My old Congressman, Tommy Suozzi, has an interesting op-ed about his replacement in the House as representative of the New York 3d District. Tommy says it pains him to see a con man sitting in his seat. Of course, it may not happen if there is no speaker elected, but that’s another problem. Assuming the new class gets sworn in today, it will include Santos, despite his stunning array of lies and potential campaign finance crimes
Assuming George Santos, if that really is his name, will get sworn in today provided a speaker is elected, there’s nothing to be done to stop it. As we learned when they tried to keep Adam Clayton Powell Jr. out, as long as someone qualifies constitutionally and was elected, he gets to sit. That he got there because of lies does not disqualify anyone from being in Congress.
But there remains a problem, one that appears from the bowels of Suozzi’s op-ed talking about his beating Santos in 2020 by 12 points.
Even before Mr. Santos’s lies were exposed in the media, he showed himself to be an avatar of this age of no-consequences impunity. He ran against me in 2020: It was the middle of the Covid pandemic, he did not live in the district, and no one had heard of him. He had little in campaign funds, and during our few joint campaign appearances, all virtual, he came across as a phony. I ignored him, hardly mentioned his name and beat him by 12 points.
A 12-point beating is usually considered a whupping. But here, we have a former County Executive, a two-term congressman, running against a complete unknown, a nobody, a space filler. And the loser got 44% of the vote against this guy who should have taken 97% of the vote, but only got 56%. As Tommy said, he ignored him and won. Perhaps if he hadn’t been ignored, he wouldn’t have run, and won, this time.
As a constituent of NY 3, I certainly don’t want Santos to be my congressman (not that I did before, but I digress).
It’s not as if candidates for office didn’t lie before, embellish their records, make up a detail here and there to come off better, garner sympathy, run faster and jump higher. But the magnitude and scope has changed. Perhaps in the past, the expectation was that no one would be as shameless as George Santos to essentially fabricate his entire existence, Trump excepted. Those days are apparently gone.
Whose job is it going forward to vet a candidate for the accuracy of his information? Does the burden fall on the opposing candidate to do the requisite colonoscopy, verify college degrees, jobs, even the date of his mother’s death? Opposition research is unsavory and expensive, and congressional campaigns are generally not flush with extra cash.
Is it the media’s job to comb through candidates’ resumes to make sure they’re legit, and to let the voters know whether the guy in the hipster glasses is the real deal? If so, is the media up to the task? Can they be trusted to call a candidate a liar even if it’s the guy from their tribe?
Does the duty belong to the voter to make sure he or she isn’t voting for a “con man,” Is it left to voters to contact Busy Bee Nursery School to verify attendance?
Now that the age of utter shamelessness is upon us, and but for my new local paper, the Oyster Bay Herald, revealing that Santos might not be who he said he was, and the New York Times picking up on the story to turn a hyperlocal story into a national headline, how do we stop the next liar from getting elected? Unless Santos chooses to resign, he will be sworn in and will be seated. How do we prevent this from happening, or worse yet, becoming the norm?
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“… how do we stop the next liar from getting elected?”
Ahhhh, you DO have a sense of humor!
“Whose job is it going forward to vet a candidate for the accuracy of his information?”
In my opinion, it is the job of the media, and the candidate’s opponent. While you are correct that it can sometimes be expensive to background or opposition research; in this case, a copy of his resume and google seems as though it would have been enough.
It apparently wasn’t too hard for the Oyster Bay Herald to figure out, though a little late. And if they are anything like my local paper, they usually practice what I call “New release Journalism” (they get their news by press release).
The thing is: all politicians lie and have their positions distorted by their opponents to the point that even had it come out in the election, many would have shrugged it off as Politics As Usual. Our politics needs an overhaul, but I worry the cures could be worse than the illness.
If we stopped all liars from getting elected, Congress would have to be a lot smaller. Santos may be doing more, but not really that different. This shows in part how relatively unimportant House seats have become, now that the chamber includes a few dozen complete nutjobs from the extremist fringes. The media ignored him because he was just running for the rowdy, lumpen chamber that operates like a wild west saloon anyway.
If we stopped all liars from getting elected, Congress would have to be a lot smaller.
Like empty?
The hullabaloo about Santos’ resume is designed to distract us from the fact that all politicians lie about something that is substantially more important than the question of where they worked or went to school. Whether Santos went to this or that school, or worked at this or that company is relevant only in that it bolsters (or undermines) his credibility. The real question that matters to voters is “Will he represent my interests, or will he sell out to the highest bidder?”
The answer to this question is always the same. Any politician who says that he cares about you is always lying. People who have morals do not become politicians. They are all selling out to the highest bidder as fast as they can.
People always represent their own best interest. Only if faithful representation of your best interest was in the politician’s best interest would he do so. It is not, and he doesn’t.
By lying openly about everything, Santos is being refreshingly honest.
Damn, you don’t have a shred of integrity in you. They can lie, cheat and steal, as long as they’re your tribe. Not a fucking shred.
Whoosh!
I have known some fine politicians over the years. Darn fine folks.
Politicians’ outright lies and fabrications about themselves goes back a long way.
Santos claimed a college degree he didn’t have. In my lifetime I recall a politician who lied that he did not attend a college.
In the 1954 Arkansas gubernatorial primary campaign, incumbent governor Francis Cherry accused Orval Faubus of attending Commonwealth College in Mena Arkansas. Commonwealth College was founded by members of the Socialist Party of America.
Cherry’s accusation amounted to accusing Faubus of being a communist. Faubus denied ever attending Commonwealth College.
Faubus had in fact attended Commonwealth College for more than a year, and had been elected student body president.
Faubus defeated Cherry in the primary, then won the 1954 general election against Pratt Remmel by 63% to 37%.
SJ readers may recall Faubus from the infamous 1957 Little Rock Central High School incident, when he mobilized the Arkansas National Guard to prevent compliance with SCOTUS 1954 decision and order in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Just when I thought..”damn, another song about lying POS pols..hmmm.”
Thanks Fu.
One lie
two lie
red lie
blue lie
The ability to lie convincingly is a major element of most politicians skill set. Not sure if it is demonstrably worse now than in prior years but social media hugely amplifies our exposure to this chronically lying class of people so perhaps it just seems more prevalent.
It “used” to be the media’s job to vet our candidates resumes. They have mostly abdicated this role. But if I was going to sacrifice weeks/months working full time to defeat my opponent while spending huge sums to do so, you can bet one of my first tasks would be to investigate their resume claims. And then withhold the revealed falsehoods until the latter days of the campaign. Seems like politicking 101 to me.
Sure to be an unpopular opinion around here, but I would support legislation that creates a category of fraud to handle lying candidates and politicians.
A facile position that might prove very difficult to put into practice. Would any lie be enough or would there be a line to be drawn? If so, where? If so, who decides what’s a lie and what lie(s) cross the line?
I envision an UNO reverse card version of 18 U.S.C. § 287 applicable to election officials but replace “a department of the United States” with “Constituents”
Who would pass this law, the lying politicians?
So Biden would be doing life in prison? Harsh.
I wonder whether any of these complaints about lying politicians might be made against lawyers.
just a quick thought.
I recall a certain ADA in your office named Dan who turned out not to be a lawyer, though he was otherwise pretty darn good at his job.
Ah for the days of Everett Dirkson.
I miss Ron Paul.
How would you deal with brain dead candidates like John Federman? No lies told because he can barely function, but his inability to function was well know. He was elected anyway.