Dem
51
GOP
49
Republican Rep.-elect George Santos—at least, we assume that's his real name—has been trying to get elected to Congress for a while. In 2020, he finally made it to the general election, and was trounced by Democrat Thomas Suozzi in NY-03, 54% to 46%. In 2022, Santos ran in NY-03 again, this time winning the election by that same margin. This was due, at least in part, to the newly drawn district maps. It also helped that Santos' 2022 opponent, Robert Zimmerman, was not an incumbent. And was not the actual Bob Dylan.
Now that the dust from the election has settled, The New York Times took a close look at Santos' résumé and campaign biography. It is not clear if the newspaper also put other candidates under the microscope, but in any case, they struck gold with Santos. Just about every element of his backstory appears to be dubious. To wit:
On the other hand, the Times did find that Santos has a criminal record in his native Brazil, for theft and check fraud.
Santos' lawyer, Joseph Murray, issued a statement defending his client:
George Santos represents the kind of progress that the Left is so threatened by—a gay, Latino, first-generation American and Republican who won a Biden district in overwhelming fashion by showing everyday voters that there is a better option than the broken promises and failed policies of the Democratic Party. After four years in the public eye, and on the verge of being sworn in as a member of the Republican led 118th Congress, The New York Times launches this shotgun blast of attacks. It is no surprise that Congressman-elect Santos has enemies at The New York Times who are attempting to smear his good name with these defamatory allegations. As Winston Churchill famously stated, "You have enemies? Good. It means that you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
The careful reader will note that nothing in there is a denial of any of the Times' reporting. The really careful reader might also note that Winston Churchill never said that, famously or otherwise. It's a clumsy translation of a quote from the French author Victor Hugo. And really, would Churchill say something so pedestrian and with so little panache?
Some Democrats are calling on House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to refuse to seat Santos. That, of course, is never, ever going to happen. McCarthy is no Rhodes Scholar, but even he can figure out that a 4-vote margin of error is significantly larger than a 3-vote margin of error.
Most of what Santos did was sleazy, but not illegal. The only exposure he would appear to have here is if he fudged his campaign disclosure forms. If Santos did that, and if he is indicted for it, and if he's convicted, the House might expel him. But there are a lot of "ifs" and "mights" in there, so don't count on it happening.
Meanwhile, the New York Democratic Party has a little splainin' to do, since they really ought to have found this out before the Times did. New York state Democratic Party chair Jay Jacobs, when contacted by reporters, whined: "It's unfair to blame the campaign for opposition research work that it did because the resources of a campaign are not as significant as a paper like The New York Times, that can do a lot more with its investigation." Uh, huh. How is $25,000 to hire an investigative firm not the first expense for a campaign, before a single commercial has been aired or a single bumper sticker has been printed? Bad miss here.
That said, Santos is likely to be a one-termer. His last opponent might not have had all this dirt, but his next opponent will. Further, there is a distinct possibility that New York Democrats might try to redraw their map to make it more Democrat-friendly. (Z)