Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Get Rid of George Santos
Following the discussions and analyses about the newly elected Congressman George Santos, we see another tragic revelation of how far our culture has fallen. Santos appears to be a compulsive liar with little to no redeeming attributes. And yet he was elected to Congress in New York. How could this happen?
If you are curious about the innumerable lies that Santos perpetrated, you can go here and here. I was especially disgusted by this claim:
He maintained he was Jewish, the grandchild of Jewish refugees who escaped the Holocaust. But it turns out he has no Jewish ancestors or any connection to the Holocaust. (He later said he “never claimed to be Jewish” but jokingly said he’s “Jew-ish”).
His joking about the claim makes him even more despicable.
Due to his outrageous claims, his fundraising activities have also been questioned:
Santos hasn’t offered many clear explanations. He has refused to directly answer questions on the matter and said last week that he would hold a press conference “soon” to “address everything.” In the meantime, his campaign treasurer resigned, and the man Santos initially said had taken the job said he had done no such thing.
The red flags, the opacity of it all, should shine a light on the dangerous swamp that is US election funding. Hiding a contribution by one person under another’s name is prohibited, but what is permitted is even more troubling.
The campaign watchdog Open Secrets has raised the alarm over so-called straw donors and shell companies that conceal real donors. They not only cover the tracks of people who may want their identity hidden but also conceal some who may be contributing illegally, injecting “dark money” to manipulate US democracy and lawmaking.
In response to this disgrace, Kevin McCarthy’s response has been less than satisfactory. He named Santos to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and the Small Business Committee. Fortunately, Santos removed himself from those committees shortly thereafter. Given the shameful lies that Adam Schiff told, which were at least part of the reason for his removal from the Congressional House Intelligence Committee, how does McCarthy explain his accommodation of Santos?
At least Santos’ constituents are not standing down in light of his deceptions:
He said during an appearance on Steve Bannon’s’s War Room podcast this week that he would only resign if 142,000 asked him to do so—a reference to the more than 142,000 people who elected him in November.
Online petitions demanding his resignation continued to receive support only one week after he was sworn into office. Various petitions are nearing the threshold the GOP lawmaker mentioned, though his remarks were not binding and he could still stay in office regardless of how many signatures these petitions receive.
Is there any way to get rid of Santos? There are steps, but they aren’t easy ones to take. The Ethics Committee would need the support of the Republican majority in order to take action:
Should the Ethics Committee recommend expulsion, Mr Santos would only be removed if two-thirds of the House voted to support such an action. It’s theoretically possible, but much more likely that the embattled congressman would take the road more traveled: resignation.
Expulsion from Congress has only been carried out a handful of times by the lower chamber, the lion’s share of which stemmed from cases that arose during the Civil War or shortly thereafter.
In more recent years members have chosen to resign when it became clear that the House or law enforcement authorities were preparing to take action.
* * * *
But the most disheartening response came from Tara Isabella Burton, author of Self-Made: Curating our Identities from Da Vinci to the Kardashians. The interview was on NPR, where they decided not to discuss the truth or falsity of Santos’ claims, but to focus on the aspect of his success due to his being a “self-made man.” I was baffled by Burton’s willingness to laud those actions she claims to have been self-made attributes, where in an era of social media and disinformation, there is no longer nobility to be credited to those who become famous by any means available. Integrity, honesty, and dignity have no place among the modern aspirants labeled self-made. Although in the NPR discussion, they admitted that Santos had gained success through his lies and deception, they believed that he had earned the title of “self-made.” I disagree.
Frederick Douglass, a self-made man himself, described such a person this way:
Self-made men are the men who, under peculiar difficulties and without the ordinary helps of favoring circumstances, have attained knowledge, usefulness, power and position and have learned from themselves the best uses to which life can be put in this world, and in the exercises of these uses to build up worthy character. They are the men who owe little or nothing to birth, relationship, or friendly surroundings; to wealth inherited or to early approved means of education; who are what they are, without the aid of any favoring conditions by which other men usually rise in the world and achieve great results. . . They are in a peculiar sense indebted to themselves for themselves. If they have traveled far, they have made the road on which they have travelled. If they have ascended high, they have built their own ladder . . . Such men as these, whether found in one position or another, whether in the college or in the factory; whether professors or plowmen; whether Caucasian or Indian; whether Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-African, are self-made men and are entitled to a certain measure of respect for their success and for proving to the world the grandest possibilities of human nature, of whatever variety of race or color.
Plain and simple, Santos’ actions were despicable, making him unworthy to serve in Congress. He’s not a self-made man.
He’s a con man of the highest order.
Published in Politics
You mean by the media?
No, by the opposing campaign. The media might cover it if it’s a nasty enough fight, but I’d rely on the opponent’s campaign to have more impact.
So much for opposition. . .
Unfortunately, vetting candidates before they enter the arena is not a priority for any of the political parties. This includes third party candidates.
The larger the meeting, whether it is a classroom, faculty lounge, city council meeting, et al. The IQ in the room devolves to the lowest IQ in the room. This includes the Senate, House, President, and any number of legislators across the US.
We should be honest and at least admit regardless of political belief state he/she may be a sleaze, but they are our sleaze.
How abo
Maybe we would all be better off.
Percival.
To be sure, his lies exactly mirrored the kind of biographical lies that Biden has told over his career.
It’s his theft of $3000 from a Gofundme that was meant for a dying dog that sets him apart as particularly psychopathic and despicable.
Biden and others have also made off with plenty of loot that was meant to do better things.
What you and others are saying is, we’re no worse than anyone else. And because they’ve been disgusting in the past and are now, why should we care if we are?
Here’s where I am on this: the left is disgusting and we have a slim majority.
all hands on deck unless his voters want him gone. It isn’t your job to abrogate the authority of his voters. NOT YOUR JOB.
No. What he is saying . You don’t unilaterally disarm in the face of an opponent that wants you dead .
It’s not just that, “unilateral disarmament” is a valid concern.
From what I understand, there’s nothing they can do until the next election. It’s the job of Congress; they have the power.
weird comment not where I put it…
Could you clarify?
So do you think any principles should apply?
Let him throw himself under his own bus if he wants to. He’s not my representative.
Another way to put my observations is, Until they start behaving, then our bad behavior doesn’t matter.
But he will have a vote in YOUR Congress.
I’m with Annefy on this one. He’s not your representative so treat him like you treat the democrats. He’s not your guy.
You seem to be assuming that any lying Republican who got thrown out would be replaced by a perfect Republican, rather than another cheating scheming lying Democrat whose lying and cheating and scheming was able to fool the voters.
Yeah… where he will vote with his caucus the majority of the time. He’s a number to me. And he should be to you.
Lots of people have a vote in Congress. Only one of them represents my district, and it isn’t this guy.
I’m not defending Santos. I’m just pointing out that some of those who are after his head are far more tolerant of people who lie far more often and to far greater effect.
So what?
So what?
Expelling traitors isn’t disarmament. It’s maintenance of the morale and the operational capacity needed to fight.
It appears to me that “exactly what the Democrats want” is this: liars and fools in power. People who act on the principles of George Santos and Ilhan Omar. I want the opposite. I want the liars and fools out.
But who would replace Santos, at least for a while? NY Gov Hochul?
And if voters are willing to elect a liar etc, would you prefer that liar be a Democrat?
I believe someone established that Hochul doesn’t the authority.
As Rodin pointed out earlier, there’s a lot of whataboutism. I think I’m not going to address those; if someone else wants to, they can do so.
kedavis,
I don’t know anything about the question of replacements. You would be a good judge of that question, not I.
If you and other knowledgeable people discover that any available replacement would be worse than keeping Santos for the time being, then that would be a perfectly rational reason to do the latter.
Unlike the reasoning that I attacked in my Comment, which is suicidal: “Whattabout the Democrat felon Fred Farkle? Don’t Republicans need to match the Democrats, psychopath for psychopath?”
No. That would be at least as stupid a policy as the one I argued against.
I may have said this on another Santos post. I don’t support throwing out someone duly elected. Yes, he was an outrageous liar but where was his opposition to dig out the truth? Where was the media to call him on it? Will throwing out congressmen for lying become a precedent? Politicians of all parties play with the truth every single election. Are we going to start throwing out politicians for fudging the truth on every election? I think such a precedent could only lead to trouble. We just have to bear with Santos for his term. I would be shocked if he got re-elected in 2024.