The fabulist vs. the fabulous

The editorial analogizing former Rep. George Santos to Jay Gatsby in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s timeless novel “The Great Gatsby” was misplaced [“Santos gets a lesson in reality,” Opinion, Dec. 3].

I have read the novel numerous times at different points in my life with varying perspectives. I would never compare Santos to Jay Gatsby.

Why? Because although the Gatsby character is flawed in his misguided ambition to join the elite society of such soulless people as Tom and Daisy Buchanan, his love for Daisy is true. Whether Gatsby’s action of protecting Daisy and taking the fall for the accidental killing of George Wilson’s wife was noble, or not, can be debated, but it led to his death.

By contrast, I have seen nothing noble in anything Santos has ever done. His disgraceful lies and actions are real and self-serving. If your editorial had substituted the name “Trump” for Gatsby, writing that Santos’ “fictitious narrative” is closer to the “real life” example of former President Donald Trump, that would have been more accurate.

If your sentence beginning, “ ‘The Great Gatsby’ was a commentary on the willingness of Americans to buy the lie, to believe the con man” had substituted the name “Trump,” it would have worked quite well.

Your editorial does a disservice to one of the most complicated and mysterious characters in American literature. Santos compared to Trump, yes. To Gatsby, no.

— Dave Harrington, Locust Valley

I, too, am relieved but also mortified that a fraud like this could do so much damage while wasting taxpayer money for this long “Santos is finally out: Well, good riddance!,” Letters, Dec. 4].

His getting through the vetting process is beyond absurd. I am hopeful that cynical party leaders will see this as a lesson learned. It’s just more fuel for the fire about why the public doesn’t trust politicians. Meanwhile, it makes things more difficult for those focused on public service.

— Bill Cook, Long Beach

House Speaker Mike Johnson, no doubt concerned that his slim Republican majority was in danger of becoming even slimmer, said he had “real reservations” about expelling disgraced George Santos because of the precedent it might set since Santos has yet to be convicted of a crime [“ ‘Reservations’ about expelling Santos,” News, Nov. 30].

Johnson does not understand that this is exactly the kind of precedent that should be set. By expelling Santos with a bipartisan vote, the often-dysfunctional Congress proved that it can police itself; the Ethics Committee, which conducted the investigation into Santos, showed it is more than a paper tiger; and anyone who lies his way into office, cheats his contributors and continues to deceive constituents even after being caught red-handed, does not deserve to serve.

— Edmund Fountaine, Oakdale

Much has been said about the concern that “precedence” would justify voting no to expelling George Santos. Certainly, the 114 members who did so can tell that to their constituents. Thankfully, the 311 members who voted yes were more concerned about the precedence of not expelling him.

But to the constituents of the two members who replied “here”: They should ask themselves what benefit would be obtained from their representatives abstaining, and do those members of Congress need help removing the splinters from their backsides?

— Martin J. Rosenthal, Merrick

By not expelling George Santos, lawmakers could not “set an example.”

But the real crux of the issue lies behind the vetting process for congressional candidates.

Nabbing Santos now is analogous to ticketing a speeding car in Montauk . . . which merrily was speeding all the while from the city at 90 miles per hour. There should have been checkpoints all along the way.

— Bill McDermott, Long Beach

Speaker Mike Johnson told us that he was reluctant to set a bad precedent by expelling George Santos. Really? Is it bad to make it clear that a man who lies, cheats, commits multiple frauds and is under numerous criminal indictments is not welcome in Congress? Seems like a good precedent to me.

— Jim Brennan, Rocky Point

House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was afraid of setting a bad precedent. What does that say about this speaker and the people who put him in office?

— Gary Maksym, Massapequa

How long will it take for the nameplate from George Santos’ office door to appear on eBay? I bet a lot of pubs on Long Island would love to have it as the bull’s-eye for their dartboard — with “bull” being the key word.

— Howie Weinick, Woodmere