George Santos Joins the"Fabulist Caucus"
George Santos Joins the"Fabulist Caucus"
Regime media wants you to believe US Rep.-elect George Santos's (R-NY) egregious fabulism is special. Hardly. Double-Standards abound. Santos will be gone soon. This matters.
If we’re punishing Members of Congress for lying, the institution might soon fit into a proverbial phone booth (remember them?). And we’re seeing another significant difference between Democrats and Republicans when one of their own gets caught in such malfeasance.
“Democrats call lying a disqualifier for the office. Did you also think it a prerequisite?” asks Daniel Flynn, an editor at The American Spectator.
Frankly, I really don’t care about George Santos’s resume. His resume padding is between him and his constituents. After all, it doesn’t seem to matter when others, especially with a big “D” after their names, do no less. But I do care about double standards and the weaponization of our legal system. That affects us all.
Maybe instead of punishing the liars (which voters and Congress rarely do), we should create a “fabulist caucus.” US Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY), sworn in on January 3rd to represent his Long Island-based district, will serve as its newest, but hardly its only member.
And at the risk of being falsely accused of “whataboutism,” let me introduce you to the cast of characters who preceed him, both current and past (“honorary?”) members, including two current Senators from nearby states and a certain former US Senator from Delaware. Maybe we can emblazon their lapels with scarlet Fs and march them through the halls of Congress, yelling, “Shame!”
Let’s quickly recap some of the more violative examples of resume padding that Santos has admitted to, apologizing and calling them “stupid.” Courtesy of Axios:
Santos admitted to the Post that he had "never worked directly" for Goldman Sachs or Citigroup and his previous claims of employment there represented a "poor choice of words." Nor did he gain qualifications from Baruch College or New York University, as previously claimed.
"I didn't graduate from any institution of higher learning. I'm embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my resume," Santos told the Post. "I own up to that … We do stupid things in life."
Santos also addressed accusations that he lied about having Jewish ancestry, including that his grandparents fled the Holocaust.
"I never claimed to be Jewish," he told the Post. "I am Catholic. Because I learned my maternal family had a Jewish background I said I was 'Jew-ish.'"
Let’s meet other members of the Fabulist Caucus.
US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, just reelected handily to another six-year term, falsely claimed for years that he served in Vietnam. He apparently was never subject to the “extreme vetting” he called for with then-Supreme Court nominee Neal Gorsuch. That prompted 14 Vietnam Veterans to write a very pointed and public letter:
We are veterans of the Vietnam War. We fought alongside our brothers in arms, many of whom died or were gravely injured there. We saw the treatment meted out on us and our fellow military personnel upon our return, yet we never questioned our commitment to our nation's freedom. But perhaps more relevant to this discussion is that we know you were not there with us.
The fact you repeatedly and consistently claimed to have served in Vietnam is a gross case of stolen valor in our opinion. You obtained at least five military deferments between 1965 and 1970, at least two of which were seemingly political favors to you so that you could avoid joining us in a war zone. Here are just a few examples where it appears that you have chosen to buttress your political resume by shamefully inflating your record of military service:
In 2003, you apparently stated, "When we returned [from Vietnam], we saw nothing like this [a public outpouring of support for deployed military personnel]."
In 2008, the New York Times reported you said, "We have learned something important since the days I served in Vietnam ..."
At a Vietnam War memorial in 2008, it is reported you stated, "I served during the Vietnam era ... I remember the taunts, the insults, sometimes even the physical abuse."
It’s one thing to misrepresent your military service. It’s quite another to call for “extreme vetting” of GOP presidential nominees. I believe that’s called “hypocrisy.” Credit Blumenthal for eventually apologizing for his stolen valor. Democratic Senate colleague and then-Democratic National Committee Chair Tim Kaine (D-VA) rushed to Blumenthal’s defense.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said Sunday that Blumental was wrong to say that he had served in the Vietnam War, but that he's a known and reliable official for Connecticut voters.
"The interesting thing about Connecticut ... pretty intimate state. People tend to know their political leaders. And Attorney General Blumenthal has served for a lengthy period of time, got a very strong track record on military and veterans issues, for example," Kaine told "Fox News Sunday."
"What the voters of Connecticut will wrestle with as the attorney general, somebody that they've known -- he's been in office a long time. I think they have a sense of who he is," Kaine added.
And then there’s Blumenthal’s colleague and my fellow native Oklahoman, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). While challenging then-US Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) in 2012, the Boston Globe unearthed claims she’d made repeatedly about her native American ancestry:
A second law school, the University of Pennsylvania, has touted Elizabeth Warren as a minority faculty member in an official school publication, according to an online document obtained by the Globe.
The University of Pennsylvania, where Warren taught at the law school from 1987 through 1995, listed her as a minority in a “Minority Equity Report’’ posted on its website. The report, published in 2005, well after her departure, included her as the winner of a faculty award in 1994. Her name was highlighted in bold, the designation used for minorities in the report.
A spokesman for the law school did not immediately return a phone message today.
The reference offers another piece of evidence that Warren was identified as a Native American as part of her professional career. Warren has said she was unaware that Harvard University, her current employer, had described her as a Native American when it was under fire for a lack of diversity on its law school faculty.
Warren has said she has long believed she has Native American ancestry, based on family lore, but has not documented the connection and is not enrolled in a tribe. One genealogist has found evidence that Warren is 1/32 Cherokee (later disproven). Faculty and deans from each of the law schools where she has taught have said her ancestry was not a factor in her hiring.
The Warren campaign today pointed to a previous statement from Stephen Burbank, a professor and former dean at Penn Law School who helped recruit her to the faculty there.
“Her appointment was based on the excellence of her scholarship and teaching. I do not know whether members of the faculty were even aware of her ancestry, but I am confident that it played no role whatsoever in her appointment,’’ Burbank said in a statement last week. Burbank donated $250 to Warren’s campaign in December.
Warren and her high cheekbones would not only defeat Brown that November but seek the Democratic nomination for President in 2020 (she finished fourth in New Hampshire’s primary, ahead of Joe Biden - more about him later). At one point, she was a frontrunner.
Seven years later, when Sen. Warren finally put the issue to rest (after a successful reelection campaign), native American leaders and others came to her defense.
New Mexico Democratic Rep. Debra Haaland (now Secretary of the Interior), who last year became one of the first two Native American women elected to Congress, introduced Warren on Monday after endorsing her presidential campaign last month and aligning with her for new legislation aimed at helping tribal communities. Haaland lamented that Warren’s ancestry has attracted outsized attention when Trump faces his own allegations of racism.
Those who “ask about Elizabeth’s family instead of issues of vital importance to Indian Country,” Haaland told the forum audience, “feed the president’s racism.”
Nice segue! Shifting the attack away from Sen. Warren’s cultural appropriation to Donald Trump. That is still a common rhetorical tactic that is now practically ineffective.
Say what you will about George Santos, but no one accuses him of stolen valor. Cultural appropriation, definitely.
And then there are the honorary members of the Fabulist Caucus, including one Joe Biden, then a US Senator and presidential candidate (1987). We’ll leave this here for casual viewing.
He would later partially correct the record but hasn’t given up on his proclivity to share whoppers. Literally.
But unlike Kaine’s defense of Blumenthal or Secretary Haaland’s promotion of Warren, some Republicans are resorting to their usual circular firing squad. There’s a reason they call Republicans the “stupid party.”
Santos’s soon-to-be Long Island congressional colleague, US. Rep.-elect Nick LaLota (R-NY) is opportunistically calling for a House Ethics Committee investigation into Santos, despite the fact the Committee probably has no jurisdiction here. The New York Post:
“House Republicans like me are eager to be sworn in and focus on our Commitment to American and our respective districts,” LaLota said in a statement. “Yet, over the last few weeks I have heard from countless Long Islanders how deeply troubled they are by the headlines surrounding George Santos.”
“As a Navy man who campaigned on restoring accountability and integrity to our government, I believe a full investigation by the House Ethics Committee and, if necessary, law enforcement, is required,” added LaLota, who will succeed Lee Zeldin in representing the Suffolk County-based 1st Congressional District. “New Yorkers deserve the truth and House Republicans deserve an opportunity to govern without this distraction.”
LaLota is believed to be the first elected Republican to call for action against Santos, who has vowed to serve out his full two-year term beginning Jan. 3.
The Republican Jewish Federation, before whom Santos spoke during the campaign, is furious. “We are very disappointed in Congressman-elect Santos. He deceived us and misrepresented his heritage,” the RJC said in a statement Tuesday. “In public comments and to us personally he previously claimed to be Jewish. He has begun his tenure in Congress on a very wrong note,” they said. Agree.
The only Republican coming to his defense is US Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). “The left doesn’t care about lying. The real reason they’re attacking George Santos is that he [is] the first openly gay [non-incumbent] Republican elected, and they hate him for it,” she wrote. “I’m glad George is being honest with his district now and look forward to seeing how George legislates and votes.” In reality, Democrats want the seat back on their march to regain power over the House, and they smell opportunity.
Then there are these gems from some of the most self-unaware Members of Congress.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) was among the Democrats calling for Santos' resignation, tweeting that he "has now admitted his whopping lies" and that Republican Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) should expel him if he doesn't step down.
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) echoed those calls in a tweet that also called for Santos to "be investigated by authorities," adding: "We’ve seen people fudge their resume but this is total fabrication."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) called for his Twitter followers to retweet his post if they think Santos should be banned from taking the oath for Congress, saying he "just confessed to defrauding the voters of Long Island about his ENTIRE resume."
Representatives for Santos and McCarthy did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
I can think of more valid reasons to deny seating a Member of Congress.
At least the new House GOP majority is promising to kick the cretinous and compromised Swalwell off the House Intelligence Committee. And if telling “whopping lies” is grounds for expulsion from Congress, Rep. Lieu might want to exercise more discretion.
Was pathological prevaricator Adam Schiff (D-CA) unavailable for comment? Maybe he’s too busy padding his resume for a US Senate campaign.
As a grizzled campaign veteran, a few questions come to mind.
Opposition research is an essential and early feature of any credible congressional campaign. I spent hours researching the background and resume of then-US Rep. Mike Synar (D-OK) for the first GOP congressional campaign I worked on in 1978. I didn’t find anything egregious. Synar won and died tragically from brain cancer after his 1994 primary election defeat. He wasn’t rotten, just wrong.
In 1990, as a regional political director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, we even conducted oppo research, as we called it, on our incumbents. We wanted to anticipate and plan for any attacks that might come our way. I recall participating in research on then-first-term Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). He handily won reelection that year over Dr. Harvey Sloane. The rest is history.
Where was Democratic candidate Robert Zimmerman’s opposition research? This has long been an area where Democrats excel. What happened? What a clown campaign. Zimmerman, a once-frequent irritant on Fox News, is one of the most unlikeable personalities in media and politics. No wonder he lost. Candidate quality matters in both major political parties.
Where were the dozen newspapers and media outlets covering the campaigns? Why did the New York Times wait until after the election to publish their investigative report on Santos’s fabulism?
Where were the National Republican Congressional Committee and their NY GOP colleagues? Do they not vet their candidates?
Like it or not, Santos will be sworn into Congress on January 3rd, one of four GOP gains in the New York congressional delegation. Resume padding and lying during a congressional campaign is not a crime. No doubt the regime media will focus on him over other new Members of Congress, looking for mega-silly side stories, quotes, discriminating photos, and reactions (look who’s sitting next to Rep. Santos!). And no doubt Democratic investigators - including the highly politicized Department of Justice, US Attorney for New York’s Southern District, and possibly the FBI - are pouring through Santos’s finances, public disclosures, and FEC reports, looking for any campaign violation or potential crime that can force his resignation from Congress and a new election.
Santos represents one-fifth of the House GOP’s five-seat majority. This New York Sun editorial reflects my POV:
All the falsehoods Mr. Santos is accused of, though, are small beer compared to the truth of his campaign — which is that the voters in his district, for their own good reasons, decided to bring in a Republican to replace a Democrat. The vote was part of a broader decision of Americans to revoke Democratic control of the House and hand the lower chamber to the GOP. Not by a wide margin, but all the more reason to mark the Constitution.
The investigations are already being opened as the hypocrisy continues. Partisan broadcaster Chris Cuomo never mentions other Fabulist Caucus members if they’re Democrats.
To put it mildly, resume padding may suggest falsehoods and fraud elsewhere. Partisans are counting on it. Cuomo proves that hypocrites remain silent or defend teammates under attack but demand that their opponents live up to their higher standards (see: Alinsky rule 4).
Let the circus begin, especially during a slow news week. The radioactive Santos may turn out to be a fine member of Congress. No doubt, he’ll get to work immediately to prove that if he’s not distracted by the aforementioned investigations and the concomitant legal fees. Or the media that will hound him during his first weeks in office. He would be wise to keep a low profile, having done his mea culpa.
I predict that he eventually plea bargains his way out of bankruptcy from legal expenses with resignation and slithers to obscurity, with the Democrats claiming another scalp and eventually reclaiming a congressional seat. We’ve seen this playbook. The question is when not if. Our legal system has been increasingly weaponized for such occasions. If only Santos were a Democrat.
And that scares the hell out of me.
More than a few Black males might say, “welcome to the club.” But this is different, with much more severe consequences for everyone. These bad cops wear suits, hold law degrees, and sport fancy offices. And they have an attitude.
In the meantime, Rep. Santos, welcome to the Congressional Fabulist Caucus. You are far from alone, even if you feel very, very alone.