House Republicans stand by their decision to oust George Santos even as it cost them a GOP seat: 'Yo

[mystery-ak]

House Republicans stand by their decision to oust George Santos even as it cost them a GOP seat: 'You have to have standards'
John L. Dorman
Feb 18, 2024, 2:28 PM CST

After Democrat Tom Suozzi defeated Republican Mazi Melesa Pilip in last week's special election for New York's 3rd congressional district, the razor-thin GOP margin in the House became even narrower.

The special election was triggered by the expulsion of onetime GOP Rep. George Santos, who in December was booted from Congress in a 311-114 vote, with 105 Republicans joining nearly every House Democrat to remove the controversial figure from the lower chamber.

And even though Suozzi flipped the seat blue, the Republicans who backed Santos' ouster said they continue to stand behind their votes.

Rep. Mike Lawler, a Republican who represents a swing district anchored in the suburbs north of New York City, told Politico that Santos himself is to blame for the GOP losing a critical seat.

"I didn't shrink the Republican majority — George Santos shrunk it by his actions," Lawler told the outlet. "I'm sorry, you have to have standards in the halls of Congress. And so I don't regret voting to expel George Santos."

"He was unfit to serve … Sometimes these decisions are bigger than politics," the congressman added.

Santos faces 23 criminal charges tied to alleged wire fraud, identity theft, and money laundering.

more
https://www.businessinsider.com/george-santos-pilip-new-york-election-loss-standards-suozzi-2024-2

[The_Reader_David]

I think they should have told him:  look we can vote to remove you from your seat at any time for the pattern of lying in your campaign.  You will therefore vote exactly as the leadership tells you.  On any matter you have not received direction from the leadership on how to vote, you will abstain, unless explicitly told that you may vote your conscience (such as it is) on the matter.  You make no public statements on anything.  And everything in your social media feeds must be vetted with the GOP Whip's office.  If you do not comply, the vote to expel will be scheduled at the next available opening in the House calendar.

[Fishrrman]

David wrote:
"I think they should have told him:  look we can vote to remove you from your seat at any time for the pattern of lying in your campaign.  You will therefore vote exactly as the leadership tells you."

No need for that.

I recall reading that Mr. Santos had a 100% conservative voting record during his short tenure in the House. That's what I recall -- I could be wrong.

I also would encourage Mr. Santos to RUN AGAIN in November.
Even as an independent, if he has to.

[berdie]

David wrote:
"I think they should have told him:  look we can vote to remove you from your seat at any time for the pattern of lying in your campaign.  You will therefore vote exactly as the leadership tells you."

No need for that.

I recall reading that Mr. Santos had a 100% conservative voting record during his short tenure in the House. That's what I recall -- I could be wrong.



I agree. If any of them are liliy white when it comes to lying....

I also would encourage Mr. Santos to RUN AGAIN in November.
Even as an independent, if he has to.

[kevindavis007]

David wrote:
"I think they should have told him:  look we can vote to remove you from your seat at any time for the pattern of lying in your campaign.  You will therefore vote exactly as the leadership tells you."

No need for that.

I recall reading that Mr. Santos had a 100% conservative voting record during his short tenure in the House. That's what I recall -- I could be wrong.

I also would encourage Mr. Santos to RUN AGAIN in November.
Even as an independent, if he has to.

How about someone with good character? Whatever happened to character matters?

[Timber Rattler]

How about someone with good character? Whatever happened to character matters?

I guess that ship sailed long ago in Congress, especially with the Democrats.

[HikerGuy83]

Two wrongs make a right.