No, Mr. Speaker, “Look, The Voter’s Decide” Is Not A Responsible Response Regarding Rep. Santos [Corrected]

That the Republican have not yet forced Rep. George Santos to resign from office is an ethics disgrace, and one that the party cannot afford. Yeah, yeah, I know: the GOP has a very narrow edge in the House, and it’s crucial that the Democrats, who proven themselves unfit to govern over  the past six years (at least), not have control of both the White House and Congress. However, allowing a sociopath and compulsive liar like Santos to remain in Congress doesn’t even meet generous utilitarian standards. That means can’t be justified by any end. McCarthy brands himself as a weak and unprincipled leader by tolerating Santos. His party’s message becomes that it will embrace the scum of the universe it it allows them to hold power. Santos inspires more and, if possible even greater rotters to run for office. Nobody lied this much to get elected before because nobody thought they could get away with it. Now, it’s clear that voters are more gullible than ever. Having a villain like Santos in Congress makes Congress look bad. It makes democracy look bad.Congress’s legal inability to eject an elected member of Congress because he or she is an untrustworthy villain made sense because it seemed impossible that anyone as dishonest as Santos could get elected to the House or the Senate. The New York rep is the exception that will inevitably challenge any rule: he’s  the Ethics Incompleteness Principle come to horrible, throbbing life. Santos makes Bill Clinton seem like Honest Abe and Richard Nixon look like George Washington; he makes Rep. Schiff seem like Aristides the Just and John Edwards a twin of Sir Thomas More.  Nobody’s seen anything like this creep, at least not in government. New York Magazine purported to publish a complete compendium of Santos’s lies and “alleged lies,” and they missed a bunch. They didn’t include his likely participation in a Ponzi scheme, or Santos’s obvious lie that he has done nothing illegal or wrong. They did get this right: “As he has claimed, Santos is a 34-year-old Republican born in Queens who will represent New York’s wealthiest congressional district. Other than that, pretty much everything is under scrutiny.”

There are plenty of sociopaths in Congress and elected office around the country, but Santos has shown that he has no limits, no conscience, no lines he won’t cross. He’s dangerous, and capable of anything. McCarthy’s dodge won’t wash for a plague-infected fox in the chicken house like Santos: his own voters don’t want him representing them, and feel like wearing baskets over their heads…which they should.

So should McCarthy and his Republican colleagues if they don’t use every legal tool, tactic and strategy to force Santos to resign. They have to allow him to vote, but that’s all they have to do. He should be forced to sit with his face to the wall in the back of the chamber, and it should be an uncomfortable chair. As I’ve written here before, he should shunned. Nobody should say anything to him other than, “Resign. Now.” So far, McCarthy and his party have flunked this crucial integrity and leadership test (as usual). They have to do better.

17 thoughts on “No, Mr. Speaker, “Look, The Voter’s Decide” Is Not A Responsible Response Regarding Rep. Santos [Corrected]

  1. How did a Republican win in Nassau County. This is leafy, rich, north shore, Long Island Sound, Gold Coast, Great Gatsby, metropolitan New York. These are all the smart, important people. Surely most of them are Democrats. Who did the Democrats run for this seat?

    • Republicans swept Long Island. We had the results a lot of people were expecting nationally. I used to be in the district he won (we were put into another district after the 2020 census). His district had been Democrat for years, and will probably be so again. NYC’s crime played a major role in Santos winning, in my view.

        • Of all the major blue states (and many purple states where Dems “surprisingly” did well in the 2022 midterm election), NY is kindda unique in that it does not have the broad no-cause mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, early voting measures common nowadays. Draw your own conclusions but I think this explains, at least partially, why the NY was one of the few states where that red wave materialized.

          P.S., I’m expecting NY Dems to “fix” that by the next election

  2. Interesting his checking off the gay and even transvestite boxes doesn’t seem to be saving him. Maybe they’re of no use because he’s a Republican and that trumps everything else.

    • To a great many Democrats, being a Republican is totally, completely, and in all other ways unforgiveable.

      But truthfully, Rep. Santos is a blot on a government body already bereft of nearly all its credibility. And I emailed my Representative – a newly-elected Republican – and told him the same thing.

  3. Jack
    I think the guy is reprehensible but pushing for his resignation is wrong. I have no problem with shunning him and assigning an office next to the boiler room but until we establish some objective criteria for demanding ouster it is neither practical nor feasible to apply what “should” be done equally.
    I screamed from the rooftops that Biden was a sociopathic compulsive liar before the election. Many others knew it as well yet he won the battle in November and we have been told that we must accept him as president. I see no difference in either candidate for office but we are attacking a relatively benign individual whose power will be limited by the rest of the body. Conversely, another sociopathic serial liar holds immense power yet we cannot push him to resign.
    I recognize that having this guy in Congress is like being forced to eat feces but we must be careful not to let our biases overwhelm our thought process. Perhaps Congress should propose legislation that permits voters to recall their individual representatives should they find them reprehensible as well. I find Maxine Waters and her allies a stain on Congress but their constituents voted them in and that is what matters.

      • Chris, I think what you’re pointing out is the “where do we draw the line” problem. Biden is an egregious example, but I think Adam Schiff takes the cake. He lies relentlessly while in office and using his committee chairmanship to stir up division in the electorate to an almost physically dangerous level. Santos could be impeached and removed if he’d committed a serious crime. But clearly, lying is not a crime, certainly not in Congress. The guy is frankly hilarious. He’s so far beyond being comprehensible that he’s simply broken the mold. Just as no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, no one expected a buffoon of George Santos’s magnitude. If someone wanted to make a black comedy movie about him, no one would have green lighted it. Now, I bet he’ll get book and movie offers eventually. He’s just so utterly fantastic.

    • Which is why I cited the Ethics Incompleteness Principle. you are 100% right regarding any previous elected scumbag, but not this guy, which is why the usual arguments cannot apply. It can’t be a precedent, because Santos is a one-in-a-million anomaly. There’s no bias involved; it doesn’t require any special objectivity to conclude this guy has to go. He is objectively a danger to the operation of Congress and thus the functioning government of the US. He is a threat to take bribes, leak sensitive information, give extortionists what they need to blackmail other legislators. We can assume that no bad conduct is unimaginable for someone like this. It is irresponsible and dangerous not to force him out.

      • Jack
        First my remark about bias was not suggestive of being inappropriate. We all have biases, some are based on objective analysis, while others are based on emotion. What I was getting at was that we must evaluate the possible solution based on existing legitimate methods and not get so wrapped up in what “should” be done that we violate ethical and legal principles to obtain an objective.
        I understand the potential threat but see him no more of a threat than Eric- sleeping with the enemy- Swalwell or Biden himself. Given that level of concern, we would have to apply the same rules to all yet there seems no desire to expel Swallwell. Fairness dictates what we should do even though his prior behaviors would push us to what “can” be done.
        What do we say if voters return him in two years knowing who and what he is? The House can minimize his exposure to sensitive information that might allow him to be compromised just as removing Swallwell from the intelligence committee.

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.