I seem to recall reading that the expelled George Santos actually had a 100% (or near that) "conservative rating" in House votes.
Yet... the unctuous "Republicans" in the House thought it remained their obligation to vote to expel him.
As I have posted in this forum repeatedly for months, they were going to NEED Mr. Santos vote. They need it now, more than ever.
I don't particularly care that Mr. Santos was "corrupt", or that he lied about certain aspects of his resume.
That was fine with me.
YES, you are reading that correctly, these are exactly my sentiments.
I PREFER the corrupt politician to the "sanctimonious" one, so long as he leaves me (and the rest of us) alone. I will give an example as to why.
Here in Connecticut, a number of years ago, we had a Republican governor named John Rowland. He was prosecuted and convicted for accepting bribes, and sent to jail.
Awful "Republican", right?
Well, Mr. Rowland didn't raise my taxes, and during his administration made no moves to restrict our freedoms.
But now we have dem-communist governors who don't take bribes but DO actively try to implement "changes you can believe in", such as signing into law one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (you can't even buy ammunition here without being registered with the state).
Again, give me the corrupt pol who leaves us alone, rather than the "do-gooder" leftist who in reality aspires to tyranny.
Sorry if you don't like this post.