It's time to say something about George Santos, the biggest fabulist since Stephen Glass hoodwinked The New Republic with dozens of fake magazine pieces in the late 1990s. Except Glass didn't try to run for Congress in New York — he'd already been exposed as a liar and a cheat.
Santos has so many lies and so much cheating piling up that it's threatening to become a tsunami and swamp him. He seemed to think that giving an interview to the New York Post would help him survive the tumult. Nope, nope, nope-ity nope. It just dares The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, POLITICO and others to keep digging away. Journalistic pride is at stake.
Did New York Democrats fail Opposition Research 101? You betcha. (To be fair, so did Team Kevin McCarthy.) But there are ways Democrats can make up for that. If we cats were running the state party or the DCCC, we'd be push-polling in NY-03 on this, hard. Sample questions:
"George Santos ran for Congress saying he had a degree from Baruch College. He now says he never received a degree from any institution. Does George Santos deserve to represent you in Congress?"
"George Santos said he owned 13 properties in New York. He now says he doesn't own any such properties. Does George Santos deserve to represent you in Congress?"
"George Santos claimed to have worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. Now he says he didn't, and blames his 'poor choice of words.' Does George Santos deserve to represent you in Congress?"
"George Santos now says he never said he was Jewish. He claims he said 'Jew-ish.' Does George Santos deserve to represent you in Congress?"
"Would you describe George Santos as sometimes a liar, mostly a liar, or always a liar?"
You get the idea. Another suggestion: Start a countdown clock on how long it takes for him to face his soon-to-be constituents. Or, the way things are going: his soon-never-to-be constituents. We cats PURR.
No comments:
Post a Comment