Do you know this man?
You do, but as a participant in the Witness Protection Program he debuted on the popularly unwatched OAN network last night. Furthermore, determined to appear anonymous while in the tender care of the U.S. Marshals Service, he pulled a Joan Rivers trick — a face redo.
The Daily Beast reports that some of the network's several viewers blamed Matt Gaetz's abnormal appearance on a bad makeup job or bad lighting. The consensus, however, is that he sought the needle. One dermatologist observed that his face was altered by an "overly heavy hand and poor placement" of neuromodulators, as the Beast put it, which sent me to the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. Neuromodulators are just "wrinkle-relaxing injections of botulinum toxin." In a word, Botox.
The dermatologist added that Gaetz's fresh facade is "too heavy in the forehead and not lateral enough to prevent Spock Eye" — a facial feature that in no way even remotely suggests an alien Gaetzian intelligence. The good doctor also said the technique used "pushes the brow down and makes him look more menacing than usual." Really? At any rate, nothing can ever subtract from the menace of Gaetz's mind.
So much for a rearranged visage. Let's move along to Matt's first OAN show. As a guest he had (what else?) a Republican pol, Rep. Thomas Massie, a firm no-Mike-Johnson-as-speaker guy. (I confess, my "so much for" looks resistance was futile; speaking of faces, Massie's appeared more as skid-row panhandler than a U.S. representative. But who knows, perhaps this is his polished look.)
Tonight @RepThomasMassie joins @mattgaetz to discuss the upcoming Speaker vote: "I'm a 'Hell No' on Speaker Johnson"
— One America News (@OANN) January 3, 2025
Click the link to watch tonight's show at
9PM ET | 6PM PT https://t.co/Bgm0eOgOZi pic.twitter.com/HBkaKz5Lk4
No news in that clip. Massie's opposition has been public for some time. Also unnewsy was male-groin masseuse Lauren Boebert's addition to the show. If, she said, Johnson would only pay Chip Roy's extortion, i.e., name him as Rules Committee chairman, then the speaker's reelection would be in the bag.
Lauren was sharp as ever. She overlooked the virtually guaranteed riot to erupt from such a Johnson-Roy deal — the rioters, those now rather amusingly called the "more moderate" reps in the House Republican caucus. (Hey, everything's relative.)
Still, really pissed off they'd be. For a Rules Committee chairman wields nearly the power of a speaker, or what used to be powerful speakers. He's the big cheese when it comes to setting the rules for how a bill shall be put to the House. The chairman's committee can permit an open rule — all proposed amendments are due free speech — or choose which amendments may be heard or shut them down altogether.
And pissed indeed should one of the roughly 30 Freedom Caucusers among more than 200 House GOP members extort his way to a bill-funneling chairmanship.
Thus I hope Johnson cuts the deal with Roy, so that the circus goes on. After all, no House Republican governance whatsoever is the most ideal form of Republican governance.
(No such luck. This, as I was writing.)
Posted by: |