George Santos and the Other Republican Liars

Daniel Goldman is becoming one of my favorite Congresspeople in just a month. We remember him from his work as lead counsel in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. He is very bright, articulate and forceful. It is early but I think he has the “It Factor,’ in the way that Gretchen Whitmer and a few others have. If we are looking to the future to try to save the country, we need to pick out the people who are best equipped to do it; and those are two of my top “picks to click,” as the sports analysts say.

Putting that aside for now, I heard him say something on Monday night which I have said (not on TV, of course!), and I am sure that others have, as well, but he did it just right. The question was about George Santos, and his and Kevin McCarthy’s fallback position, which is that 142,000 people voted for him, so it would be wrong to cancel those votes and have him leave office. Oh, no, it would be unfair to nullify all those votes!

Goldman analogized it to someone who lies endlessly on a loan application, and then gets the loan, and says, “Well, they gave me the loan, so I get to use the money.” The point which should be obvious is that just as the bank relied on the loan applicant’s statements as to assets, so the voters relied on Santos’ fabricated biography. And of course the bank has much more ability to research someone’s financial status, than the voters have to delve into a candidate’s past. And the bank doesn’t have to approve anybody’s loan, but the voters are compelled to choose one of two candidates put before them.

The person the people in Santos’ district voted for, was a phantasm, a created illusion. That person, the one with the great academic record, the sports achievements, the ancestors who died in the Holocaust, and who were killed on 9//11, does not exist, along with the other attributes and achievements he claimed. Should the voters have done more research on their own? I don’t think they should have been required to. They usually rely on the fact that one of the major parties put him up for election, and presumably vetted him.

And I find it very hard to believe that Republicans, who spend most of their time on these things, did not have operatives who knew about Santos’ fabrications. Maybe not all of them, but many. Of course Democrats did not do a proper job here .All the incredible lies have come to light only two months after the election. What was the media, particularly in New York, doing? Was it one of their infamous “We know the story, but we do not want the Far Right to attack us for trying to affect the election'” waves of the handkerchief?

Somehow, we got to what often seems an inevitable point: that the Republican won; that they cheated and lied to achieve it; and that there is very little that we can do about it. Republicans never concede a game or a hand;,they play what they’ve got for all it’s worth. In this case, it seems like the only way Santos can be removed, is if he is indicted, and maybe not even then.

The overarching themes are that the Republicans will do anything to win elections; and that they are willing to put anybody up for election, if they think he can win; whether a liar or a fraud, or a simulacrum, or a bot. Or put a cipher up, invent a history for him or her, use computers to print his statements and speeches, use bots on social media to amplify and praise them. Actually, how far is that from where we are now?

Republicans just want the power, the money and the votes. All of the rest is malleable. Democrats usually run on heartfelt positions. Of course they do research, and cone up with slogans. But behind that are actual views, and the wish to have the voters validate them. Behind the Republican speeches and slogans is–nothing. A black vacuum, like what was behind the edifices that “The Strangers” built to create the illusion of an actual town with nice beaches, in the movie “Dark City.” What was behind it there, was the blackness of outer space. What is behind the Republican veil is the complete obliteration of democracy, and the darkness at noon of totalitarianism.

The video of Trump’s deposition regarding financial violations was played, and he was shown taking the Fifth Amendment over four hundred times. Some of the media showed him at rallies in 2016 railing against taking the Fifth, implying that Hillary Clinton was doing that. This was wrong, and the media is being irresponsible in implying it.

Hillary never took the Fifth. Her aides who were subpoenaed during the endless Benghazi hearings, took the Fifth, on advice of counsel, who believed that the House Republicans were going to look for any statement which was slightly erroneous regarding their personal facts: addresses, work history, anything; and then charge them with perjury, whether salient fact or not. That was why they took the Fifth, not that they had committed any crimes that they did not want to admit.

That wasn’t the first time that aides have done that in such hearings, but of course Trump was allowed by the media to go unchallenged when he kept blaring, “Took the Fifth! That is terrible!” Again, she never took the Fifth. She did not lie; and for her, taking the Fifth would have been political suicide. Trump can do it; and he is a hypocrite, and far worse, a compete liar in this matter. “Ah, but he never said ‘Hillary,’ he just implied it.” Ahh.

So we continue to search vainly for some moral responsibility on the part of Republicans, any of them, to tell the truth. It is almost like those logic puzzles. “Half the people on the island always tell the truth; the other half always lie. How can you tell which is which?” In this case, just look for the “R” next to their names.

Advertisement