Last week, the Chronicle asked its readers in an electronic poll the following question: “Should George Santos be forced to resign from Congress?” Of the 315 people who responded, 94% said yes; 4% said no; and 2% said they weren’t sure. Comments were submitted by 101 people. A few follow.
It’s ridiculous that he’s still there. He lied about everything. In a normal job, he’d have been fired a long time ago.
He can serve his two years. I do not think he will be re-elected but it is the voters’ decision.
It’s a travesty that he’s still there! In a more just world he would be removed from office expeditiously because it’s right and to make an example of him. Sadly, the speaker won’t do this since he desperately needs his support.
He is a fraud. He lied to the voters of his district about every aspect of his life. And based upon interviews of his district’s voters, some voted for him because he claimed he was Jewish. Who says lying doesn’t matter?
What kind of message are we sending to our children and society at large if an elected official is not held accountable for blatant lies?
That there is any question as to whether he should resign reflects on the sad state of American politics.
All politicians lie about everything. Whoever voted for him should remember his lies the next time he runs.
He was elected on false pretenses. Speaker McCarthy saying that the voters have spoken is disingenuous, since the voters actually elected a college-educated, financial investment worker who is the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. They did not elect George Santos.
Treat him like a Democrat. I do not like a liar but the Democrats do it all the time.
If he stays in congress, we cannot truthfully tell children that crime doesn’t pay.
It is not uncommon for people to embellish their qualifications. I think that everyone agrees that what Santos did was outright lie to the voters. The danger of a forced resignation is that absent specific standards for its use (what and who triggers the action), it will become a political weapon to use against select members of the opposite party. I would rather see another election between the original candidates jointly paid for by the candidate and his/her party. The threat of this kind of expense would incentivize the party machine to do their due diligence in vetting candidates they support. In a new election, the voters will know precisely who and what Santos is. If they want him as their representative knowing the facts, so be it. PJC