Enviros target Santos as Suozzi eyes his old seat

Daily Point

Santos portrayed as pollution poster boy

Progressive and environmental activists say they are pouring more than $1 million into ads targeting seven House Republicans in California and New York who voted for H.R.1 -- a one-house bill meant to defy White House climate-change policies by counteracting restraint and restrictions on fossil fuels.

And the first 30-second spot they unveiled features a poster boy for fabulists – George Santos, who is now in the fourth month of his fluke term in the Nassau-Queens CD3.

"MAGA extremists have taken over the Republican Party,” the script goes. “And George Santos just voted to pass their dream agenda. Bill one – a free pass for big oil to rake in bigger profits. While they charge you sky-high prices at the pump, production of affordable clean energy gets slowed down. Pollution in our air and water goes up…. Big profits for oil companies, big price hikes for you…and George Santos is 100% on board.”

House Republicans approved the so-called Lower Energy Costs Act 221-204. One Republican dissented and voted No, while four Democrats dissented from their party line and voted Yes. On March 30, Santos tweeted a boilerplate statement: "H.R. 1 sends a clear message that the @HouseGOP are committed to putting America first while reversing the Biden Administration’s radical climate agenda."

Clearly the ad selects for shade a circle of House Republicans to which Santos belongs, including brief shots of Reps. Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. All are known for uttering and posting false and goofy stuff, but based on his past behavior, Santos is the one with a reputation as being an outright impostor.

The ad campaign gives a glimpse of a bigger picture. Santos’ future in the seat, even short-term, is so uncertain that former Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi is generating buzz about the possibility of trying to win back the modestly redrawn seat, which he left in December after forgoing reelection.

If the besieged Santos leaves soon enough for a special election to be held this year, Democratic Party leaders could pick Suozzi – coming off his futile bid for governor – as nominee without a primary. Or, Suozzi could seek the CD3 nomination the usual way when the seat comes open next year. With the Nassau GOP having vowed never to run Santos again, Santos would have to petition his way to a primary next year if he seeks reelection then.

The pollution ad, and Suozzi mulling, suggest the same thing. All of Santos’ false religious and ethnic poses, resume fictions, checkered past, probes for financial finagling, Trump-like lies about vote fraud, offensive positions, and quick rejection by his local party are giving his detractors, rivals and critics common cause to make an example of the famous fabulist.

— Dan Janison @Danjanison

Pencil Point

War and peace

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/nationalcartoons

Reference Point

When the president fired the general

Presidential impeachment is not just a relatively recent protest flavor. It was being bandied about as a remedy more than 70 years ago, in the aftermath of President Harry Truman firing Gen. Douglas MacArthur as commander of U.S. forces in Korea. The fallout from the most famous military-civilian clash in our nation’s history — pitting one of America’s most flamboyant generals against a president who was anything but flamboyant but who did have a way with words — lasted for weeks.

Newsday’s editorial board weighed in on April 13, 1951, in a piece titled “The Call for Clear Policy” — the third consecutive day the board wrote an editorial about Truman sacking the World War II hero. On this occasion, the board surveyed its editorial peers around the nation — from New York (featuring excerpts from six — count ‘em, six! — newspapers) to Chicago, Washington, Minneapolis, New Orleans and Dallas.

“A few newspapers demand impeachment of the President,” the board wrote. “Some deplore and condemn the method of Truman’s action while conceding some reining in of the general was justified. Others hail the firing as ‘right’ and ‘courageous,’ and call HST a brave man.”

Here’s the backdrop: MacArthur’s strategies had helped the U.S. reverse the early tide of the Korean War and he wanted to push into North Korea, assuring Truman that China would not intervene against such an aggression.

MacArthur was wrong. In late 1950, hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops entered the fray and pushed back the American-led forces. MacArthur wanted to bomb China and use Taiwanese forces against the mainland power but Truman refused, sparking a very public argument.

In April 1951, Truman fired MacArthur, explaining to the nation that while the U.S. was right to be fighting in Korea, it would be wrong to be responsible for expanding the battle and risk starting a third world war — introducing the concept of a “limited war,” a principle that still defines much U.S. military thinking, as in Ukraine.

MacArthur returned to the U.S. and received a hero’s welcome, with parades (including a ticker tape celebration up Broadway one week after Newsday’s editorial) and an invite to speak before Congress where he made his famous and prophetic remark that “old soldiers never die, they just fade away.”

But Truman got in the last word in their feud, in a 1973 Time magazine story that quoted him as having said, “I fired him because he wouldn’t respect the authority of the President. I didn’t fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that’s not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.”

Newsday’s editorial board, however, might have put the best stamp on the affair. After its analysis of the opinions of its journalistic peers, the board signed off with this:

“But other events less world-shaking are important, too. Tomorrow we intend to return to Long Island. That rate rise the LIRR just got, for instance.”

Old soldiers might fade away, but ire at fare hikes never dies.

— Michael Dobie @mwdobie, Amanda Fiscina-Wells @adfiscina