555

Democrats refuse to help GOP out of House speaker mess, trashing Jim Jordan as an 'insurrectionist' (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Rapidcreek@reddthat.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

62 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

This is one of those having-their-cake-and-eating-it-too moments, because the Democrats are taking the high road, by using nothing but the truth, yet doing it in a way that is guaranteed to fuck with (and piss off) the Republicans.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Exactly. That’s why I put “high road” in quotes.

Ignoring all the reasons why the opposition is objectively awful is….not the moral high road. It’s intellectually dishonest and part of why we’re in this moment.

Like with Santos. They either didn’t do oppose research or didn’t use it. Things that would have maybe changed the election. But noooo “we don’t do that! Because that would be not nice!”

Guess what. pubies are bullies and are okay with people dying to put them in power. Being nice is not important,

[-] Very_Bad_Janet@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

His Democrat opponent did release research about Santos but basically most news orgs, esp the major ones, ignored it at the time. I'm in NYC and Republican candidates tend to be ignored by news orgs unless it is for President, Governor, or Mayor.

Local news organizations did raise questions in their coverage of Santos. One column in The North Shore Leader noted the eye-popping increase in Santos’s net worth from less than $5,000 to more than $11 million over a period of two short years. The piece even quoted an anonymous Republican leader as saying, “Are we being played as extras in ‘The Talented Mr. Santos’?” And the DCCC’s research memo on Santos outlined many of the allegations made in the Times report. It noted the IRS’s lack of knowledge of the congressman-elect’s animal-rescue charity and raised questions about his financial status. The document does, however, list Santos’s educational and professional claims without question. The bulk of the 87-page research document leans into Santos’s ties to Trump and his antiabortion stance.

Zimmerman says his campaign “was unrelenting in getting people’s attention” but that, ultimately, “I think part of the problem, quite frankly, was everyone saw this as not a competitive seat. They didn’t see the Republican tidal wave coming in New York, and so they didn’t focus on the race.” Jacobs, too, echoed this sentiment. “Santos didn’t win the race based on his campaign or who he is,” he said. “Like many other Republicans, particularly on Long Island, [Santos] won because of the view that this was an issue-driven election and the issue this year was crime.” Indeed, a red wave did run through New York on November 8, where even Sean Patrick Maloney—the person tasked with steering Democrats to another majority—lost his own race.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/12/house-republicans-george-santos-democrats-ethics

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023

555 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News