In today’s hyper partisan world, it’s truly an incredible feat when one manages to earn the chagrin of both political parties and most voters.
What makes this accomplishment disappointing is that it was done at the expense of voters, their money, and most importantly, their trust – although the money is fairly important in this particular example.
Former Congressman George Santos (R-Queens) of the northern Nassau-Queens-based Third District was formally expelled from Congress last Friday, earning him a place among just five other people in U.S. History, three of whom were expelled immediately after the Civil War for their allegiance to the Confederacy. Santos is the first Republican to be expelled from the House.
It’s no secret that the political world’s list of grievances with Santos is fairly long and comprehensive. He currently faces twenty-three felonies in the United States, plus a separate charge in Brazil for check fraud. Without beating a dead elephant, his list of alleged offenses include wire fraud, money laundering, public theft, identity theft, and making false claims to the FEC. Further obscuring his ethical tendencies, he lied about his prestigious educational and professional careers while also insinuating his family fled to Brazil to escape the Holocaust. Initially claiming he is Jewish, he later recanted to claim he is “Jew-ish.”
The people of the Third District, who trusted him with their votes and support, could easily brand as their “Congressman-ish”, not because he was not their duly elected Representative, but because he misrepresented so much of his resume to his voters and donors alike, that it became increasingly difficult to tell where the embellished and accomplished version of George Santos ended and where the real George Santos began.
Much debate has swirled around the necessity of the expulsion vote, while others have advocated for his removal from the House from the beginning, as the first pieces of evidence of his fabrications surfaced around this time last year, before he was sworn in. Some, including Santos himself, say that the constituents of the Third District elected him for his platform and his intentions in the House and that since other high-ranking elected officials have been intentionally dishonest before – including Joe Biden about his own work history and experiences – why should Santos be the fine line between dishonesty tolerated and dishonesty punished?
Furthermore, others have pointed to the poor precedent set by the expulsion vote, in that Santos is also the first member of the House to be expelled without a formal criminal charge – or for supporting the Confederacy. As long as any damning Ethics Committee report is issued, it now stands – according to some – as grounds for expulsion.
The vote itself was also swirled in fascinating partisan circles, with the Republican delegation from New York seeking to rid the state party of the dishonesty of Santos to give the Third District a fair shot at electing a genuine candidate. Other Republicans sought to protect one of their own, more for his vote on partisan legislation in a thinly-divided House.
Democrats, on the other hand, spared no expense in ridding Republicans of a crucial vote and expediting the likelihood of a highly competitive race to flip the district. However, in the first set of expulsion votes, some Democrats retained their support of expelling the embattled Congressman, as some viewed Santos as the gift that kept on giving. Removing him would be an expedited shot at the New York Republican Party to field a new candidate and improve their chances of not only retaining the slightly-blue-leaning seat in a presidential year, but also further demonstrate the rightward shift of New York State overall. Keeping Santos as a Congressman would have been Democratic fodder for what might be a tough campaign season in what might also be a brutal Congressional map, assumed to be re-gerrymandered at the hands of the state legislature.
But the first argument against expulsion downplays just how serially and comprehensively dishonest Santos was. To allow him to retain his seat would have set an alternative precedent that candidates can say literally whatever they want to ascend to the ranks of powerful committees and legislative bodies, so long as their politics permits it. Now, the Senate should turn to expelling Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a career politician and current Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whose federal corruption indictments allege he acted as a foreign agent. Everyone’s favorite casually-dressed Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) appeared to come down with “Broken Clock” Syndrome as he taunted Menendez online with imagery of Santos, essentially addressing the elephant – or donkey – in the Upper Chamber.
Speaking of Fetterman, Republicans rightfully lambasted recent Senate procedural changes to allow casual clothing – à la Fetterman and his trademark hoodies and basketball shorts – in favor of demanding suits and business casual attire at the least. Allowing Santos to retain his seat would have set a similar precedent not just for the House, but for Congress overall, lessening required decorum to nothing more than a worn-out hoodie of integrity on the same floor on which the very fabric of our country has been woven generation after generation.
With the confusing, captivating, unprecedented – and frankly, entertaining – episode in American politics that was George Santos behind us, New York Republicans can get back on track of pulling this state back towards a semblance of common sense and good governance, something we here at The Messenger hope will be on full display in this winter’s special election for the Third District.
