

Like Santos, Trump has been convicted of fraud. He was found guilty last year on 34 felony counts in a case related to paying hush money to a porn actor. He is the only president in U.S. history convicted of a felony.

In granting clemency to Santos, Trump was rewarding a figure who has drawn scorn from within his own party.

After becoming the first openly gay Republican elected to Congress in 2022, Santos served less than a year after it was revealed that he had fabricated much of his life story.

On the campaign trail, Santos had claimed he was a successful business consultant with Wall Street cred and a sizable real estate portfolio. But when his resume came under scrutiny, Santos eventually admitted he had never graduated from Baruch College — or been a standout player on the Manhattan college’s volleyball team, as he had claimed. He had never worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.

He wasn’t even Jewish. Santos insisted he meant he was “Jew-ish” because his mother’s family had a Jewish background, even though he was raised Catholic.

In truth, the then-34-year-old was struggling financially and faced eviction.

Santos was charged in 2023 with stealing from donors and his campaign, fraudulently collecting unemployment benefits and lying to Congress about his wealth.

Within months, he was expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives — with 105 Republicans joining with Democrats to make Santos just the sixth member in the chamber’s history to be ousted by colleagues.

Santos pleaded guilty as he was set to stand trial.

Still, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) urged the White House to commute Santos’ sentence, saying in a letter sent just days into his prison term that the punishment was “a grave injustice” and a product of judicial overreach.

Greene was among those who cheered the announcement Friday. But Rep. Nick LaLota, a Republican who represents part of Long Island and has been highly critical of Santos, said in a post on social media that Santos “didn’t merely lie” and his crimes “warrant more than a three-month sentence.”

“He should devote the rest of his life to demonstrating remorse and making restitution to those he wronged,” LaLota said.

Santos’ clemency appears to clear not just his prison term, but also any “further fines, restitution, probation, supervised release, or other conditions,” according to a copy of Trump’s order posted on X by Ed Martin, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney.

As part of his guilty plea, Santos had agreed to pay restitution of $373,750 and forfeiture of $205,003.

In explaining his reason for granting Santos clemency, Trump claimed the lies Santos told about himself were no worse than misleading statements U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal — a Democrat and frequent critic of the administration —had made about his military record.

Blumenthal apologized 15 years ago for implying that he served in Vietnam, when he was stateside in the Marine Reserve during the war. The senator was never accused of violating any law.

“This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!” Trump wrote.

Marcelo writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Michael R. Sisak in New York and Susan Haigh in Connecticut contributed to this report.

Source link

Trump commutes sentence of former Republican lawmaker George Santos | Donald Trump News

George Santos, serving a prison term on charges of fraud and identity theft, had been held in solitary confinement.

United States President Donald Trump has said that he will commute the sentence of former Republican Representative George Santos, who was serving a prison sentence for fraud and identity theft.

In a social media post on Friday, Trump acknowledged that Santos had made mistakes. But he celebrated Santos as a strong supporter of the Republican Party and noted that family and friends had raised concerns over the former lawmaker’s conditions in prison.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.

“At least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Trump added that Santos has been “horribly mistreated”, citing his isolation behind bars: “George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time.”

Santos became a well-known political figure after his election victory in 2022, when he flipped New York’s 3rd Congressional District from Democratic control to Republican.

Election observers noted it was one of the first times an openly gay Republican had won a seat in the House of Representatives.

But news reports quickly revealed that Santos had fabricated key details of his life story, and by December 2022, investigators had started to delve into his business dealings.

After a congressional committee found evidence that Santos had violated federal law, including by deceiving donors and stealing from his own campaign, the House of Representatives voted to expel him. Santos was less than a year into his term.

By 2024, Santos had entered into a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial over the allegations. He was sentenced in April for deceiving donors and misleading 11 people, including members of his own family, into giving money to his campaign.

But Santos, a vocal Trump supporter, quickly began a push for the president to commute his prison time, claiming that his punishment was politically motivated.

Trump has also depicted himself as a victim of unjust persecution at the hands of political enemies. He is known to use the power of presidential pardon on behalf of his supporters.

At the beginning of his current term, for example, Trump controversially pardoned nearly all of those charged with participating in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. That attack was part of a bid to violently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.

Santos and his allies have also drawn attention to his placement in solitary confinement. Though cells meant to maximise isolation are common in US prisons, critics argue they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment”, given their connection to mental health issues and heightened risks of suicide.

Santos entered the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, on July 25. He has written several columns about his experience with solitary confinement since then, reiterating his appeal for Trump to show mercy.

“I am not asking for special treatment. I am asking to be treated as a person – with attention, dignity, and the care any human deserves when in distress,” he wrote in an opinion column.

“And yes, I renew my plea to President Trump: intervene. Help me escape this daily torment and let me return to my family.”

Source link

Disgraced ex-lawmaker George Santos freed from prison by Trump

Oct. 17 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday night said he commuted the sentence of George Santos, freeing the former Republican U.S. House member after just three months in federal prison.

Santos, who served in the House for less than one year, was sentenced to more than seven years in prison after pleading guilty to charges of committing wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Santos, 37, reported to a federal facility in Fairton, N.Y., on July 25.

Santos also gained prominence for lying about his employment history and education, and information about his family.

“George has been in solitary confinement for long stretches of time and, by all accounts, has been horribly mistreated,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Therefore, I just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!”

Trump left the White House on Friday to spend the weekend in Florida. He’s the keynote speaker Friday night at a fundraiser for the super PAC MAGA Inc.

A senior White House official told NBC News that Trump decided to help Santos this week and “many people wrote to him about it.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., had sought a pardon, which erases the legal consequences of a crime. A commutation only reduces the severity of the punishment.

Greene told NBC News this week that she had been in contact with the Department of Justice in recent weeks regarding the possibility, saying the sentence was overly harsh.

“George Santos never raped anybody, never murdered anybody, is not a child sex-trafficker. Why is he in solitary confinement?” she said. “That is an extreme treatment for someone for the crimes that he was convicted of.”

CNN didn’t receive comments from his lawyers.

Santos, before reporting to prison, told a Saudi outlet, Al Arabiya English, that he asked Trump for a pardon.

“I did not spend time in D.C. making friends,” Santos said. “I never made it to the president. I got stonewalled by the gatekeepers.”

From prison last week, Santos wrote a letter to Trump published in The South Shore Press: “Mr. President, I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for fairness — for the chance to rebuild. I know I have made mistakes in my past. I have faced my share of consequences, and I take full responsibility for my actions. But no man, no matter his flaws, deserves to be lost in the system, forgotten and unseen, enduring punishment far beyond what justice requires.”

Trump took notice of Santos’ situation.

“George Santos was somewhat of a ‘rogue,’ but there are many rogues throughout our Country that aren’t forced to serve seven years in prison,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “I started to think about George when the subject of Democrat Senator Richard ‘Da Nang Dick’ Blumenthal came up again.”

Trump explained that Blumenthal, who has served as a U.S. senator serving Connecticut for 14 1/2 years, lied about his military involvement.

“He was ‘a Great Hero,’ he would leak to any and all who would listen — And then it happened! He was a COMPLETE AND TOTAL FRAUD. He never went to Vietnam, he never saw Vietnam, he never experienced the Battles there, or anywhere else. … This is far worse than what George Santos did, and at least Santos had the Courage, Conviction, and Intelligence to ALWAYS VOTE REPUBLICAN!”

Santos fabricated parts of his biography, including falsely, saying that he was a “star” player on a championship volleyball team.

Santos was raised Catholic but claimed his mother had a Jewish background and that his maternal grandparents were Jewish refugees from Ukraine who survived the Holocaust. His grandparents were born in Brazil.

He also said his mother died in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, though she wasn’t in the United States at the time.

Santos took office on Jan. 3, 2023, serving in New York’s 3rd Congressional District.

On Nov. 16, 2023, Santos announced he would not seek re-election for the seat that serves parts of Long Island and Queens.

That day, the House Ethics Committee found that he “violated federal criminal laws.” The funds were used for personal purposes and he filed false campaign reports, the report said.

Despite a slim Republican majority and relying on his vote, the House expelled Santos the next month on Dec. 1, 2023. The 311-114 vote surpassed the required two-thirds majority.

He was the sixth lawmaker to be forced out of the chamber.

On March 7, 2024, he announced he would run as a Republican in the 1st Congressional District and 15 days later, Santos said he would seek the office as an independent. A month later, on April 23, he withdrew his candidacy.

He pleaded guilty on Aug. 19, 2024, in federal court in Central Islip, N.Y., and was sentenced on April 25.

“I deeply regret my conduct,” Santos said in court during his conviction and sentence. “I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

Source link

Strictly viewers spot last minute wardrobe change as George Clarke dances first Couple’s Choice – but did you see it?

STRICTLY viewers have spotted a last minute wardrobe change as George Clarke danced his first Couple’s Choice – but did you see it?

Podcaster and social media personality George, 25, is competing on the show alongside new pro partner, Alexis Warr, 25.

Johannes Radebe in a floral shirt, lilac pants, and a yellow beanie dancing.

4

Strictly viewers have spotted a last minute wardrobe change as George Clarke danced his first Couple’s Choice – but did you see it?
George Clarke in a yellow beanie and blue wig, making a fierce face and rock-and-roll hand gesture.

4

Viewers noticed that he had removed his blue wig before taking to the dance floorCredit: x/@Imogen_Alanah

George and Alexis took the floor tonight with their couple’s choice accompanied by Soda Pop from K-Pop Demon Hunters.

The lively hip-hop dance thrilled the audience but viewers spotted a last minute costume change.

Taking to social media one wrote: “Thank GOD the wig changed.”

Another added: “WHYD THEY GET RID OF THE WIG.”

While a third exclaimed: “Not George taking that ugly blue wig off.”

“The fact he said NO WIG for the show,” added another.

Wicked actress Cynthia Erivo praised the dancers and declared: “I am so proud of you because earlier I felt you were not taking yourself as seriously as you could.”

Shirley Ballas agreed and said: “You were flying like an angel.”

However, Anton Du Beke stated: “You came alive…but I thought it lacked a bit of edge.”

Craig Revel Horwood echoed this and said: “It needed to be sharper.”

Strictly Come Dancing fans brand huge judge shake-up ‘awkward’ as they beg BBC to make last-minute decision

But Oti Mabuse added: “You’re doing a beautiful job and keep going.”

When the scores came in George and Alexis received 6 points from Criag, 8 from Oti, 9 from Shirley and 8 from Anton giving them a respectable total of 31 points.

Cheers rose from the audience and the adorable pair looked very happy with their scores.

Meanwhile, viewers have branded the show’s latest judge shake-up awkward after a baffling decision.

Strictly Come Dancing 2025 lineup

Strictly Come Dancing news and the latest line up

Cynthia has spent the week working with the celebrities and their partners to help them with their performance and offering up her advice during their training.

However, when the live show kicked off, hosts Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman confirmed that despite the huge hype surrounding Cynthia being on the panel, the actress was barred from scoring the couples.

As she wasn’t allowed a paddle to mark the pairs, Cynthia found herself sitting awkwardly among the judging panel as the other four judges offered up their scores.

It left fans at home begging the BBC to let Cynthia have a paddle last-minute after branding her inclusion on the panel “awkward”.

Two dancers on a stage with a band in the background.

4

The judges were conflicted about the standard of the dance
A male dancer with a yellow beanie and an open floral shirt, next to a female dancer with purple hair and a yellow bomber jacket.

4

However, the couple were very happy with the judges overall score of 31 points

Source link

The Governor on the National Stage : An Analysis of George Deukmejian’s Standing in the National Political Arena and His Potential to Become a Major Player

Ronald Brownstein, a contributing editor of this magazine, is the West Coast correspondent and former White House correspondent for the National Journal. He is writing a book about the relationship between Hollywood and politics.

FOR SIX YEARS, Gov. George Deukmejian has successfully run a state bigger than most nations. But to the po litical elite of his own country, he couldn’t be much less visible than if he were the mayor of California’s insular state capital.

Interviews with more than two dozen Republican political consultants, Reagan Administration officials, California congressmen, and independent national policy analysts found that Deukmejian, for the governor of the nation’s largest state, has a remarkably low profile in national political circles–even as his name appears on lists of potential running mates for George Bush. The Iron Duke to his supporters, Deukmejian is virtually the Invisible Duke in national political terms. At best, with Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis poised to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in Atlanta this month, Deukmejian has acquired an identity as the Other Duke.

“There are people I’ve run into in the higher reaches of the federal government who don’t even know who the governor of California is,” says Martin Anderson, former chief domestic policy and economic adviser to President Reagan and now a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. “He is largely unknown in Republican circles,” agrees Republican political consultant John Buckley, press secretary for New York Rep. Jack F. Kemp’s presidential bid. “There is no perception of him,” says Roger J. Stone, another leading Republican political consultant.

Not all governors, of course, are national figures. But it has become increasingly common for the governors of major states to wield national clout. Many governors–from Republicans Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey and John H. Sununu of New Hampshire to Democrats Mario M. Cuomo of New York and Bill Clinton of Arkansas–are influential in shaping both the political agenda of their parties and the policy agenda of Congress, particularly on issues confronting the states.

By and large, Deukmejian hasn’t been among them. Deukmejian has not been a force on Capitol Hill. His relations with the California congressional delegation are cordial but distant, several members and aides say, and he has never testified before Congress. Nor has he been a significant participant in the Republican Party’s intramural ideological debates; he remained distant from the presidential primaries this year until the result was long decided. He rarely interacts with the national press corps or national conservative activists.

This parochialism is remarkable considering the lineage in which Deukmejian stands–one that traces back not only to such nationally prominent California governors as Ronald Reagan and Earl Warren, but also in a sense to New Yorkers Franklin D. Roosevelt and Thomas E. Dewey. In the first half of this century, when New York was the nation’s most populous and powerful state, its governors consistently shaped the national agenda. In the 12 presidential elections from 1904 to 1948, a New York governor headed the ticket for one or the other party nine times.

Since then, California has muscled its way to clear economic pre-eminence among the states, the economic boom fueling an explosion in population. Inexorably, if unevenly, political influence has followed. California now sends as many representatives to Congress as New York did at the height of its power; after the next congressional reapportionment (which will follow the 1990 Census), California will command a larger share of the Congress than any state in history. In the four decades before Deukmejian took office, every California governor save one made at least an exploratory run at the presidency. Earl Warren sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1948 and 1952. In 1960, Democrat Edmund G. (Pat) Brown seriously examined challenging John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and the rest of the Democratic field before deciding not to make the race.

Once California passed New York as the most populous state in 1964, it cemented its reputation as the launching pad for political trends, and its governors emerged as national figures almost as soon as they finished taking the oath of office. At the 1968 Republican convention, Ronald Reagan, just two years into his tenure as governor, offered himself for the presidency as the hero of the nascent anti-government conservative revolt. In 1976, Jerry Brown, also just two years into his term, declared the dawning of the “era of limits” and rocketed into the political stratosphere with a string of late primary victories over Jimmy Carter.

After Brown came Deukmejian, and as far as the spotlight of national attention was concerned, the heavy drapes fell around Sacramento. “I just sort of sensed the public at the time I came in was looking for a governor who would not be off running for some other office, and in fact, was going to be carrying a hands-on approach to state government,” Deukmejian says in a relaxed, wide-ranging interview in his small office in the state Capitol. “Also at the beginning we had some very severe financial difficulties (namely a $1.5-billion budget deficit he inherited from Brown). And when I won in my first election, it was by a very, very narrow margin, and I felt that I really had to concentrate on . . . what goes on in the state capital and building a much greater degree of support from the public before . . . taking some steps out toward more exposure on the national scene.”

Since then, though, Deukmejian has come a long way politically, which makes his low national profile remarkable for a second reason: None of his recent predecessors have been more popular or politically successful within the state than Deukmejian. His crushing reelection over Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in their 1986 rematch was a more decisive victory than Pat Brown, Ronald Reagan or Jerry Brown ever managed. Two years into his second term–when most of his predecessors had been hobbled by nicks and bruises–Deukmejian’s job approval ratings from Californians remain buoyant; his latest numbers in the Field Institute’s California Poll exceed Reagan’s highest marks at any point during his two terms. “He’s been a far better governor than Reagan,” says conservative Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove).

Sometimes governors get into trouble for paying too much attention to Washington and the bright lights of national politics. But Deukmejian has so secured his position in the state that no one would be likely to grumble if he examined the national terrain more purposefully. If anything, some Republicans are puzzled about Deukmejian’s passivity in pushing the cause of the party, the state and, not incidentally, himself. “Deukmejian is the first governor of the state that is the largest who is not a national factor,” Dornan says.

Politics, as much as nature, abhors a vacuum that immense, and events may be pulling Deukmejian, inch by inch, toward the national stage. Even though most Republican leaders have only vague impressions of Deukmejian, the popular governor cannot entirely escape notice. When the party gathers for its convention Aug. 15-18 in New Orleans, Deukmejian is bound to appear on the short list of Republicans positioned to compete not only for the vice presidency in 1988, but also for the party’s presidential nomination in the 1990s. And for all of his reticence, Deukmejian in recent months has become more willing to expose himself to audiences outside of the state. It is much too early, many national Republicans agree, to write off George Deukmejian as a force in the future of his party, well beyond the borders of California.

TODAY, however, Deukmejian stands on square one in national Republican circles. “People have no sense of him,” says political consultant Edward J. Rollins, who ran Reagan’s presidential reelection campaign and served as his chief political adviser in the White House from 1981 to 1985. “There is no question when he was first elected six years ago the potential was there for him to have a very big national profile, and I think a lot of people turned to him. There were a lot of comparisons between him and (New York Gov.) Cuomo, who was elected the same year. But he has sort of stayed where he’s at, and Cuomo has gone on to be a big national player.”

Cuomo has emerged partly because of his restless ambition, but also because he seems genuinely fascinated with public debate over the most fundamental social and moral issues. That’s a fascination Deukmejian, the diligent manager, doesn’t appear to share. He has always operated on the assumption that politicians who seek attention often find problems instead.

Whether for lack of interest or lack of time–as aides note, a governor of California has more to manage than a small-state governor such as Sununu or Clinton–Deukmejian simply hasn’t done the drill necessary to achieve national notice for himself and for issues affecting the state. Not much for mingling with the media at home, he has been aloof from the national media. His June appearance on ABC’s “This Week With David Brinkley” was his first on one of the national Sunday-morning interview shows, and his lack of experience in the fast-moving format showed. “It has been a mystery to those of us who are national conservatives why he will turn down appearances on the ‘Today Show,’ ‘Good Morning America,’ ‘CBS Morning News’ (and) ‘Nightline,’ ” Dornan says.

Deukmejian says he considers it “important, particularly on issues that affect California” to influence national-policy debates. “That’s why we have become very, very active in areas” such as national trade policy, he says. “Little by little, but in a very determined way, we’ve been trying to indicate our presence in that field of trade policy.” But almost all the outside observers interviewed had difficulty naming a front-burner national issue–trade or otherwise–on which Deukmejian has been a force.

“He has not become a national spokesman for quality education as an investment of the foundations of our economy; he hasn’t become a national spokesman on our relationship with Asia, which as a California governor he could do,” says Derek Shearer, a professor of public policy at Occidental College who has advised several Democratic presidential candidates.

Similarly, Deukmejian has had relatively little contact with the Republicans in the California congressional delegation. He has occasionally offered them opinions on pending legislation–he opposed, for example, protectionist amendments in the recent trade bill–but “there aren’t many such examples,” acknowledges his chief of staff, Michael Frost.

One California Republican representative, who asked not to be identified, complains that Deukmejian has virtually ignored Washington. “He has no dynamic presence, he hasn’t really pitched for anything, he hasn’t testified on stuff, he hasn’t looked for a role to play,” the representative says. “There are things the governor could do if he was looking to build a national base. Instead he comes back here quietly, has a quiet dinner and then quietly slips out of town. There has never been a closed-door, discuss-the-issues meeting with him and the delegation. He has come back a couple of times, but they have been very formal, overly organized, stilted lunches.”

Rep. David Dreier (R-La Verne), by contrast, defends Deukmejian, noting that “it bodes well” that the governor nominated a member of the congressional delegation, Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), to replace the late state treasurer, Jesse M. Unruh.

Nor has the Deukmejian Administration unveiled the dramatic initiatives that would bring Washington to him. Although Frost cites programs to combat AIDS and to commercialize research performed in state university labs, Deukmejian hasn’t turned many heads among Washington’s policy junkies–the analysts, authors and think-tank fellows who watch new ideas percolating in the state and bestow intellectual credibility on the creative politicians in the provinces. “In the 1980s, California has been in a state of governmental stagnation compared with previous decades,” says Jerry Hagstrom, author of “Beyond Reagan,” a recent book examining politics and policies in the 50 states.

To the extent Deukmejian has a national reputation, it is as a steadfast fiscal conservative, a skilled and dogged manager. “On the state level,” Deukmejian says, “I think people first of all expect us to run government in an efficient manner.” In his first term, Deukmejian withstood pressure to raise general taxes and used his line-item veto repeatedly to resist spending increases. From 1982 to 1986, the share of personal income claimed by state taxes in California declined slightly, whereas it increased in the states overall. That resistance to spending provides the one hook on which many national Republicans hang their vague images of Deukmejian. “The perception I find in many of my colleagues (outside of California) is that George Deukmejian exudes a kind of quiet competence,” Dreier says.

Deukmejian’s hesitant response to the recent state revenue shortfall–first proposing revenue-raising measures, then dropping them after Republicans rebelled–may stain that image, particularly if budget problems continue through the remainder of his term. But Deukmejian’s decision to back away from his tax proposal also enabled him to loudly reaffirm his opposition to new taxes. And that should serve him well over the long haul since anti-tax sentiments remain strong not only in the GOP but throughout the electorate. “I don’t think the average person feels as though they are overtaxed now,” Deukmejian says, “but they also aren’t asking for a tax increase.”

THIS SPRING’ Spersistent discussion about Deukmejian as a potential running-mate for George Bush has provided the governor with his first serious national attention. No matter how the rumor mill treats his prospects in the weeks leading up to the Republican convention, some Republican strategists believe the importance of California–which alone provides 17% of the electoral votes needed for victory–guarantees that Deukmejian “is absolutely permanently fixed in the top three vice-presidential choices,” as conservative political consultant David M. Carmen put it.

In the fall campaign, California may be not only the largest prize, but the pivotal one. Since World War II, the Republicans have owned this state in presidential politics, losing only twice. But they have almost always had the advantage of a native son on their ticket. In eight of the past 10 campaigns, the Republicans have nominated a Californian for President or vice president: Earl Warren was the GOP’s vice-presidential nominee in 1948; Richard M. Nixon was the party’s vice-presidential choice in 1952 and 1956, and its presidential nominee in 1960, 1968 and 1972; Reagan carried the GOP banner in 1980 and 1984. Only Warren, running with Dewey against Harry Truman, failed to bring home the state for his party.

No Democrat has carried this state in a presidential campaign since Lyndon Johnson. (Even without a Californian on the ticket, Ford edged Carter in 1976.) But Bush faces a surprisingly uphill battle. Independent polls show Dukakis leading Bush by double digits in California–a spread slightly larger than Dukakis’ margin in most national surveys. If Bush continues to trail so badly by the time the Republicans gather in New Orleans, he will undoubtedly face pressure for a dramatic vice-presidential selection. Those options are few: his chief rivals, Kansas Sen. Robert Dole or New York Rep. Jack F. Kemp perhaps, a woman such as Elizabeth Dole or Kansas Sen. Nancy Kassebaum to fight the gender gap, or Deukmejian to try to sew up California and block the Democrats from assembling an electoral college majority.

Deukmejian has said repeatedly he couldn’t take the vice-presidential nomination because, if the ticket won, he would have to turn over the statehouse to Democratic Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy. Deukmejian has insisted about as firmly as he plausibly can that he does not want to take the job and hand over the reins to McCarthy. “I just can’t see any situation–I really can’t see any situation–where I would be able, even if I were asked . . . to accept it,” he says. “I honestly don’t expect to be asked. I really think he can carry California without . . . me on the ticket, and there will probably be either some other areas of the country Bush will want to shore up. I’ve said for a long time if they see there is a very major gender gap, he might very easily pick a woman.”

But Deukmejian’s certainty in June and July may be irrelevant in August. Even such a close adviser as former chief of staff Steven A. Merksamer agrees that, for all the governor’s firmness today, it is impossible to predict what Deukmejian would say if Bush actually offers him the position. If Bush’s advisers decide that he can win only by carrying California and only do that by picking Deukmejian, most national Republicans doubt that the governor would hesitate for long. In those circumstances, how could Deukmejian argue that maintaining control of the statehouse is more important than holding the White House? “It would be” difficult to make that case, Deukmejian acknowledges, “but I hope I don’t have to.”

Few analysts today expect it to come down to that. To some extent, Bush’s advisers have accepted the conventional wisdom that choosing Deukmejian would so roil local Republicans that his selection could hurt the campaign here. And if Deukmejian joined the ticket, his recent problems with an unexpected budget deficit would complicate Republican efforts to criticize Dukakis for the similar shortfall he faces in Massachusetts.

In all likelihood, though, neither of those arguments are compelling enough to disqualify Deukmejian. The Massachusetts revenue shortfall is unlikely to be a decisive issue in any case. And as Bush’s problems deepen, local opposition to Deukmejian as vice president diminishes. Instead, the key question is whether Deukmejian’s presence on the ticket really could ensure Bush victory in California. If Deukmejian can’t deliver California, there’s no reason to nominate him since he is unlikely to help much anywhere else.

Early polls differ on how much Deukmejian would help Bush. Pollster Mervin Field believes Californians are unlikely to vote for a ticket just because it has a local office-holder on it, though the state’s recent electoral history certainly suggests otherwise. On a more tangible level, Deukmejian may not have enough appeal for the crucial blue-collar suburban Democrats to put Bush over the top. “I think it is unlikely he will be chosen because I don’t think you would see any numbers where George Deukmejian would add that much to the ticket,” says one Bush adviser. Still, the talk of Deukmejian won’t die down soon because it may not take that much to turn the result in California–and the nation.

EVEN IF Deukmejian comes out of New Orleans with nothing on his plate but some gumbo and a return ticket to Sacramento, many local and national Republicans believe the governor could yet become a significant factor within the GOP, if he decides to work at it. As governor of a state this large, Deukmejian can always make himself heard. “It is inevitable,” predicts former Reagan aide Anderson, “that Deukmejian will become a major, if not the major, figure in the party in future years.”

If Bush doesn’t succeed this fall, and Deukmejian wins reelection in 1990, the objective factors for a Duke-in-’92 presidential bid are intriguing, some Republicans believe. Deukmejian’s name usually appears on the early lists of potential contenders, though admittedly more because of where than who he is. “He gets mentioned because The Great Mentioner turns to Republicans (and says) California is a big state and you have to mention Deukmejian,” says Washington-based Republican media consultant Mike Murphy.

In 1992, the Republican field mobilizing against a President Dukakis could be much like the Democratic field in 1988, with no clear front runner and no candidate with a deep national base of support. Texas-based Republican pollster V. Lance Tarrance, who advises Deukmejian, thinks that if Bush loses, some candidates (for example Sens. Phil Gramm of Texas and William L. Armstrong of Colorado) would run as issue-oriented ideological revolutionaries and another group would run as capable, tested administrators. As governor of this sprawling nation-state, Tarrance argues, Deukmejian brings to the table solid administrative credibility.

Deukmejian would bring another significant advantage to such a hypothetical nomination contest. As Dukakis demonstrated this year, in such a murky atmosphere, a candidate who can raise the large sums it takes to cut through the clutter is difficult to stop. With a huge and prosperous home state on which to draw, and a skilled team led by Karl M. Samuelian, Deukmejian’s fund-raising potential matches that of any Republican.

Before we pull this Deukmejian train out of the station, a few reality checks might be in order. Reality check No. 1: This is not a man who sets hearts aflutter. Deukmejian’s detractors–and even some of his friends–point out that as far as charisma goes, he makes “Dukakis look like the Beatles.” But if charisma was the key to national success, Dukakis and Bush would be looking for other work. Besides, Deukmejian’s campaign presence is usually underrated. It’s not hard to imagine Deukmejian performing at least at the level of this year’s nominees. Somewhat prosaic and uninspiring, Deukmejian is far from the best campaigner in the world, but he’s not the worst either–with an easygoing, unassuming amiability that wears well on voters. With the press he is personable and unaffected, and though he is sometimes defensive, Deukmejian can defuse tension with unexpected flashes of self-deprecating humor.

Second reality check: This is not a man who suffers from a visible need to make himself a household name. Deukmejian has always enjoyed governing more than campaigning, and many Republican strategists believe he lacks the fire to push himself through the demanding course that any effort to emerge nationally would require.”I just don’t know if the energy and the ideas and the intensity is there,” said an adviser to another Republican angling for the presidency in the 1990s.

While some of those around him would probably like the governor to seek the White House, Deukmejian clearly isn’t consumed with ambition to move up. Seeking the presidency someday now seems to him, “out of the question,” he says. “When I started in the Assembly and later in the Senate, I could say, yes, in my mind that if the opportunity presented itself I’d like to be governor. But I’ve never really had as a goal that I would want to seek the presidency.” He speaks with a combination of amazement and scorn of politicians “who seem to live and breathe and eat politics.”

On the other hand, Deukmejian only became governor by winning an arduous primary against Lt. Gov. Mike Curb, the choice of the California Republican establishment, and then hanging tough against Los Angeles’ popular Mayor Bradley. That is not the profile of a man impervious to ambition’s insistent tug. “He is modest in his demeanor,” says state Republican chairman Bob Naylor, “but there is ambition there.”

Midway through his second term, Deukmejian has shown flashes of interest in examining the world beyond Sacramento. The governor has not pursued opportunities as systematically as Kean and some others, and insists the recent increase in his out-of-state activity “has been primarily just to be of help to the national ticket.” Deukmejian denies any interest in raising his own profile for its own sake. “I’m not out looking for things to do,” he says, “but we do get requests, and I feel a little more comfortable in accepting some of those.” Whatever the motivation, his recent activity and upcoming schedule add up to a typically cautious effort to broaden his horizons.

In April, Deukmejian visited Texas to address a Republican party fund-raiser and drew high marks for a speech in which he gleefully bashed Dukakis. Deukmejian has scheduled four more out of state appearances at Republican fund-raisers through the campaign–including speeches in New York City and Florida. And in recent months he has become more active in governor’s activities. This winter, he assumed the chairmanship of a National Governors Assn. subcommittee on criminal justice–the first time he’s accepted such a responsibility. He’s currently vice chairman of the Western Governors Assn. and is scheduled to become chairman of the group next year. In the second term, he has also seasoned himself with international trade missions to Japan and Europe; later this month he’s scheduled to visit Australia, Hong Kong, the Philippines and Korea. He has formed a political action committee, Citizens for Common Sense, to build a statewide grass-roots political organization and fund his travel.

Deukmejian still isn’t looking for excuses to visit Washington. “I’m not anxious to make that trip back and forth anymore often than I have to,” he says. Earlier this year, he turned down an invitation to attend the Gridiron dinner, the annual closed-door gathering of the capital’s journalistic and political elite. But he did make a well-received address to the conservative Heritage Foundation last fall, and aides say his recent ABC appearance may signal a more open attitude toward the national press.

Third reality check: Even if he’s willing to hit the road, does Deukmejian have anything to say? Now that the Reagan era is ending, the GOP is groping for new direction. But unlike Reagan with his anti-government insurrection, or Kemp with his supply-side economic populism, or New Jersey’s Kean with his brotherly “politics of inclusion” aimed at broadening the party’s base, Deukmejian has offered no overarching vision of the Republican future. Asked to define the fundamental principles that have informed his administration, Deukmejian first listed “a common sense approach to running government.” Try constructing a banner around that. In Jesse Jackson’s terms, this is a jelly-maker not a tree-shaker.

The brightest ideological line running through Deukmejian’s politics is suspicion of government expansion. In that, he’s closer to Reagan than most of the emerging GOP leaders. In office, Deukmejian, like Reagan, has generally been more successful at saying no than yes. His first term, dominated by his unyielding resistance to Democratic spending, had a much sharper focus than his second term. That could be because the times are subtly changing. The polls have shifted, with more people demanding more services from government, and Deukmejian has been somewhat uncertain in his reaction– hesitancy demonstrated by his ultimately passive response to the revenue shortfall. (After he dropped his tax plan, the governor essentially told the Legislature to solve the problem.) He has pushed bond issues to pay for transportation and school construction needs, and increased education spending faster than his predecessors. But unmet needs are accumulating too; huge enrollment growth, for instance, is consuming the increases in school funding and driving the state back below the national average in per capita spending on elementary and secondary school education.

Those concerns about infrastructure and education, Deukmejian acknowledges, could threaten the state’s economic future. But so too, he maintained, would a tax hike that might make firms less likely to settle or expand here. “Our two main challenges are growth and the competition we’re faced with from other states for business investment,” he says. “So you have to try to strike a balance so you can meet the needs of the people in terms of growth, and at the same time be aware . . . that all the other states are out there competing very strongly for jobs, and foreign nations are out there competing.”

Democrats believe Deukmejian has struck too penurious a balance and hope the 1990 gubernatorial race will pivot on Deukmejian’s tough line against expanding government in a period of expanding needs. “They are too trapped in the present, worrying about this budget year, how much is it going to cost, and they are not thinking through in a systematic way how to plan for the future,” charges State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who may challenge Deukmejian in 1990 as a Democrat.

Those accusations may ultimately cause Deukmejian problems, and the law of political gravity–which holds that everyone eventually comes down–virtually guarantees that his approval ratings will sag at least somewhat. Some Democrats believe Deukmejian has never really been tested because in his 1978 election as attorney general and his two gubernatorial races he bested liberal black Democrats–a tough sell statewide. His opposition in 1990 should be more formidable, with Honig, Atty. Gen. John van de Kamp, former San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and Controller Gray Davis all considering the race.

But his position is solid, especially for a governor so long on the scene. After the June defeat of the Honig-backed proposition to loosen restrictions on state spending, the Democrats may have trouble constructing a campaign around the argument “that the government isn’t spending enough tax dollars,” says chief of staff Frost. With the economy roaring, public opposition to taxes undiminished, and his government free from scandals, even many Democrats and independent analysts believe Deukmejian must be favored for a third term. He says he will decide whether to run again “by the end of this year or early next year.”

If Deukmejian punches through that historic third-term barrier–something only Earl Warren has done–he may be in a much better position to emerge as a national Republican leader than it now appears, particularly if Bush falls this November. Though Deukmejian hasn’t produced the bold initiatives that attract the national press and political elite, his political identity rests on positions consonant with the mainstream Republican electorate: a tough stand against crime, taxes and government spending. “He fits the Republican party like a glove,” says Anderson.

And he has, in California’s blistering economic performance, a powerful calling card. Dukakis’s experience may be suggestive of Deukmejian’s possibilities. Unlike his California counterpart, Dukakis had the advantage of some innovative policies (welfare reform, and a tax amnesty program) to sell, and much more exposure to the national elite, which gave him early credibility. But ultimately Dukakis based his presidential campaign on a story of state economic success. Deukmejian has at least as compelling an economic success story.

Deukmejian’s tough stand against taxes and conservative approach to government regulation may or may not explain California’s success, but questions about Dukakis’ role haven’t hurt his efforts to identify with the Massachusetts miracle. (In both places, Reagan’s defense build-up deserves a significant share of the credit.) And if Massachusetts is a miracle, what’s the right word to describe California, which created 2.1 million new jobs–almost five times as many as Massachusetts, and nearly one of every six non-agricultural jobs in the nation–from 1983 through 1987? In the last five years, California has created almost half of the nation’s new manufacturing jobs, according to the state Department of Commerce. For Deukmejian, the path to prominence could be built on nothing more complicated than promising “to do for the nation what he did for California,” insists pollster Tarrance.

True, Deukmejian faces the risk that the state’s problems in education, infrastructure and growth will tarnish that claim. But if this stubborn governor can demonstrate the flexibility to confront those challenges without violating his conservative principles–the key open question looming before him–he can convincingly hold up California as the prototype of a state that’s racing pell-mell into the future. In a recent speech before a business group, Deukmejian offered what might become his slogan: “Each day our state gives the rest of the nation a glimpse of tomorrow–of the progress that is within our reach.”

Although he’s done little to cultivate them, California’s success has placed possibilities within Deukmejian’s reach, too: Now the question is, does the Duke have the right stuff to reach out and grab them?

Source link

George Gilbert’s Big Brother exit in full ahead of controversial episode

George Gilbert was repeatedly warned by Big Brother for using offensive language and has now been removed from the ITV show in scenes that will air tonight’s episode

Big Brother contestant George Gilbert has been asked to leave the show following repeated use of offensive language. The 23-year-old’s removal will be aired in tonight’s episode.

George has been a controversial figure on the show since he entered, as he has had several arguments with other housemates over political issues like immigration and homelessness. He was also given a formal warning by Big Brother after doing a homophobic impression of another housemate, Sam Ashby, in a game of Truth or Dare.

In scenes deemed by ITV to be too offensive to air, George is said to have made an antisemitic comment that led to his ejection from the house. His full exit will be shown tonight (9 October).

READ MORE: Amazon shoppers can bag an Echo Pop for less than £8 a day before Prime Day startsREAD MORE: Big Brother’s George Gilbert worked with Ed Sheeran and Liz Hurley weeks before show axe

In the episode, George will be called to the Diary Room, where Big Brother will remind him of the rules he agreed to when he started on the show. “Hello, George,” Big Brother said. “George, before you entered the Big Brother House, the rules regarding unacceptable and offensive language and behaviour were explained to you.”

George then flippantly asked, “What is it?” Big Brother responded that the show has issued a warning to the Essex-based contestant on “several separate occasions” about his language and even issued him with a formal warning.

“Despite this, at 6.22pm, in a conversation about conspiracy theories, the words you used broke the rules regarding unacceptable and offensive language.

“George, Big Brother thinks that your repeated use of offensive language in the house including during yesterday’s conversation is unacceptable. Big Brother cannot permit you to use language in a manner which is likely to be considered offensive by Housemates or the viewing public.”

Parish councillor and actor George said he understood, but Big Brother then had more to say. He continued: “Despite the prior warnings and the opportunities we have given you to adjust your language in the House, you have persisted in using offensive language. And as a result, Big Brother has no choice other than to remove you from the House.”

George was given the opportunity to say something. He said: ““I always want to question any theory, any movement, I just like to, I just want to know the truth about things and I’m sorry. So I’m really gutted but if that’s what you want to do then I’m sorry it’s ended like this.”

This is very similar to what he said upon leaving the Big Brother house. “As a flag bearer of freedom of speech, I never hesitate to discuss and question any topic regardless of how contentious it may be,” the 23-year-old said.

“Sadly, the boundaries of what is deemed offensive are subjective and I evidently went too far this time by crossing their line one too many times. It is a shame that specific debate could not be had and that it has had to end like this. Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.”

Because of his language and behaviour, George was nominated for eviction in this week’s vote. However, his removal forced ITV to halt the public vote. Addressing the situation on Big Brother Late and Live, host AJ Odudu said “George was removed from the Big Brother house today following repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour.

“As he was up for eviction, the vote has been closed for now. So if you’ve voted already, your votes don’t count. But new votes between Cameron B, Elsa and Richard will be opening tomorrow and you’ll have five new votes. So tune in tomorrow to see the housemates reaction to the news.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.



Source link

Big Brother announces major vote shake-up as George removed for ‘unacceptable behaviour’

Big Brother host AJ Odudu announced a huge change to the show’s voting system for Friday’s eviction after housemate George Gilbert was removed from the house earlier today

Earlier today, Big Brother announced that George Gilbert had been removed from the house over “repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour”. George was one of four housemates facing eviction on Friday, and the public vote has now been halted due to this.

Yesterday, the housemates nominated for the first time, and it was revealed that George, Elsa, Richard and Cameron B would be facing the public vote. George, Elsa and Cameron B received the most amount of votes from their fellow housemates, and Richard was atomically up as he had the cursed eye.

Addressing the situation as she opened Big Brother’s Late and Live tonight, host AJ Odudu said: “George was removed from the Big Brother house today following repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour.

READ MORE: Big Brother chaos as two housemates warned over offensive language in just two daysREAD MORE: Big Brother fans uncover housemates secret past – including Downton Abbey role

“As he was up for eviction, the vote has been closed for now. So if you’ve voted already, your votes don’t count. But new votes between Cameron B, Elsa and Richard will be opening tomorrow and you’ll have five new votes. So tune in tomorrow to see the housemates reaction to the news.”

In a statement following George’s removal, ITV told The Mirror: “Following repeated use of unacceptable language and behaviour, George has been removed from the Big Brother House with immediate effect and will no longer participate in the programme.”

It was later revealed that George’s comments will not be aired on the show as they are contrary to broadcast standards. Contestants were told the rules regarding language and behaviour ahead of entering the Big Brother house, receiving training in respect, dignity and inclusion.

However, later on in the day, it was reported that George left his co-stars horrified after making offensive comments which could be interpreted as antisemitic. “Everyone was absolutely disgusted,” a source revealed to The Sun. “Nobody could believe what he said – he was clearly out to shock people.”

It’s been reported that he was called into the Diary Room after making the comments, and was immediately ejected from the show.

George received a warning over his behaviour earlier in the week after imitating housemate Sam during a game of Truth or Dare. He was told by Big Brother in the diary room: “At 11:26, during a game of Truth or Dare, when asked about your least favourite qualities of other Housemates, you said the following, ‘Sam, um too…’, you then went on to mimic Sam using both noises that mocked the way Sam talks and body language that included limp wrists.

“Do you understand how both your language and behaviour could be offensive to Sam, your Housemates and the viewing public?” George then said that he had apologised to Sam after making the comments.

However, The Mirror understands that George was given several warnings for unacceptable language which were not broadcast as they were contrary to broadcast standards.

Big Brother airs tonight at 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.



Source link

Big Brother’s George breaks silence after he’s kicked out of house for ‘horrifying’ comment

BIG Brother star George has broken his silence after being kicked out of the house for a ‘horrifying’ comment. 

The housemate was axed by ITV bosses today after ‘unacceptable language and behaviour’. 

Big Brother contestant George in a colorful chair with giant eyeballs in the background.

2

Big Brother star George has broken his silence after being kicked out of the houseCredit: Shutterstock Editorial
George from Big Brother in a green sweater, speaking with hands raised.

2

George left his Big Brother co-stars horrified with his commentCredit: ITV

Now, since leaving the house, George has said: “As a flag bearer of freedom of speech I never hesitate to discuss and question any topic regardless of how contentious it may be.

“Sadly, the boundaries of what is deemed offensive are subjective and I evidently went too far this time by crossing their line one too many times.”

He added: “It is a shame that specific debate could not be had and that it has had to end like this. Infamy, infamy, they’ve all got it in for me.”

Sources tell The Sun that George left his co-stars horrified after making offensive comments which could be interpreted as antisemitic and was immediately called to the Diary Room and ejected from the house. 

“Everyone was absolutely disgusted,” an insider says. “Nobody could believe what he said – he was clearly out to shock people.”

It’s understood that ITV will air scenes featuring George on tonight’s show but won’t air the comments that led to him being kicked off the show. 

Source link

Singapore Grand Prix: George Russell beats Max Verstappen to pole at Marina Bay

Piastri said he simply did not have the pace to compete and was 0.366secs off pole.

He said he and McLaren had expected to be able to compete at the front.

“My first lap of Q3 felt reasonable,” Piastri said. “It certainly didn’t feel 0.4secs off. We just didn’t have the pace tonight, which was a little bit of a surprise for us. We were relatively confident going in.”

Piastri’s performance, though, was a return to form for the Australian after a difficult race in Baku, where he made a series of mistakes, culminating in crashing on the first lap.

Starting two places in front of Norris, he has a good chance to extend his 25-point championship lead.

Norris said: “We weren’t quick enough., the Mercedes were quite a lot faster. I didn’t put it all together and you need to do it on a track like this.

“There’s still chances so we have to wait and see.”

Hamilton outqualified Leclerc for the first time since the British Grand Prix to underline an upturn in his form in recent races.

He was fastest in the first session and said he felt Ferrari had mismanaged the rest of qualifying.

“The pace was there,” Hamilton said. “We just didn’t optimise the sessions, Q2 onwards.

“I’m definitely more comfortable in the car, this weekend I think I have been driving really well.

“P6 is not good. I definitely think we should have been further ahead but it was all about tyre temp today. It is every week. Tomorrow is going to be tough from where we are. There is not really much we can do from here.”

Williams, whose drivers Alex Albon and Carlos Sainz qualified 12th and 13th, have been reported to the stewards because their rear wings were found to exceed maximum dimensions. This is likely to lead to their disqualification from qualifying.

Source link

Taylor Swift gets ‘Father Figure’ props from George Michael estate

On the eve of the release of her 12th album, Taylor Swift received a thank-you note from George Michael’s estate for including his work in her version of “Father Figure.”

“When we heard the track we had no hesitation in agreeing to this association between two great artists and we know George would have felt the same,” the “Freedom!” singer’s estate posted Thursday on X.

Taylor’s take on “Father Figure” incorporates an interpolation of Michael’s 1987 song from his album “Faith.”

Both songs share a common thread of telling the tale of a specific relationship. In a 1987 interview with ET, the former Wham! singer turned solo star — who died over the Christmas holiday in 2016 — vaguely discussed the meaning behind his track.

“‘Father Figure’ is just a very, without going into too much detail, it’s just a very specific experience that I wrote about a specific relationship with one person,” Michael said.

“I think there’s a definite pattern in people’s lives where they move away from their parents, then they spend time on their own and then they look for that replacement,” he added.

Similarly, the fourth song on Swift’s album “The Life of a Showgirl,” which was released on Thursday, tells the experience of a specific relationship between a mentor and his protégé.

Hmmm. Who could it be? Are the lyrics imaginative or are the details too specific to brush off as fiction? Let’s dissect.

Swift opens her track with: “When I found you, you were young, wayward, lost in the cold / Pulled up to you in the Jag’, turned your rags to gold.”

There is one person who turned her into the gold standard of pop — music executive Scott Borchetta, who signed her to his Big Machine Records label back in the day.

Swift worked with Borchetta on her first six albums until she wanted to buy her master recordings from the label, which led to the end of their partnership.

The song initially takes the perspective of the mentor who sees potential, profit and the opportunity to be a father figure for the protégé. In the tail end of the track, the point of view changes to the other side.

“You want a fight, you found it / I got the place surrounded / You’ll be sleeping with the fishes before you know you’re drowning.”

Again, the details seem too specific to write it off as pure fiction, but Swifties may have to stick to speculation unless Swift goes on the “New Heights” podcast to discuss the meaning behind her lyrics with her future husband, Travis Kelce, and soon-to-be brother-in-law, Jason Kelce.

Don’t hold your breath — there’s probably a better chance she releases a new version of “Life of a Showgirl” first.

Source link

George Russell forced to abandon Singapore GP practice after smashing into barriers and mangling Mercedes

GEORGE RUSSELL ignited chaos in a wild practice day at the Singapore Grand Prix.

Two red flags, a pit lane collision and a FIRE gave stewards a very busy Friday.

George Russell's mangled Mercedes F1 car after crashing into barriers in Singapore.

3

George Russell hit the barriers and was forced to retire from practice at the Singapore Grand PrixCredit: F1 TV
RB driver Liam Lawson crashes into a barrier and loses a tire during a free practice session for the Formula One Singapore Grand Prix.

3

Liam Lawson followed suit as his wheel came flying off later in the sessionCredit: EPA

FP1 started with the rear brakes of Alex Albon’s Williams catching fire in the sweltering heat of the Marina Bay Street Circuit.

Team boss James Vowles later confirmed the brakes had reached temperatures of over 1000 degrees before Albon was forced to retire.

But Mercedes ace Russell then sparked more chaos in FP2 as his car went straight on into the barriers at Turn 16.

As he attempted the right hander he lost the rear before the snap correction sent him flying into the wall and prompting the first red flag of the session.

It was an incident labelled “weird” by the Briton over the team radio.

Liam Lawson followed suit not long after as he hit the wall in the run off of Turn 17.

That saw his front-left go flying down the track and the plank under his car grind along the floor as his Racing Bulls drive skidded to a halt at the pit lane entrance.

And following the restart, Charles Leclerc bizarrely smashed into McLaren‘s Lando Norris in the pit lane following an unsafe release from the Scuderia mechanics.

BEST ONLINE CASINOS – TOP SITES IN THE UK

Both have been summoned by race stewards over the incident, which is likely to result in some sort of penalty for the Ferrari driver.

A total of 22 minutes of the hour-long session were lost through the various incidents.

Williams F1 team rush for fire extinguisher as smoke pours out of Alex Albon’s car during Singapore GP practice

FP1 and FP2 were topped by Fernando Alonso and Oscar Piastri respectively.

3

Source link

Tyrique George: How forward has grabbed Chelsea lifeline in Enzo Maresca’s problem position

Chelsea academy graduates usually have a couple of well-trodden pathways – breakthrough, loan, first team. Or breakthrough, loan, sale.

The Blues have moved on more than 40 homegrown players in the past decade, and made £315m from selling academy-developed talent in the last four seasons alone – £100m more than Manchester City.

But their latest high-profile prospect George has bucked that trend so far and can look at how Levi Colwill, Trevoh Chalobah and Reece James have progressed to first-team success.

George’s strike against Fulham on 20 April, aged 19 years and 75 days, saw him become the club’s youngest scorer in the Premier League since Callum Hudson-Odoi netted against Burnley in January 2020.

The winger’s breakthrough season included Carabao Cup games against Barrow and Morecambe, substitute league appearances against Arsenal and Brighton, and more than 750 minutes in 12 Conference League games, including a goal in the quarter-final first-leg win at Legia Warsaw.

George, who turned 19 in February, is disrupting the ‘Chelsea’ narrative thanks to a level of dedication unusual even in this era of youth development.

The last Chelsea player to come through the youth system into the first team without a loan was one of his idols, Hudson-Odoi in January 2018.

A source told BBC Sport that in his early years at Chelsea, George was a ‘middling’ player in his age group until around the age of 10.

It was at that point his dad hired a goalkeeper as well as a personal coach, David ‘Guru’ Sobers, to raise his game.

In midweek, George would train with Chelsea, and then from the age of 13 on Fridays, he would play against men in nine-a-side matches at either Vauxhall or Nine Elms Power League in South London.

On Saturdays, he would train again and go through post-match analysis with Sobers from his Power League matches the previous evening, before going back to Chelsea on Sunday to play.

“I used to spend hours travelling on public transport to do two-hour sessions, or longer, with Tyrique as I thought I could help him,” Sobers told BBC Sport.

“We would spend hours doing one-versus-one, technical work, shooting drills, and I enjoyed the fact that he would push himself so much.

“I’d be a ‘bad’ referee when he played against 18-year-olds, so he would get kicked – but have to get up and win the ball back.

“We did tactics on his Friday session during these matches. I think it helped our young players, we also had guys now at Manchester City, West Ham and Reading, become fearless, especially when coming back to their own age group.”

Source link

Some Knew Where George Was and Sent Lots of Money for Him

San Diegan Charles W. Hostler modestly said that it was his way of “doing what I could” to help elect George Bush and other Republican candidates. Ralph E. Bodine described it as “my little way . . . of getting involved” with last year’s elections.

Few others, however, would use the word “little” to describe Hostler’s and Bodine’s roles in Election ‘88, for they, like four other people who either live in San Diego or have strong ties here, contributed at least $100,000 to the Republican National Committee last year.

Besides Bodine and Hostler, San Diego Chargers owner Alex Spanos and businessmen J. Neal Blue, Michael Dingman and George Gillett Jr. were among 249 top GOP donors listed on the so-called “Team 100” roster released this week by Republican leaders.

The “Team 100” program–targeted at political high-rollers who donated at least $100,000 to the Republican Party at the state or national level–was directed by Texas businessman and Commerce Secretary-designate Robert Mosbacher, who was finance chairman of President Bush’s campaign last fall.

No Direct Contributions, Just ‘Soft Money’

Under federal election laws, those donations could not be spent directly by Bush’s campaign. However, the funds–known as “soft money,” in political jargon–helped to bankroll indirect local and national party efforts to aid Bush and other Republican candidates.

Hostler, a private investor and international business consultant, said he made his $100,000 donation to the party “because I felt it was important that George Bush and Republican candidates receive adequate support.”

“I’ve been a consistent donor of varying amounts over the years, but this is the biggest amount,” said Hostler, a retired Air Force colonel who has lived nearly half his life abroad and is fluent in four languages.

From 1974-76, Hostler worked under James Baker, Bush’s campaign chairman and secretary of state designate, in the Commerce Department as director of the Bureau of International Commerce.

Although Hostler said he has no strong yearning to return to Washington, he added: “I have the highest respect for both George Bush and Jim Baker. If Jim Baker consults me, or, if there would be an offer, I’d be happy to consider it. I guess I’ll take it as it comes.”

In contrast, Bodine, chairman of the board of Sunkist Growers, said he has “absolutely no designs on any job” in the Bush Administration.

‘I Have Enough Jobs Already,’ Says Bodine

“I have enough jobs already,” said Bodine, a 46-year-old Point Loma resident. “I just felt it was imperative to support Republican candidates in order for there to be a continuation of what we’ve seen over the last eight years. This was my little way–or big way–of getting involved.”

The other four $100,000 donors with San Diego links could not be reached for comment. In addition to Chargers owner Spanos, who lives in Stockton, they are:

– J. Neal Blue, chairman and chief executive officer of General Atomics, a La Jolla-based high-technology company. Blue also is chairman of Cordillera Corp., a Denver-based holding company involved in the gas and oil business.

– George Gillett Jr., owner of Gillett Communications, the company that owns KNSD-TV (Channel 39).

– Michael Dingman, the managing director, chairman and chief executive officer of Henley Group, a La Jolla-based multi-industry conglomerate. Dingman, who formerly lived in La Jolla, now lives in Exeter, N.H.

Source link

George Raveling, former USC men’s basketball coach, dies at 88

As a young man, he stood next to Martin Luther King Jr. as he delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech. As a college basketball coach, he blazed a trail for Black coaches and players. As an executive, he was instrumental in signing Michael Jordan to his groundbreaking endorsement deal with Nike.

George Raveling had an impact that stretched far beyond basketball, the sport which he last coached three decades ago at USC. He became a revered figure in the game, not for the number of wins he accumulated over his career, but for his role as a mentor to many.

Raveling, 88, died Monday after a battle with cancer, his family announced.

“There are no words to fully capture what George meant to his family, friends, colleagues, former players, and assistants — and to the world,” the family said in a statement. “He will be profoundly missed, yet his aura, energy, divine presence, and timeless wisdom live on in all those he touched and transformed.”

Raveling coached at USC from 1986 to 1994, the first Black coach to take the helm of the Trojans basketball program. Over his first four seasons at the school, Raveling didn’t experience much success, winning just 38 of USC’s 116 games over that stretch.

Raveling found his stride in the second half of his tenure, taking the Trojans to two straight NCAA tournaments and two NITs after that. But his overall record at USC never broke .500 (115-118). In September 1994, Raveling was in a serious car accident that eventually led him to retire. He suffered nine broken ribs and a collapsed lung and fractured his pelvis and collarbone.

After his coaching career, Raveling joined Nike as the director of grassroots basketball, later rising to the role of director of international basketball.

But his biggest contribution at Nike came out of his relationship with Jordan, whom Raveling had coached as an assistant with the U.S. national team at the 1984 Olympics. Jordan, whose deal with Nike sent the brand into a new stratosphere, credited Raveling for making it happen. In the foreword for Raveling’s book, Jordan called him “a mentor”.

“If not for George, there would be no Air Jordan,” Jordan wrote.

Across the basketball world, similar plaudits came pouring in Tuesday in light of Raveling’s death.

Eric Musselman, USC’s current basketball coach, said Raveling was “not only a Hall of Fame basketball mind but a tremendous person who paved the way on and off the court.”

Former Villanova coach Jay Wright wrote on social media that Raveling was “the finest human being, inspiring mentor, most loyal alum and a thoughtful loving friend.”

Raveling grew up in Washington D.C., during a time of segregation and hardship. His family lived in a two-room apartment above a grocery store, where they shared a bathroom with four other families on the same floor. His father died suddenly when he was 9. His mother suffered a mental health crisis a few years later and spent most of her remaining years in a psychiatric hospital. Raveling left home at 14 to attend a boarding school.

It was at St. Michaels, a mostly white boarding school in Pennsylvania, that Raveling first started playing basketball. He earned a scholarship at Villanova, where he became a captain and later an assistant coach.

But the college experience, he later said, had an even more profound impact on Raveling.

“I’ve always felt like a sprinter who’d slipped at the starting box and was 20 yards behind everybody — I’ve been in a mad dash to catch up with everybody ever since,” Raveling told The Times in 1994. “My mom worked two jobs when I was a kid. There were no books in our house. Nobody envisioned that I’d graduate from college. No one even encouraged me to go to college.”

He’d spend the rest of his life, it seems, trying to make up for lost time.

Raveling was standing just a few feet away from King on the National Mall in Washington D.C. in 1963 as he delivered his famed “I Have A Dream” speech. King actually handed Raveling his copy of the historic speech immediately after he finished.

For decades, Raveling kept it tucked inside of a book, before recounting the story to a journalist. According to Sports Illustrated, a collector later offered Raveling $3 million for his copy of the speech. But he declined and donated it instead to Villanova.

George Raveling speaks during the enshrinement ceremony of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 2015

George Raveling was inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass., in 2015.

(Charles Krupa / Associated Press)

Raveling pioneered a path that few Black coaches ever had through his career. He was the first Black coach in the history of the Atlantic Coast Conference when he started as an assistant in 1969. Three years later, at Washington State, he became the first Black coach to lead a Pac-8 (now Pac-12) Conference basketball team.

He coached at Iowa from 1983-86 before being hired at USC. At the time, the Trojans had a roster that included Hank Gathers and Bo Kimble, who were coming off their freshman season. Raveling gave the players a firm deadline to tell him if they planned to remain on the team and when they didn’t he revoked their scholarships. Both went on to star at Loyola Marymount.

Raveling was inducted into the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in 2015. But as a “contributor”, not as a coach. Even while he was coaching, Raveling seemed to understand that his role meant more than that.

“Winning basketball games just helps you keep your job,” he told The Times in 1994. “But keeping your job helps you work with these kids about the real challenges of life, which all happen away from the court. I know there’s an enormous demand around here to win. But I don’t want someone to ask me what I accomplished in my life and for me to say that I won this amount of games or took a team to some tournament.

“If all I can say is that I taught a kid how to shoot a jump shot, well, that’s not good enough. These kids come out of underprivileged, inner-city areas, and I’m just wasting my time if I haven’t put something of substance into their lives.”

Source link

George Washington University ‘deliberately indifferent’ to anti-Semitism, Trump’s DOJ says

Aug. 12 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday that George Washington University was in violation of federal civil rights laws and described it as “deliberately indifferent” to anti-Semitism on campus.

The DOJ published a letter to GWU President Ellen M. Granberg saying that the department had finished its probe of the allegations against the university and found that GWU’s response to incidents of anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students that “despite actual notice of the abuses occurring on its campus, GWU was deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered by its students and faculty, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The letter from Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Harmeet K. Dhillon offered “the opportunity to resolve this matter through a voluntary resolution agreement.”

The allegations stem from campus protests in April and May 2024. The protests were about the Israeli attacks on Gaza, but some Jewish students experienced alleged anti-Semitism on several university campuses.

The letter alleged that students and faculty at GWU experienced a hostile educational environment “that was objectively offensive, severe, and pervasive. The anti-Semitic, hate-based misconduct by GWU students directed at Jewish GWU students, faculty, and employees was, in a word, shocking. The behavior was demonstrably abhorrent, immoral, and, most importantly, illegal.”

GWU hasn’t yet responded publicly.

The allegations stem from an encampment that students created in GWU’s University Yard, in the middle of campus.

“The purpose of the agitators’ efforts was to frighten, intimidate, and deny Jewish, Israeli, and American-Israeli students free and unfettered access to GWU’s educational environment. This is the definition of hostility and a ‘hostile environment.’ [DOJ’s] investigation found numerous incidents of Jewish students being harassed, abused, intimidated and assaulted by protesters. To be clear, Jewish students were afraid to attend class, to be observed, or, worse, to be ‘caught’ and perhaps physically beaten on GWU’s campus.”

The letter cites a few examples of students being harassed and having their movements restricted. It says the students were told by faculty and security personnel to leave for their own safety, and no other measures were taken.

“Jewish students, parents and alumni contacted GWU numerous times to express their alarm and concern about the actions of protesters and to express their legitimate and reasonable fears for their safety,” the letter said.

GWU is one of dozens of American universities that have been targeted by the Trump administration with civil rights and constitutional investigations in connection to protests over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has been cracking down on institutions of higher learning, especially elite schools, over a slew of allegations, from not protecting Jewish students to illegally enforcing diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

On Aug. 1, the University of California, Los Angeles, announced it had lost research funding from the federal government over the accusations of anti-Semitism on campus. UCLA paid $6.13 million to three Jewish students and one professor who said their civil rights were violated.

On July 30, Brown University agreed to pay $50 million over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island, its home state. It also agreed to:

  • Separate men’s and women’s sports facilities on the basis of sex.
  • Stope the health system from prescribing puberty blockers or conducting gender reassignment surgeries on minors.
  • Ban programs that contain “unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes” and instead utilizing “merit-based” admission policies.
  • Provide data and information to the federal government showing compliance with the deal.

Source link

Keeping a Low Profile With ‘First Lady Who?’ : Gloria Deukmejian, Perceived as Traditional Wife, Juggles Politics and Family

She shops for groceries at a neighborhood supermarket in suburban Sacramento, usually in the company of a plainclothes state policewoman who could pass for her sister, and for months she went unrecognized. Only lately have people begun to take note of who she is.

As First Lady of California, Gloria Deukmejian might have passed her shopping list on to someone else, but she said no thanks , she preferred doing the family marketing herself–as the woman who is listed on the Deukmejian joint tax return as “housewife” has always done.

When their 18-year-old son, George, the second of their three children, went to UC Berkeley last September, Gloria Deukmejian, like any mother might, visited the dormitory room he had arranged to share with two friends, and encountered other students who rather excitedly wondered whether she had heard the governor’s son was going to be staying on their floor. Why no, she hadn’t, she said at first, straight-faced.

Parents’ Night And when it came time for Parents’ Night at Rio Americano High School, where their youngest, Andrea, who’ll be 16 next month, is a sophomore, the state’s First Couple stood in line–like everyone else. So unassuming were the Deukmejians that another mother, who had been in a rush, didn’t realize she had accidentally bumped into them until the principal announced he was “honored to have Gov. and Mrs. George Deukmejian” in the audience–and they stood up.

Such is the low-key, low-profile life style of Gloria May Deukmejian, who pursues privacy with the same driven intensity that her husband has courted votes for two decades.

Now, after California’s eight mate-less years under former Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr., she has become successor–an Administration once removed–to the peripatetic Nancy Reagan, who even then was forever at her husband’s side and in the public eye.

Yet despite George Deukmejian’s 22 years in public office–four in the Assembly, 12 in the state Senate, four more as state attorney general, and with his current four-year term half over– she is still Gov. Deukmejian’s wife who?

Meet Gloria Deukmejian–at 52, she has been married to George (whom she had met at a big family wedding) nearly 28 years–and the most striking thing, indeed the surprise, is her sense of humor. It is quick, spontaneous–and rather irreverent.

She’s somewhat taller than you might expect, a solid-looking 5-feet-6 or so. Photographs, however, do not do her justice. They fail to reflect her vivid coloring: merry black-brown eyes, apple cheeks and flawless olive skin. She has the kind of looks a slash of bright red lipstick only enhances.

B.T. Collins, Brown’s last chief of staff, a Republican, now executive vice president for Kidder-Peabody in Sacramento, experienced her humor more than a year ago. They had corresponded, mentioning a lunch, and at one point she hand-wrote: “I would like to meet you but George won’t let me. He thinks you’ll corrupt me–but then I don’t always listen to George!” And they lunched.

‘Surprise Roaster’ She also floored them at a roast of her husband in Sacramento–a benefit dinner for the Coro Foundation, a national public affairs training program, and the California Journal, a magazine about governmental affairs. The “surprise roaster,” the presumably staid Republican’s wife, more than held her own against the likes of State Treasurer Jesse Unruh and State Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp.

Donning a Groucho Marx mask–a jab at the dark, mustachioed lineup of her husband’s top aides–Gloria Saatjian Deukmejian, first-generation Armenian-American like her husband, told how George was a man who “never forgets birthdays or anniversaries.” One year she got a screwdriver, another a wrench set. “As a result I have a complete tool set.”

The governor was surprised. So, perhaps from another point of view, was the audience. “She stood up there against her image,” recalled 31-year-old Robin Kramer, Coro’s director and a former aide of the Southern California Democratic Party. “I didn’t know her at all, other than she was this quiet, churchly lady who lived in Long Beach. She was not timid, and she was not square.”

Nor did she appear intimidated Dec. 5 on “Look Who’s Talking,” a morning television show, part listener call-in, part interview, on KCRW, the Sacramento NBC affiliate. In her first, and, thus far, only solo television appearance, she defied image by talking about an issue–speaking out, as her husband had in a press conference the day before, on behalf of the death penalty–while sidestepping questions on government cutbacks.

‘Just Moved In’ And she candidly discussed her husband’s future. A second term? “Of course,” she smiled. “I just moved in.” Beyond the governorship? “We’ve really given many many years to political office. I think not . . . one more term and I think it’s our turn (to relax).”

Yes she had heard, “they do have a house in Washington, a little different than ours,” and smiled. And she’s not interested? “No, not at all.”

The next day in the anteroom of the governor’s office in San Francisco, Gloria Deukmejian was back to her image–the self-described “traditional wife.” Her voice is mellow, soothing. At times her answers sound almost memorized.

“I just believe in everything he does, and I just believe that anything I can do to further the cause I will do.”

Do they ever disagree on issues? “Oh occasionally–but I’ll never tell .”

Traditional Role Has she ever tried to sway him? “Have you ever tried to sway an attorney over to your side? . . . “

Elaborating on the traditional-wife theme, Gloria Deukmejian, an art school graduate, who came of age before Gloria Steinem had a cause and women’s liberation a name, said she simply feels “more comfortable” with the traditional. “Like family, three teen-agers (actually Leslie, the oldest, a junior at the University of Colorado in Boulder, turned 20 last September), dogs (three beagles), neighbors, organizations, some relating to the family, some relating to volunteer work . . . like the Bluebirds, Campfires, oh yes PTA, I put my time in all those things.”

No Interviews at Home As comfortable as she is at home, she does not allow interviews at home, whether in Sacramento or her native Long Beach. Home is for privacy, for family. As the governor’s wife she’s been interviewed in his Sacramento office, in the sunny glass-encased coffee shop at the Long Beach Hyatt Regency or in Long Beach’s St. Mary’s Community Hospital gift shop, still dressed in her pink volunteer’s smock. And she just about never allows more than 45 minutes.

She is easiest talking about family. “Our oldest is majoring in communications and she is interested in the public relations aspect. Our youngest daughter, at 15, I don’t think too many of them know what they want to do, other than meet Rick Springfield, Matt Dillon and all those people. She can be very dramatic at times. And our son, he doesn’t know what. . . . They are sort of very independent thinkers.

“We’ve been fortunate, we’ve never really had any great problems with them,” she said in response to a question.

She said she does not know what she has done right. “I have heard of people doing the same thing as I. It hasn’t happened that way for them.” But she added with a laugh that she knows how to say no. “They say I know how to say no too often but you can’t be afraid to. . . . Later they respect you for it. I’ve had comments come back.”

Like Betty Ford, Gloria Deukmejian has had the burden of raising her children much of the time on her own. Only the governor’s wife never viewed that–or their commuter marriage–a burden.

Baby Comes Early For about a decade, from the time Leslie was of school age until George Deukmejian got elected attorney general and used the Los Angeles office as his base of operation, she raised the children from Monday morning through Thursday nights, and sometimes Friday during the legislative session. When it came time to give birth to Andrea, her next-door neighbors drove her. The baby was earlier than expected, and George, a state senator then, was in Sacramento.

It is like a litany among family and close friends, that most protective network that surrounds Gloria Deukmejian, and you hear it constantly: Gloria never gets angry or upset. Gloria never complains–be it about parental burdens or her husband’s rather paltry (by comparison to other states) $49,100-a-year gubernatorial salary, or vacations spent in their Long Beach backyard. “She doesn’t bitch,” said Darlene Thornton-May, the former next-door neighbor and one of her closest friends. Anna Ashjian, Deukmejian’s sister, said the last real vacation they had was in Hawaii where he had a speaking engagement “and they took the kids.”

Alice Deukmejian, who will be 87 on Valentine’s Day, said it best: Gloria, she said upon her son’s election two years ago, has “the patience of Job.”

As the parent at hand, as her own mother was to a degree when she was growing up, Gloria Deukmejian became, of necessity, the stricter one–while carrying out the general’s orders. “And also George, he’s very softhearted, especially with the girls. . . . It’s funny,” she said with a smile. “I can raise my voice. I would have to do it several times. When George raises his voice, he has that very deep voice. Only once ! Just like with the dogs. Same way. They listen to him.”

The middle child and only daughter of the late Krikor and Mary Saatjian (pronounced Say-chen), Gloria Saatjian was born Nov. 1, 1932, in Long Beach and, though raised in a traditional way, hardly came from an average immigrant family.

Her father Krikor, a carpenter’s son who grew up in Aintab, Turkey, graduated with honors from Yale, Class of 1914, became a civil engineer, worked on the Panama Canal, and for most of his career was a middle-management executive in the purchasing department at Texaco in downtown Los Angeles–and an active member of the Petroleum Club in Long Beach.

Today, Gloria Deukmejian’s elder brother Clarence Saatjian, 56, is chief of thermal power engineering for Southern California Edison, and her younger brother, the Rev. Lloyd Saatjian, 50, is Santa Ana district superintendent of the United Methodist Church, responsible for 57 congregations in the Orange County area. (As minister of a Palm Springs congregation for 17 years, he was in the Coachella Valley in 1968 at the time of the table-grape boycott in the dispute between the growers and Cesar Chavez and his migrant farm workers. In the critical years between 1970 and 1973, Saatjian served as mediator. He still is the arbitrator on certain contracts.)

Graduates of USC Both Saatjian brothers are graduates of USC.

Gloria had an interest in art that included years of piano lessons and classical recitals–Lloyd has said she might have become a concert pianist. After graduation in 1950 from Long Beach Poly High School, she went to the old Chouinard Art Institute in Los Angeles and completed the three-year course in interior design. “Then I got out and never did pursue it. I guess I just didn’t have that real interest. . . . Someday, maybe, I’ll get back to it.”

Instead, having already taken some typing and shorthand in high school, she took a job as a secretary for Howard Zink Seat Covers, a large car-seat upholstering company in Long Beach. She worked there for several years until just about the time she met George.

Diane Hansen Roslee, a Chouinard classmate who was maid-of-honor at Gloria and George’s wedding, noted that it wasn’t easy getting a job in the art world in the ‘50s. “So she went to work for the seat-cover king. Closest to home was the easier thing to do. They (the family) didn’t want her to live in an apartment or something, because the family was so close. And she was perfectly happy. . . . Gloria was more domesticated.”

Occasionally while at Chouinard, said Roslee, who owns a dress boutique south of Tucson, Gloria would “spend the weekend with me at my apartment. But they (the family) were very protective of her. They made sure she was a good girl. . . . “

Five Languages Krikor Saatjian, who came to America in 1911 as a scholarship student, spoke five languages–Armenian, Turkish, French, English and German, his English learned from a Christian missionary–and helped pay his way by working in the school cafeteria.

During that early period, he also served with the Army Corps of Engineers at the Panama Canal. Meanwhile in 1915, back in his hometown, his family was being dispersed, and worse, during the Armenian massacre. He volunteered for service in France during World War I, rose to the rank of sergeant, and while in the Army found his mentor in Clarence Olmstead (for whom his eldest would be named). Olmstead brought him to Texaco.

The war over, Saatjian, the eldest of four brothers, set about bringing his family to America. The immediate family had escaped the massacre, but as Eddie Saatjian, the youngest brother, recalled: “After the war was over we returned home. . . . The rest of the family were either gone or dead, or we didn’t know where they were.”

On Gloria’s mother’s side today are uncles, aunts and first cousins living in Beirut.

In 1921, Krikor brought his brother Charles; in 1923, his mother, Sadie; the last two brothers, Jack and Eddie, and in the party his future wife, Mary, a distant cousin 13 years his junior, whom he married a year later– after she started learning English.

After settling briefly in Lockport, Ill., where Olmstead ran a small Texaco refinery, Texaco bought California Petroleum, “and within less than a year,” Eddie recalled, “we were here, the whole gang of us.”

Throughout the Depression, none of the brothers was without a job, and there was always a decent car in the garage. By 1941, the car was a Cadillac. Until they married, Krikor Saatjian’s brothers lived in his house, a large Victorian-style 2 1/2-story frame house on a corner in central Long Beach.

Until her marriage, Gloria Deukmejian shared a bedroom with her grandmother Sadie. In 1941, when Eddie and Alice Saatjian married, there was a portent for her own future. Before coming to California to meet Eddie, Alice Saatjian lived across the street from the Deukmejian family in Menands, N.Y., outside Albany, the state capital. She remembered George, “a beautiful, handsome boy. He had rosy cheeks.” In this intertwining of family-tree branches, Alice also was a second cousin of Isabelle Melkasian. It was at Isabelle’s wedding in San Marino on May 27, 1956 that Gloria and George met. Isabelle’s mother knew the Deukmejians too. (George and Gloria were married Feb. 16, 1957. His sister’s husband, Noubar Ashjian, is Gloria’s second cousin once removed.)

Mary Saatjian–the person Gloria Deukmejian had been closest to, the woman she confided in and is said to emulate–provided the warmth. “An Armenian mother who cared for her children . . . a saint,” said Lloyd. “An amazing cook. She didn’t have the education my dad did, but her relationship to her children and anyone who came into our home was one of love, caring and generosity.”

With her husband at work from 6 in the morning until 6 at night, she was “the one we told the bad things to,” said Clarence, “she was our confidante.”

One gets fleeting, cozy images of Gloria’s girlhood. Isabelle remembers taking the Red Car down to Long Beach with her twin, Annabelle, for weekends at the beach, and Gloria at 10, a junior bridesmaid at her Aunt Alice’s wedding in their home, getting out the carpet-sweeper to clean up a batch of the inevitable pistachio nuts. And whenever the Saatjians would visit her house they would pile out of the Cadillac bearing a box of See’s candy.

Lloyd remembers her getting up early in the morning, before anyone else in the house, practicing piano, and accompanying him at recitals while he played the violin.

And Diane, for whom Gloria would name her third child, Andrea Diane, remembers weekends at Gloria’s house:

“Every time I would come, her mother would tell us our fortunes. She always made something special–meat rolled up in grape leaves and a dessert, baklava, and after dinner, over Turkish coffee, she would tell us our fortunes. Later I realized she knew everything that was going on in our lives, and what we wanted to hear something about a tall, dark, handsome stranger that was coming into our lives.”

Diane also remembered how Gloria would have a new dress before big family weddings, because invariably there was someone they wanted her to meet. The girls never talked politics.

“I happen to come from a Middle Eastern heritage and ancestry. In my background and culture . . . ladies were always sort of kept in the background,” Gov. Deukmejian was saying lightly at a reception honoring his women appointees. “The husbands would go out in front and the ladies would follow behind; they would take care of the things at home. . . . It was always a very peaceful relationship.”

Deukmejian was explaining why Gloria was not in attendance. The joke was that ever since his wife had seen Queen Elizabeth walking ahead of Prince Philip on the royal visit to California, and had spoken about it, he wasn’t taking her “to any more of these.”

The joke notwithstanding, the Deukmejians always had that peaceful relationship.

In the first two years of their marriage, he worked as a deputy county counsel before setting up his own practice. They lived in a small apartment near the Crenshaw district for about a year, and she took a job as a secretary in the public relations department of the California Bank.

Moved to Apartment Later, they moved to an apartment in Long Beach, and she “commuted from Long Beach to Los Angeles. After a while there was the traffic and all, it was very tiring . . . “ and she quit. In 1959, Deukmejian opened a law office in Belmont Shore. The Ashjians remember that Gloria’s father bought Deukmejian his desk. Meanwhile, he plunged into community life, becoming active in the Lions. And she joined the Lady Lions.

In 1960, they bought the rather modest house they still live in Belmont Shore–today driving past one sees a mustard-colored house, second from the corner, with a large picture window and lamp in front.

Her husband’s entry into politics came as a surprise to Gloria Deukmejian. “There wasn’t any mention of politics at the beginning.” But she went along. As she said on the Sacramento television show: “I just said, ‘Whatever you would like to do.’ It’s better to have a husband happy at the job that he’s doing, doing something that he enjoys.”

She’s very much in tune with his career. Ask in the private interview what about it has given her the most satisfaction, and after saying she doesn’t “know where to begin there ,” she talks about his “transformation” of state finances from deficit to surplus. And the biggest disappointment?

A Lost Race “Losing the one attorney general’s race years ago. Remember that one? It was a four-man (GOP primary) race, and that was the last (loss).”

Gloria Deukmejian is down-to-earth, unpretentious, the same person she has always been. “I don’t think you will hear one negative”–it is all a constant refrain. She doesn’t drink–”if you see a glass in her hand it’s tonic or diet soda,” said Aunt Alice. She doesn’t swear. And she is content.

“I don’t think Gloria feels she’s given up anything,” said Joan Lucas, wife of Judge Malcolm M. Lucas, Deukmejian’s first, and, thus far, only appointment to the California Supreme Court. “She’s a very happy, secure person. I’m sure she has a lot of problems that she doesn’t discuss; but I can’t think of her having any big problems.”

Joan Lucas has known Gloria casually since high school and better since their husbands formed Lucas, Lucas & Deukmejian in 1963. “She doesn’t discuss other political people or wives, or anything like that, ever. Gloria is a very refined person, very classy–and closemouthed.

She is an excellent listener. “She’s always a lady,” said Willie Tauscher, a fellow hospital volunteer who’s known her 20 years.

“I’ve had a great deal of trauma over the years,” said Darlene Thornton-May, “and there is no more stauncher friend. When I get down, she’d say, ‘You do what you have to do.’ ”

There is a genuine niceness. When decorators Dennis Murphy and June Given first went up to see the Sacramento residence–purchased with surplus funds from the governor’s inaugural and which will be given to the next governor and successors, or sold with the proceeds going to charity–she met them at the airplane gate. Moreover, said Murphy, though she wanted to move in during the last week in August to prepare Andrea for school, “she never once applied pressure about getting it done unlike a lot of clients.”

When she hosted the luncheons for the Western governors’ wives in Palm Springs she went out of her way to invite others along who had helped her make the social events a success. And when her mother was dying in December, 1983, she stayed at the governor’s side to host the annual Christmas party before rushing to the Long Beach hospital. It was the same kind of “devotion to duty” her own mother had practiced in preparing the elaborate funeral feast after Krikor Saatjian had died 1 1/2 years earlier at 92.

As much as anything else, Gloria Deukmejian is a private person. After her mother’s illness, Aunt Alice took over the role as chief confidante. “If there were things to complain about,” allowed Alice Saatjian in connection with the search for the gubernatorial home, “we used to talk. It didn’t go out from my house; it didn’t go out from her house.”

California’s First Lady is by all accounts an excellent cook. She likes to golf, needlepoint, garden. She reads Erma Bombeck, and watches “Hill Street Blues” and “60 Minutes.” She hates the soaps. She plays the piano, Mozart still her favorite. But Gloria Deukmejian plays only for herself. “When I was growing up and took piano for over 10 years, I had a recital every month and had to memorize so I played for enough people I think.”

Time with the governor’s wife is nearly up. She grows fruit, vegetables? “No flowers . . . just whatever you think.”

Toward the end she had been asked to define Gloria Deukmejian. “Being myself. My door is open for coffee to friends who want to stop by. Just because I’m First Lady doesn’t mean the door is locked. And just doing the things I’ve always done. Shopping. . . . It’s just life as usual; it’s just that my husband has a different job. . . . We’ve always kept a low profile.”

May we come by for coffee?

“Leave your pad behind,” she said.

Source link

The Ties that Tarnish : The Web of Corruption that Surrounds George Bush

Kevin Phillips, publisher of the American Political Report, is the author of “The Politics of Rich and Poor” (Random House)

As the Mother of All Dirty Campaigns gathers its facts and innuendo for November, probable Democratic nominee Bill Clinton is already so smeared and so ready to return fire that George Bush, in his clean white shirt of upright Republicanism and family values, can look forward to a savaging of his own. How much of this dirt sticks could be critically important.

Political logic, press reports and recent Democratic mutterings all suggest the main fire will be directed against three targets. First, the business ethics of the Bush family, three presidential sons and three presidential brothers, some with eyes for a marginally tainted deal. Second, Bush’s personal relationships–about which there have been snide hints, but no proof. And third, far more important in its national implications, the argument that, under this Administration, U.S. foreign policy–ostensibly the laurel wreath on Bush’s imperial brow–has become a gravy train for Bush family members and policy advisers, and for GOP campaign functionaries, who openly double as registered foreign agents.

Significantly, this last point is bipartisan. Vivid indictments have been made by GOP nomination rival Patrick J. Buchanan. Moreover, potential third-party candidate H. Ross Perot, a nominal Republican, is given to making harsh charges about Bush’s Persian Gulf connections. But on the first two subjects, the messengers will be Democratic and the motivation as political as Election Day itself.

The length and intensity of the trail of vaguely sleazy deals, apparent influence-peddling and periodic legal wrist-slappings left by Bush family members while their relative is in the White House is only the second-biggest surprise. The biggest is that George Herbert Walker Bush, Mr. Patrician Probity, let it happen.

Other Presidents have had the problem with several sons ( Franklin D. Roosevelt) or one brother (Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Jimmy Carter), and should have served as cautionary examples for Bush–which makes his paternal and fraternal permissiveness so hard to understand.

The most recent sweeping indictment came in a March 27 column on the New York Times Op-Ed page portraying: 1) son Neil’s grubby conflict-of-interest involvement with the failed Silverado savings and loan (he was fined a relative pittance of $50,000); 2) son Jeb’s “unwitting” acceptance of improper political contributions; 3) brother Prescott’s highly paid role as adviser to a Tokyo investment firm identified by Japanese police as a mob front, and 4) son George Jr.’s 1990 dumping of $848,000 of Harken Energy Co. stock in possible violation of SEC insider-trading regulations. The only consolation for the President must have come in the apparent space limitation: There was no room for brother Jonathan’s 1991 violation of securities laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut, for which he was fined more than $30,000 and (in Massachusetts) barred from trading with the public for one year.

Based on previous Administrations, one or perhaps two family transgressions could be taken as typical. Bush’s problem is that Democratic campaign commercials will make the multiplicity of it come alive–perhaps portraying the Bushes as the First Family of Financial Flimflam–and throwing dirt as well on the motivations in the President’s relentless advocacy of capital-gains tax cuts.

Meanwhile, Democratic National Chairman Ronald H. Brown and others have been tee-heeing that, if the press discusses allegations about Clinton’s girlfriends, it should deal with kindred speculation about Bush. Well, maybe, but not necessarily. Comedian Mark Russell has joked on TV about Republican girlfriends named Jennifer being classier–they spell their names with a “J.” But back in 1988, similar rumors that major media were about to pursue an old Bush relationship never came true. But, for 1992, Clinton’s Gennifer Flowers problem could mean that, at some point, Democrats have little to lose from recklessness or even irresponsibility.

Paradoxically, however, the less titillating charges may be most serious–that, under Bush, the conduct of U.S. foreign affairs is starting to resemble the “bank” at the House of Representatives: a cash club for the favored and faithful. Alas, it is hard to overstate the ethical and historical transformation of U.S. foreign policy since the days of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower or even Carter. No one had to examine Lend-Lease, the Marshall Plan or U.S.-Soviet detente for private economic deals involving the President’s family or the fingerprints of presidential campaign spokesmen who doubled as lobbyists for foreign interests and governments.

Compared with Bush, however, no previous President has had so many immediate family members involved in what can politely be called international consulting and deal-making. Until 1990, brother Prescott S. Bush Jr. was an adviser to New York-based Asset Management International, partly owned by West Tsusho, a Japanese investment company. In February, NBC News reported Prescott had stood to make $1 million by arranging U.S. deals for Tsusho, which Japanese police say is a front for the Inagawakai crime syndicate. Son George, meanwhile, is a significant shareholder–along with Saudi and South African investors–in a Texas company, Harken Energy. Just before the Gulf War, Harken won a major oil-drilling contract–one it had no obvious qualification for–from Bahrain.

Brother William (Bucky) Bush is an international consultant who has been advising Samsung, the Korean conglomerate, on U.S. investments. Son John E. (Jeb), running his father’s reelection campaign in Florida, is an international real-estate investor, who has received multimillion-dollar backing from Japan’s Mitsui Trust. Lawyers in a suit filed against the shadowy Bank of Commerce and Credit International have just identified Jeb as a potential witness because his company invested in real estate with a company controlled by a major BCCI borrower.

Several of the President’s closest foreign-policy advisers have been mired in financial conflict-of-interest situations. In 1988, Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III, approved policies that permitted U.S. banks to avoid having to write off a portion of their hefty loans to Brazil. Baker himself was a prime beneficiary of this policy, because stock in New York’s Chemical Bank, where he had a large chunk, quickly rose 40%.

Conflict-of-interest issues have even been raised about the Gulf War. In October, 1990, the President denied, no doubt justly, that son George’s Bahrain oil connection had any influence on his commitment of troops to rescue Kuwait. However, the President himself had a commercial connection with Kuwait. Many years earlier, as he told White House dinner guests, his company had built Kuwait’s first offshore oil well.

In a more speculative vein, there is the possible Washington pro-war leverage of several Gulf owners of BCCI, the shadowy international bank that helped finance Iran-Contra. Press accounts suggest that Sheik Kamal Adham, former head of Saudi intelligence, and Sheik Zayed ibn Sultan al Nuhayan of Abu Dhabi, the bank’s dominant shareholder, were both able to use BCCI as their piggy bank, which presumably gave them enormous influence in Washington. Zayed, meanwhile, has been treated with kid gloves at every point of the U.S. government’s continuing BCCI investigation.

Quite extraordinarily, Zayed’s chief Washington strategist happens to be James A. Lake, deputy manager of the Bush reelection campaign, who also butters his bread as U.S. public-relations adviser to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, one vehicle by which Zayed holds majority control of BCCI. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who has been chairing the Senate BCCI investigation, recently demanded Lake’s resignation: “I have to question the propriety of the President of the United States’ campaign being managed by someone who is simultaneously being paid over $200,000 every three months to represent BCCI’s biggest shareholder.”

Democratic researchers have thick folders to amplify these and other reported incidents. White House strategists may be making a mistake in assuming that voters now judging Clinton harshly won’t do the same for Bush.

Part of the explanation for the collapse of any serious conflict-of-interest yardstick to restrain the mingling of party politics, personal business and the for-profit modification of U.S. foreign policy is simple. Back in the mid-1980s, the line between private industry, private financial bankrollers and foreign policy was dissolved in the Iran-Contra blueprint to aid the Nicaraguan rebels. Since then, Persian Gulf bankers and Washington consultants have become de facto assistant secretaries of state and assistant U.S. trade representatives. In 1987, leading members of Congress involved in the Iran-Contra investigation voiced fears about the dangers of the privatization of foreign policy. They were prophetic.

Further proof of the privatization pudding has since emerged in the central role that registered agents or lobbyists for foreign interests have played in the 1992 GOP presidential campaign. But not everyone was pleased. Buchanan ran TV commercials and made speeches criticizing Lake’s status as a lobbyist for various Japanese interests, while the firm of Charles Black, another senior Bush adviser, also has foreign clients. Buchanan’s campaign manager said, “Bush has Japanese foreign agents running his campaign, (and) a Panamanian agent running the Republican Party.”

No other major nation was so permissive, but old barriers had dissolved, and with them, old proprieties. In late February, another presidential candidate, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey attacked the financial dealings of Bush and his family, noting that brother Prescott was “building a golf course” in China for the “butcher of Tien An Men Square,” and charging that Bush policy “is pretty closely tied to his own family interests.” In March, Perot, revealing his plans for a possible third-party presidential bid, spiced his anti-Washington rhetoric by proposing “a law making it a criminal offense for foreign companies or individuals to influence U.S. laws or policies with money.” Legislation like that would strike at the heart of both privatized foreign policy and Washington’s international influence bazaar. But Perot–the derring-do businessman who arranged for a commando raid into Iran to free two of his employees a decade ago–understands what Iran-Contra unleashed.

In a year of profound public disillusionment, the politics could be incendiary. Just as the House of Representatives’ check-bouncing scandal essentially represents Democratic institutional corruption–though 25%-30% of congressmen involved are Republicans–the executive branch’s moral breakdown on foreign-policy corruption and self-dealing is institutionally Republican–though a fair minority of Washington’s foreign agents and international consultants are Democrats.

If his eventual presidential rivals pick up the criticisms now beginning to swirl, Bush could find the 1992 foreign-policy debate turning ugly.

Source link