Yeah, he barely exists by ordinary measures, and that is his selling point. The Brazil connection is sobering, considering the ties between their former strongman and ours. And, of course, the unregenerate Fascists who have their own, insular communities in Brazil (and Argentina, to name two). The NY Times didn’t go into his immigration record, which seems as nonexistent as his employment and scholastic records. How did he slip through press scrutiny in two major elections?
Somewhere, there is a bag of money in this story if there’s anything to the part about him substantially contributing to his own claim. Second, I suspect he is the tip of the iceberg in terms of political figures with very sketchy backgrounds. Certainly, there are advantages to having no background to scrutinize or, alternatively, a made up one. Third, one should suspect that there is someone, or some group, behind his manufacture. There are surely additional questions but I leave those, that I can think of, to Hollywood script writers.
Considering how much of this story was public in various ways before this week, it seems like the key development this week is conceptual (notwithstanding the additional reporting by the NYT, which is significant). Previously, this was a story about an candidate not favored to win who exaggerated his resume in various ways, and now it seems this conception missed the forest for the trees. The question now is whether this fellow might be a total fraud — do we really know anything about him at all?
To address TB's question above — "Why didn't the Democrats pick this up in basic opposition research?" — the DCCC memo on Santos raises a lot of questions about Santos' record but fails to put them together in any way. It's just a bunch of credibility attacks presented seriatim.
My first question is, how did the Rob Zimmerman campaign so much of this? (They did know that Friends of Pets United was a fraud, and of his ties to Harbor City Capital.)
I've known a few pathological liars, and that's part of what's going on. I wonder whether the evictions for non-payment of rent were real financial difficulties, or just thinking he could just get away with it. My best guess is that the apparently client-less Devolder Organization is completely a shell with the primary purpose of taking money from a handful of wealthy donors.
Yeah, he barely exists by ordinary measures, and that is his selling point. The Brazil connection is sobering, considering the ties between their former strongman and ours. And, of course, the unregenerate Fascists who have their own, insular communities in Brazil (and Argentina, to name two). The NY Times didn’t go into his immigration record, which seems as nonexistent as his employment and scholastic records. How did he slip through press scrutiny in two major elections?
Why didn't the Democrats pick this up in basic opposition research?
Somewhere, there is a bag of money in this story if there’s anything to the part about him substantially contributing to his own claim. Second, I suspect he is the tip of the iceberg in terms of political figures with very sketchy backgrounds. Certainly, there are advantages to having no background to scrutinize or, alternatively, a made up one. Third, one should suspect that there is someone, or some group, behind his manufacture. There are surely additional questions but I leave those, that I can think of, to Hollywood script writers.
Considering how much of this story was public in various ways before this week, it seems like the key development this week is conceptual (notwithstanding the additional reporting by the NYT, which is significant). Previously, this was a story about an candidate not favored to win who exaggerated his resume in various ways, and now it seems this conception missed the forest for the trees. The question now is whether this fellow might be a total fraud — do we really know anything about him at all?
To address TB's question above — "Why didn't the Democrats pick this up in basic opposition research?" — the DCCC memo on Santos raises a lot of questions about Santos' record but fails to put them together in any way. It's just a bunch of credibility attacks presented seriatim.
Yes. It feels like "business as usual"--as if the Democrats didn't fully grasp the inauthenicity of the opponent.
My first question is, how did the Rob Zimmerman campaign so much of this? (They did know that Friends of Pets United was a fraud, and of his ties to Harbor City Capital.)
I've known a few pathological liars, and that's part of what's going on. I wonder whether the evictions for non-payment of rent were real financial difficulties, or just thinking he could just get away with it. My best guess is that the apparently client-less Devolder Organization is completely a shell with the primary purpose of taking money from a handful of wealthy donors.