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
There’s nothing anyone can or should do. He was elected by his constituents. They are an autonomous family of sorts. His political future is entirely up to them.
We is a tricky word, but hate to tell you, the only way YOU get representation in this country (or ever in anyway) is by finding enough people similar enough to you to affect change. That’s how national sovereignty works, that’s how politics work.
So go ahead and whine about the collective we, but the road to change in this country and getting laws passed that you like is to find what we group you belong in and try to grow those numbers and win elections.
In the National Review, Rob Long practically vivisected Santos with a parody of his LinkedIn account resume . . .
Don,
That special corruption was his refusal to abide by a superior court’s ruling, even as he insisted that citizens brought into his own court must abide by his own rulings.
I can tolerate a lot of hypocrisy and even a fair amount of routine dishonesty in my elected officials. But a judge who defies the judges above him while still wielding power over the people below him is like a dirty cop or a military officer who doesn’t respect the chain of command. There’s something especially dangerous about having people like that in positions of power.
H.
[This Comment is intended to be friendly and a little ironic: I don’t really mean to judge you even though it may look that way.]
Stina,
If you re-read my Comment more carefully, I think you will discover that your implicit assumption–that it contained whining–is false. What appeared to you, after a quick scan, to be whining was merely an objective observation of what I believe to be an important truth.
In general, before commenting on what you thought a post said and did not say, if it is from a person like me, you should always read it more carefully than you would read a post from a normal person.
This exception is made necessary by these peculiarities of our sort:
Caution: Read even that carefully before commenting. I did not write
(I don’t assume that you will ever want to read any of my posts carefully, and I fully sympathize. They are not for everyone.)
What I did write (and therefore, must mean) is only that
I think that by now you have either
or,
But just in case, I am braced for a scathing insult. (I waive my rights under the Code of Conduct.)
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Completely off-topic: Your comment has given me an idea. When/if I am ever asked for my pronouns, I think I’ll answer “I/we,” because it would be amusing to watch it dawn on these nuts how impossible it would be to use such pronouns.
Us.
For those of us of a certain age, using the pronouns “I/wee” is just a little too personal and embarrassing.
No. Under the Constitution, there would be an election forthwith. To be a candidate, you need to be a New York resident, but you don’t need to live in the district.
Not if you are the King or Queen of England.
It has been argued that the House can’t or shouldn’t expel a member due to behavior before they are elected.
That problem may have been solved. A former staffer has come forward to say that his junk was groped by Santos.
Remember, Oregon Senator Bob Packwood was expelled due to sexual misconduct, combined with lying about it just before an election.
It hasn’t removed our current president, so I don’t see how this will work.
Why should I care about this?
What lies did he supposedly tell? I followed the link in the OP, and there was something about saying that his mother was in one of the Twin Towers on 9/11, and something about claiming to have degrees including an MBA from NYU, and something about working for financial firms.
So what? He looks like a minor politician who padded his resume.
I do note the one whopper that bothered Susan so much, though. The one that made her “disgusted.” That was claiming to be a Jew with ancestors who escaped the Holocaust.
That is an assertion that should be utterly irrelevant to any election, shouldn’t it?
But Santos has the gall to use the ultimate identity-politics-victimization claim, the Jewish Holocaust card.
I think that it’s pretty funny, like that lady — Rachel Dolezal or something — who claimed to be black. Or Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, for that matter.
How curious that I read this post and just a couple of hours later this showed up on my email: https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-fall-of-the-lyin-king-congressman-george-santoss-downfall_5027367.html?ea_med=desktop_etv&ea_src=ai_recommender&ea_cnt=4
Yes, I remember the case of Bob Packwood. All the more reason not to get sucked into that game again.
“Padded his resume” is an understatement in this case. I find Santos darkly amusing in that the man is, like our current president, a caricature of casual dishonesty. He lies even when he doesn’t have to lie, and with an almost comical nonchalance despite the near certainty of his lies being revealed. Democrats can get away with that nonsense because “Republicans pounce!” becomes the story, but Republicans obviously don’t have that luxury.
Why should we care? Other than the fact that the sheer diversity of his dishonesty calls into question the mental health of this sitting representative, and the fact that he reflects badly on a party that, under normal circumstances, arguably holds itself to a higher standard than the other guys — beyond those things, I’m honestly not sure why we should care. We should care, I’m sure of that: civic hygiene demands it. But when Santos is set against the backdrop of all that’s wrong in the current administration and in the Democratic Party, it isn’t really clear to me that Santos remaining in the House for a couple of years is actually worth worrying about.
Regarding the Jewish thing, two points.
First, I don’t share Susan’s particular disgust with the man’s false claim that he was Jewish, nor with his comically inept backpedaling on the matter. That is, for me, merely one more fagot on the bonfire of this man’s breathtaking mendacity. I don’t think he’s anti-Semitic, merely shamelessly opportunistic.
Secondly, I reject the phrase “Jewish Holocaust card” as mischaracterizing the historical importance of the Holocaust and the degree to which Jews remain threatened and persecuted today. The Jewish homeland remains threatened by the same anti-Semitic fervor that gripped the perpetrators of the Holocaust within the living memory of many Jews still with us. I’ve had the race card played on me any number of times, but never the Jew card, and I’m skeptical that the latter is often played for political advantage. Calling it “the ultimate identity-politics-victimization claim” makes it seem as trivial as every other look-at-me-my-skin/sexual preference/fanciful identity-is-different-from-yours claim, and that’s an easy equivalence to reject when there are still those among us bearing the literal tattoos of Auschwitz.
Thank you for your comments, Hank.
Omar married her brother.
That was a crime.
Her first.
I’m late to this topic and I haven’t read all the responses, but this is my thought: he’s some kind of psychopath, but I want him to stay there permanently.
I want him there so we can point to him and say, “Look at who governs you! Now, do you want the government to have more power, or less??”
If he isn’t an argument that everyone should be conservative, I don’t know what is.
Besides, if he’s different from the rest of Washington it’s a matter of degree, not kind.
I would not hold a staffer to a standard lower than Christine Blasey Ford. And each house sets its own rules. The rules of the Senate do not apply here. As for Packwood, it was a RE-election campaign and all of that was pre-Lewinsky, where the ONLY rule that matters was established.
The party’s willingness to fold like a cheap lawn chair and sacrifice their own to standards the Democrats would never follow in a thousand years is exactly the kind of behavior that allowed the rise of the man you detest so much.
Let him stay. He’s amusing, he will probably vote with us, and the people of his district deserve what they got.
And definitely not those people.
Antisemitism is a very hardy weed.