Representative-Elect Santos Update: George Just Overtook The Field For The 2022 “Most Incompetent Elected Official Of The Year.” Wow.

Rep. George Santos (R-NY) really accomplished something here. At virtually the last moment, he came from nowhere tho snatch the coveted Ethics Alarms Award for 2022’s Most Incompetent Elected Official from an amazingly credentialed group of hacks, liars and fools. There are Joe and Kamala, of course, each with multiple nominations here. All the big city mayors who have fiddled while wokism allowed crime to fester and spread. EA nominees for the honor: Brevard County (Florida) Sheriff Wayne Ivey, Oregon Governor Kate Brown, GOP Reps. Scott Perry and Mario Diaz-Belart, Rep. Swalwell, of course, Senator Dick Durbin (as usual), Virginia Delegate Elizabeth Guzman, Rep. Louise Frankel, the ridiculous Rep. Matt Gaetz, twirking Rhode Island. State Senator Tiara Mack, Rep. Mary Miller, Mass. State Rep. Lindsay Sabadosa (who was horrified that the courts would stop unconstitutional uses of federal power), Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Virginia House Of Delegates Member Wren Williams.

But emulating the “Immaculate Reception” that made Franco Harris an NFL legend, the 1968 Harcad -Yale game 29-29 tie (when Harvard scored two touchdowns with less than a minute left) and Bobby Thompson’s home run (“The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!), Santos did the imposiible and made every one of his competitors look like Teddy Roosevelt. I posted last week about the emerging (and inexcusably late) discovery that many of the claims he made while running for office this year appeared to be false, concluding that he should resign his freshly won seat in Congress. Then Santos’ statements confirming the scandal, made after three days of thought, or the best he could do to approach thought, proved beyond challenge that he is even more of an ethics-free disgrace and menace to the public welfare than I initially thought.

“I am not a criminal,” Santos said during his interview with the New York Post, thus embracing Marion Barry’s infamous, “It it isn’t illegal, it’s not unethical” rationalization. “My sins here are embellishing my resumé,” he added, in a masterpiece of understatement. Since voters elect representatives based on their qualifications, “embellish” gives Santos too much credit. He HAD no credentials to embellish. He never graduated from college. He didn’t work at the prestigious Wall Street firms he claimed he had.

Santos confessed he had “never worked directly” for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, arguing that his bio’s claim that he was employed by them was a “poor choice of words.” You know, like “I am Marie of Romania” is a poor choice of words if you are not Marie of Romania. After admitting that he never graduated from any institution of higher learning despite his statements to the contrary, Santos said, “I own up to that … We do stupid things in life.” Oh! Well that’s OK then! Santos has no choice but to “own up” to all of his lies, since he’s been caught and exposed. Owning up is admirable only when a miscreant can escape accountability.

His campaign website stated that Santos’ mother was Jewish and his grandparents escaped the Nazis during World War II. He told the Post that he’s Catholic, and that he “never claimed to be Jewish” but meant “Jew-ish, because of stories his maternal grandmother told him. This is the same excuse Elizabeth Warren used to excuse her claims that she was a Cherokee, except that she never said she was Cherokeeish.

Santos also admitted to lying when he claimed that he owned 13 different properties, and admitted that he lives at his sister’s home. Conceding that he skipped out on thousands of dollar of rent owed to a landlord and has never paid the amount despite a court judgment against him, he told the Post, “We didn’t pay it off. I completely forgot about it…We had issues paying rent at the time. It’s the vulnerability of being human. I am not embarrassed by it.” 

That’s signature significance right there. He hasn’t paid thousands of dollars to a man he admits he owes the money to and has for years, but he’s not embarrassed, because it’s just the “vulnerability of being human.” What does saying something like that—even once— prove? He’s a con man. He cannot be trusted regarding anything.

And, of course, he’s an idiot.

But wait! There’s more! “I campaigned talking about the people’s concerns, not my resumé,” Santos told The Post. “I intend to deliver on the promises I made during the campaign — fighting crime, fighting to lower inflation, improving education. The people elected me to fight for them.”

No, in fact they didn’t, you son-of-a-bitch. They elected the imaginary person you deceived them into thinking you were. Why would anyone trust Santos to deliver on a promise of any kind, large or small? The single thing Santos could do to prove he possessed at least one quality every elected official should have would be to resign, as I suggested in the previous commentary about him. He isn’t even competent enough to know when the jig is up, the die is cast, and the fat lady has sung.

Now Congress should vote to expel him, as they have the power to do, with Republicans leading the way. (See? I wrote that without collapsing in laughter). Still, George Santos now has at least has one honor he earned fair and square:

Most Incompetent Elected Official of the Year: Representative-Elect George Santos (R-NY)

Now you have finally have something genuine to put on your resumé, you putz.

21 thoughts on “Representative-Elect Santos Update: George Just Overtook The Field For The 2022 “Most Incompetent Elected Official Of The Year.” Wow.

  1. “It’s the vulnerability of being human. I am not embarrassed by it.”

    Embarrassment is a human condition that vulnerable humans with integrity and principles are prone to feel from time to time.


  2. Actually, the full quote in the New York Post is “I am not a criminal here.” That last word may be relevant. According to another NYC newspaper, “The Times had uncovered Brazilian court records showing that Mr. Santos had been charged with fraud as a young man after he was caught writing checks with a stolen checkbook.” Is anyone familiar with Brazil’s statutes of limitations or extradition policies, because the Times continues, “In the court file, Mr. Santos is identified by his full name and date of birth, as well as by the names of his mother and father. The documents show that Mr. Santos confessed to the crime and was charged, but that the case remains unresolved because authorities were later unable to locate him.”

  3. “So what? We won, didn’t we?”

    That concept, made famous by Harry Reid, was certainly not new to him. It has been used in various forms forever, and it’s one of the Rationalizations on this site: The ends justifies the means.

    Now we have George Santos, and it’s happening again. This time, on the ideological side of the spectrum that claims to care more about integrity and honesty than the other side. Mr. Santos decided the ends justified the means, deceived his constituents, and got away with it…almost.

    My US representative is a newly-elected Republican, so I don’t know if it’s possible to contact him yet. But I’ll be checking this afternoon and if I can, he’ll be getting an email from me demanding that House Republicans immediately look into the matter and (hopefully) root Mr. Santos out.

    And you know? I’m STILL not sure members of Congress could tell me why so few people trust them any longer. It blows my mind.

  4. So Rep. George Santos (R-NY) is a confirmed pathological liar extraordinaire.

    Now that we are fully aware of the Santos character flaw and willingness to lie to get what he wants, as in the ends justifies the means, are we absolutely sure that Rep. George Santos is even a “Republican” or is he a lying progressive Democrat claiming Republican credentials.

    Is Santos a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

    • I think it’s likely a safe assumption that this turd has no principles at all, and sought public office solely as a means of enriching himself. In other words, the same as about 85% of politicians, but he’s just dumber than most of the others (think for a second about how low that bar is…).

      The “wolf in sheep’s clothing” idea doesn’t seem like it would be a workable long-term strategy: once his phony resume was found out (and as a Republican, it was eventually going to be uncovered), any sign of defection to the left, even a single critical vote, would likely trigger the Republicans to expel him from the House, even if they don’t have the integrity to do so now. The phony credentials are essentially a Sword of Damocles that would force him to toe the Republican party line.

      • Maybe the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” doesn’t hold water in this instance but “the boy who cried wolf “ certainly does. I wouldn’t believe a damn thing that comes out of that man’s mouth, not one damn word.

        • Most definitely. He’s a scumbag at the very least, and making so many easily disproven lies in a public campaign would tend to suggest he’s more than just a liar-of-convenience. There’s something pathological about all this.

          • I can hear the drunken bar room conversation at the annual progressives secret strategy bash…

            George Santos: (jokingly) Republicans are so stupid that they would vote for a candidate that’s got a completely made up resume about themself, just a bunch of fucking lies.

            Bartender: (surprised) No way! I know there’s some really stupid Republicans out there but they’re not all that fucking stupid.

            George Santos: (quite confidently) You’re not paying attention. Only stupid people voted for Trump.

            Bartender: (resigned) Okay, you might be right but how the hell are you going to prove it?

            Some Other Drunken Fool That’s Eavesdropping: (yelling at everyone in the bar) Who here will support Santos running as a Republican using a fake resume? It’ll be kind like the joke campaign for “none of the above” in the movie Brewster’s Millions.

            Everyone In The Bar: (excitedly) Yes, Yeah, I’ll donate to THAT campaign, go for it Santos, etc… etc…

            The rest is history.

  5. This guy is a compulsive, verging on manic, liar unlike any other I think I’ve ever seen not in captivity. Someone should make a movie about him. This is great black humor material. I’m not sure whom to cast for the lead. I don’t think Jason Alexander has the energy at this point in his career. A young Danny DeVito might have been able to inhabit the role. Maybe Burt Lancaster in “The Rainmaker” is close. Maybe a young Desi Arnaz could add the requisite Latin component.

    You’ve got to give Trump credit. He certainly found all the best people. There’s a photo of this guy and his boyfriend in formal wear at Mar-a-Lago. They look like two guys into gatecrashing, who’ve just landed their biggest fish. It’s an interesting Trumpian psychological quirk. I guess flimflammers have one fatal weakness: they can’t spot a flimflammer even at point blank range.

    • Other Bill wrote, “There’s a photo of this guy and his boyfriend in formal wear at Mar-a-Lago. They look like two guys into gatecrashing, who’ve just landed their biggest fish.”

      Here’s that photo. They are the two guys standing with tuxes on and little flag pins on the lapel.

      • The copy I saw was cropped. It made them look as if they were guests of honor. Obviously, this was just a rubber chicken affair. I suppose the Santos did the cropping!

  6. In this day and age where there are “war rooms” dedicated to uncovering real and imaginary (cue Kavanaugh) defects I applaud Santos for making a mockery of the election process. Here in AZ we were inundated with ads from Mark Kelly touting his “accomplishments” that were not true.

  7. How close are we to seeing a completely fake candidate? As in, someone who doesn’t even exist, using computer generated videos and voice to fake a human being? I think within the next 15 years, not only will such a thing be possible, at least one prankster will try it.

  8. 1. I disagree with your “most incompetent…” description of Santos. On the contrary, he is clearly extremely competent: at lying, at reading his potential constituency (perhaps most important and most depressing), at assuming he will not be vetted and found out. He did a great job at that: who says he’s incompetent here? “Most Competent Candidate of the Year” would fit, and still leave room for the long list of lying legislators you cite. It is clear that if/when he is seated, he will surely fit your billing as “Incompetent Legislator of the Year.”

    2. I call on the Congress to refuse to seat him. That would do much to repair the pathetic reputation enjoyed by that body now: a small first step toward honesty and ethics. And if Congress is afraid of that move, how about a mental health rationale: Santos is clearly a pathological liar, a certifiable narcissist, and cheerfully open and unapologetic about his unforgivable actions. Are there any other disqualifiers? A basic vetting, which of course should have been undertaken long ago, will certainly find additional psychological flaws.

    3. And if he is seated anyway because of the all important balance (or lack thereof) between Democrats and Republicans, this will only prove that they are all liars, self-interested morons, and that we have a Congress we cannot trust with this most simple action, much less the complicated legislation they are supposed to produce. By all means, let’s have just one more lying, cheating, despicable elected official running the country.

  9. I agree he should not be allowed to sit in Congress, having proved himself to be a fraud. He is the example, par excellence of the adage, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.” I do take exception with one sentence in your assessment. Namely, “Since voters elect representatives based on their qualifications, “embellish” gives Santos too much credit.” There is ample historical evidence and contemporary examples that voters DO NOT elect representatives based on their qualifications. The American voter has proven themselves to be easily swayed by emotion, hyperbole, smoke, and mirrors. and or yes the promise of free stuff. You Jack have identified quite a few over the past years. . So when engaged in political prognostication with friends my personal adage is “Never overestimate the intelligence of the American voter.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.