top of page

The Fraudulent George Santos

Updated: Jan 2, 2023


I wanted to get something off my chest about this George Santos dude, this Congressman-elect out of NY-3. I called for this guy to resign when this stuff was blowing up about his personal life and fabrications about his professional resume.


We're being exposed and I called for him to step down. I got a lot of blowback. But, I got thick skin about this stuff. I really don't care. Somebody called me a “weak-ass Republican.” I'm not even really a Republican, but, okay.


It's important to address a couple of facets of this. I don't want rehash the whole bloody thing about this guy. New York Post, The New York Times, CBS, they've done a pretty complete job. But look, if you're gonna defend the New York Post about Hunter Biden, I hope you're ready to defend the New York Post about this guy.


Look at it, but just the highlights of it. He allegedly lied about where he worked. He allegedly lied about where he went to school. He lied about being Jewish versus being a Catholic. And then Tulsi Gabbard called him out when she was filling in for Tucker, she found a fundraising letter to a Jewish group that he wrote and he says, “As a proud American Jew,” that's how he introduced himself.


So this whole sort of Jewish line that he's come up with to defend himself, that doesn't, that's not true. I think the most egregious one was the fact that he's basically disowned the idea of the fact that he was married for five years. Never mentioned that until I think The Daily Beast uncovered that one.


He says, "people change, I'm very much gay," which sounded like when Mitt Romney said, "I'm severely conservative." That's what that sounds like to me. I'm very much gay. He's a deadbeat tenant; according to CBS, he defrauded a church to pay for a funeral - he said he couldn't afford it and the church raised a bunch of money for him and handed it to him to pay for the funeral.


So that turned out to be not true. You've got McCarthy running around saying how proud he is that he has the largest Republican Jewish caucus in 20 some-odd years.


“Max Miller in Ohio, George Santos in New York, and you had David Kustoff from Tennessee get reelected. He introduced him. Do you realize we have the largest Republican Jewish caucus in more than 24 years? Not bad, huh?”

Not bad, huh? Who cares? First off, you don't. What is this identity politics routine coming out of the Republican Party? I know he was speaking to a Jewish group and I won't be a wet blanket here, but come on. Who cares if you have the largest Republican-Jewish caucus in a few cycles? What difference does that make, to quote Hillary? But here's the thing where I want to take exception to.


Look, I get it. I get that you're upset that guys like Biden or Chris Murphy from Connecticut who stole valor - falsely claimed that he served in the United States military - did not. I get it when people were ticked off that Elizabeth Warren falsely claimed that she's an American Indian when she was 1/1024th or something like that. These guys aren't held accountable. I get it and I've said these guys should resign as a result, but that doesn't mean that we, that, and look, I'm not a Republican, so maybe I can say this more freely, but if you're trying to recruit people you need to make distinctions about who you are and what you stand for.

And if you're just gonna make this, if you're gonna go on this apology tour and say, wow, he's made mistakes, and but, let's see how he legislates or he said, I'm sorry. Oh... Oh, okay. Guess that's nice. I thought his interview with Tulsi was terrible.


And I appreciate him for, I, I think Elizabeth Warren said she goofed up too. So what's the difference? But here's a rep, two repeating themes. That I've heard from folks criticizing people who have suggested that this guy stepped down. And I know Santos isn't gonna step down.


He's come this far, right? So he's not gonna step down. But here's one argument. One, it's a trap that is set by Democrats. The guy running against Santos - the Democrat machine - didn't mention this at all during the campaign.


They didn't know. They had no idea. It was only after The New York Times discovered this guy had won. It's not this old "don't give the Democrats that much credit." I don't think that they've laid this elaborate trap for people to fall into. They didn't even know about it.


The Democrats didn't even know about it, so it's just not true. The other criticism, this is why we lose: when people suggest that George Santos should step down. There's an argument coming from 'the right,' that because we have standards, we lose.


I'd prefer my elected officials not lie through their teeth about who they are, where they came from, etc. By the way, how is this guy practicing Catholic and "very much gay?" That's sort of a side story, but maybe that should be the biggest story.


How is he claiming that he's a, he's a practicing Catholic and very much gay? But this is not why we lose-- Standards are not why we lose. We're supposed to tolerate frauds? There's a zillion people out there on the right and within the Republican media apparatus -- activists and conservative activists alike -- that have spent the better part of the last few years exposing and trying to neutralize what they consider to be fraudulent electoral practices. We don't tolerate fraud as a political entity within the Republican Party or the conservative movement, we don't tolerate fraud in our elections, we rail against it nearly every day.


That's not a public position or a preferred messaging point. We don't tolerate fraud at all. So why would we tolerate this guy? Why would we tolerate a fraud? And look, I'm not a prude about this stuff. We're not electing saints, okay? I said as much on Trump's comment with the Billy Bush tape.


We're not electing saints here, but up and down his background he's not forthright with who he is. And some of his explanations don't really go very far. The, "I'm sorry," notwithstanding. And so does Biden do it? Yeah. Now, if you're gonna be one of these guys that say they do it, so why can't we? Then you can't complain about Chris Murphy's stolen valor. I think that's more egregious than this guy, but all sides remain if you're gonna demand that the Democrat resigns for being a fraud.


So I think it's good to police your own, I really do. It helps to distinguish you from the other side. From my vantage point, as someone who is political-party-agnostic, as a registered independent, and if I woke up one day and said, man, I'd like to join a party, I little wonder what that's all about. Look, this is just me and my value system; I'd want to knock on the door of the first party I thought was being straight-up with me about who they are, what their agenda is, what they view as the problems facing the country, and what their policy prescriptions are-- it begins with who they are.


So if I'm in the party recruiting business and I'm trying to recruit the American electorate to join me, it begins with straight-up honesty and transparency about who you are. And so you could try to claim that politically, we're at a disadvantage by policing our own, but I just don't think that holds any weight.


Frankly, I think the total opposite. You're at more of an advantage politically if you're being straight up with the country. About who you are and what you wanna accomplish. I think that creates political success. Now his colleagues have to run around and they're gonna have a microphone stuck in their face. And it's not fair, and I get it because it's not like the Democrats have to deal with it. I get that; I'm sympathetic to that. But the reality is that they're going to have to answer for him nearly every day, and that's his fault.


As for McCarthy, I don't know how you can get rid of him. You can't take away his vote. So really, McCarthy, or whoever the speaker's gonna be, doesn't really have much to threaten 'em with, but they should ask him to step down.


I don't care how thin the majority is, I really don't. They only have a five-seat majority. It's not going to make much difference if it's four. It's just not, but they're going to have to get their acts together anyway, and no, I don't want to apologize for it.


The Democrats didn't even know that he had embellished his entire resume. Don't give them that kind of credit. And policing our own is not why we lose, there's no basis for that. There's no factual evidence for that whatsoever. We don't tolerate fraudulent elections, so don't tolerate this fraud.


 

Related links:






Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page