Alex Bollinger

Even though out Rep. George Santos (R-NY) just got sworn in as a member of Congress this past Saturday despite lying about his entire past to get into office, party leaders are already searching for someone to replace him, either in a special election or in 2024.

“The wheels are already spinning,” one unnamed GOP official told the Washington Times. “People are getting ready to start primaries.”

GOP leaders in New York are also getting ready for a possible special election if Santos ends his term in Congress early. Names being considered include New York Assemblyman Mike Durso (R), Nassau County Comptroller Elaine Phillips, and former New York Assemblyman Mike LiPetri (R), according to the Times.

After being elected to represent New York’s Third Congressional District and becoming the first out gay Republican elected to Congress, Santos’ life story came crumbling down as several newspapers reported he never went to the colleges he said he attended, never worked for the major banks he said he worked for, and that he had been lying about his family history as well. He has admitted to many of these lies, calling them “a little bit of fluff” on his resume.

He is also being investigated by authorities in Brazil for writing bad checks, something he reportedly confessed to in 2010.

The amount of lying has led many to speculate that his political career may be short. If he doesn’t resign and if he isn’t forced to leave Congress, he could meet the same fate as the scandal-ridden former Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) did and lose in a primary challenge after his first term in Congress.

The Times says that unnamed “GOP officials in Washington who oversee House races” are working to find candidates to replace Santos should a special election be triggered by Santos resigning or being forced out of office. In such a special election, there wouldn’t be a primary. Committee members from each party would decide who their party’s candidate is.

Santos’s district – New York’s Third Congressional District – went for President Joe Biden in 2020, so having a strong candidate would be necessary for Republicans to keep the seat.

But Santos doesn’t appear ready to resign, taking being exposed as a fraud in stride and befriending his colleagues during his first week in the House. And while the House could vote to expel him, that rarely happens and would require Republican support, something unlikely to happen since Santos’s district could go to a Democrat.

While Republican leaders weren’t willing to go on the record on the matter, Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks (R-NY) said that Democratic leaders are ready to find a candidate for a special election should Santos resign or be forced out.

“I’ve talked to Jay Jacobs who is the Democratic leader in Nassau County, and I will talk to our respective district leaders and they’ll decide the best candidate,” he said.

Santos is also under investigation by the Nassau County district attorney, the state of New York, and federal prosecutors in addition to Brazilian authorities.

With Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) announcing that she will not seek reelection in 2024, the internet is abuzz with speculation that out Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg could run and become the first out gay male U.S. senator.

“Inspired by a new generation of leaders, I have decided to pass the torch in the U.S. Senate. I am announcing today that I will not seek re-election and will leave the U.S. Senate at the end of my term on January 3, 2025,” Stabenow said in a statement.

Stabenow has served in the Senate since she won her first Senate election in 2000. Challenging her in the Democratic primary in 2024 would have been an uphill battle for any Democrat in the state. Still, now that she isn’t seeking reelection, the seat can be more easily won by other ambitious Democrats in the state.

Including Buttigieg.

Buttigieg started his political career as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, a red state with few options for career advancement for an out gay politician. He ran for president in 2020, conceding in the primary and endorsing President Joe Biden. Biden took a liking to him and nominated him to head the Department of Transportation.

Since Buttigieg is widely believed to have presidential ambitions still, the question is what his next step will be. Being the first out gay Cabinet secretary has provided him with valuable D.C. experience, but the position of Transportation secretary isn’t a traditional stepping stone to the White House.

Last year the Buttigieges purchased property near Chasten Buttigieg’s hometown of Traverse City, Michigan, ostensibly to be closer to his parents as the family recently expanded with the adoption of their twins.

A Politico report in December said that Buttigieg’s allies in D.C. have established a dark money group and a PAC called Win the Era Action Fund and Win the Era with an eye to future campaigns. However, it’s not clear what he was planning on running for.

Stabenow’s announcement might answer that question, and social media speculated that he could run for the Senate seat.

“I am fully focused on serving the President in my role as Secretary of Transportation, and not seeking any other job. We are hard at work to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, grow the economy, and create good-paying jobs,” Buttigieg said in response to the news about Stabenow, according to NBC reporter Henry J. Gomez.

“Senator Stabenow is a force in the Senate and fights every day to make life better for Michiganders and all Americans. I’ve been honored to work with her, and look forward to continuing to work with her during this Congress.”

So, for now, speculation is all there is that Buttigieg could throw his hat in the ring for the seat.

In her statement, Stabenow, 72, thanked the people of Michigan and said she would spend more time with her family.

“I am so grateful for the trust the people of Michigan have placed in me,” she said. “I am also deeply grateful to my incredible staff, who are the best team in the United States Senate. They continue to set the highest standards for service in Michigan and across our country.”

“When my term ends, I intend to begin a new chapter in my life that includes continuing to serve our State outside of elected office while spending precious time with my amazing 96-year-old mom and my wonderful family.”

During heated arguments at the Supreme Court yesterday in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis – about a web designer who doesn’t want to make websites for same-sex couples – Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared angry and even suggested that a Colorado baker had been forced into a “reeducation training program” after he discriminated against a gay couple.

The case is about a web designer named Lori Smith, who says that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law might make her make websites for same-sex couples even though she wants to make them only for opposite-sex couples. Her complaint, which cites the Bible as well as caselaw, says that she “believes that God is calling her to promote and celebrate His design for marriage… between one man and one woman only.”

She is suing over the same law that Colorado baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop violated several years ago when he refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple because he believed they would serve it at a wedding, something he said was against his sincerely held religious beliefs.

In that case, Phillips was ordered to “additional remedial measures, including ‘comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section,’” or training about the state’s anti-discrimination law.

Gorsuch called it a “reeducation program,” language likely used to reference internment camps set up by 20th-century dictatorships to silence dissent. States require training on the law in numerous cases, including education about road laws to get a driver’s license or parenting classes in child custody cases, and usually it’s not referred to as a “reeducation program.”

“Mr. Phillips did go through a reeducation training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. [Colorado Solicitor General Eric] Olson?” Gorsuch asked.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar with…” Olson started to answer.

“It was a reeducation program, right?” Gorsuch pressed.

“It was not a ‘reeducation program,’” Olson said.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch asked.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson said calmly.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘reeducation program,’” Gorsuch snapped back.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said.

“Astounding that Gorsuch, a Supreme Court Justice, refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law as ‘reeducation training,’” Adam Cohen of Lawyers for Good Government tweeted. “Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union.”

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) defended her anti-LGBTQ rhetoric after she was widely denounced online in the wake of the Club Q shooting for stoking violence against LGBTQ people.

“That is completely false,” she told Ross Kaminsky on KOA, an AM radio station. “I have never had bad rhetoric towards anyone and their personal preference as an adult.”

Sexual orientation is not a “personal preference” and minors can have sexual orientations. In fact, Boebert herself got pregnant for the first time when she was in high school.

This past Saturday, a shooter entered the LGBTQ bar Club Q in Colorado Springs, Colorado, killed five people, and injured 18 with an AR-15-style weapon before being subdued.

Boebert released a statement saying that “the victims & their families are in my prayers” and was immediately slammed online after spreading hateful rhetoric against LGBTQ people for years, something people said may have contributed to anti-LGBTQ violence.

“You encourage this type of hatred,” Chasten Buttigieg – the husband of out Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg – responded. “Get off Twitter and start looking inward.”

It didn’t take long in the radio interview for Boebert to go back to bashing LGBTQ people.

“What I’ve criticized is the sexualization of our children,” she said, an expression conservatives use to refer to a wide range of actions, including teaching kids that some families have two mothers or two fathers and allowing LGBTQ clubs to form in high schools. It’s unclear exactly what she was referring to.

“And I’ve criticized men dressing up as caricatures of women,” she continued. Drag is an art form with deep roots in LGBTQ culture, and the idea is to play with gender, often to express one’s own femininity, masculinity, or androgyny.

“We don’t need six-year-old children putting dollar bills in the thongs of grown men shaking and twerking in front of children,” Boebert said, possibly referring to a viral photo of a child putting money in the thong of a straight, cisgender woman burlesque performer. “That is child abuse.”

“If there’s an issue that comes up where the government, the public system, is sexualizing our children I’m going to stand up against that. Absolutely. Children can’t get tattoos, but they can be chemically castrated, they could have fixed changes as minors,” she said, again spreading the lie that kids are getting “castrated.” Puberty blockers – what she’s likely referring to – are reversible and have been shown to reduce lifelong suicide risk among trans people. Moreover, taking them is a decision families make with doctors, not with high school dropouts like Boebert.

“It’s gotten worse and worse,” Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone (D), who is trans, said about anti-LGBTQ rhetoric. “So it’s not a surprise to me, and to a lot of other people that we’re at this point where a violent attack is happening, and it’s happening in a place like [Club Q] because this has been brewing for a long time.”

Two hard-hitting ads are being aired in Ohio that blast Republicans’ attempt to pass a bill banning transgender girls from participating in school sports.

In June state house Republicans passed H.B. 151, which contained a measure to ban transgender girls from participating in school sports. It said that if a female student-athlete is “accused” or “suspected” of being transgender, then she can be made to undergo an examination of her genitalia, hormone levels, and DNA.

“This is truly bizarre medically and nonsensical, but looking at it practically, this bill means that if anyone decides to question a child’s true gender, that child must undergo a sensitive exam,” state Rep. Dr. Beth Liston (D) said when the bill passed the state house. The bill never passed the state senate.

Campaign for Our Shared Future, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works on education policy, has released two ads in Ohio attacking the state legislature for passing the bill.

“Ohio lawmakers are trying to legalize child sexual assault in sports,” a voiceover says. “And they tried to hide it from us.”

“Any child can be targeted, victimized, and scarred. Keep Ohio lawmakers’ hands off our children.”

“If your daughter wants to play middle school soccer, radical Ohio politicians want to know about her genitals,” the voiceover says in another ad from the organization.

“This [bill] was particularly egregious and we need to make sure families understand what this bill is asking,” Campaign for Our Shared Future executive director Heather Harding told the Columbus Dispatch. “I have a middle school daughter. She plays volleyball, and I would never want her subjected to this kind of physical exam.”

The group isn’t allowed to campaign for or against specific politicians, so the ads just referred to lawmakers. Harding said she believes the ads can appeal to parents on policy grounds.

“This is about culture wars and fear mongering,” she said. “This is not about ensuring we have high-quality schools for all kids. Anyone who is horrified about children being inspected, we would work with them.”

LGBTQ advocates praised the ads.

“We are pleased to see ads from COSF that shine a clear light on how bills like this hurt all kids,” said Maria Bruno, public policy director at Equality Ohio. “We also know that LGBTQ+ kids, and especially our transgender youth continue to be the most vulnerable targets of such harmful legislation.”

Herschel Walker – the former NFL player running for a U.S. Senate seat in Georgia as a Republican – mocked transgender people who serve in the military.

“Hey, just think about it: Pronoun? In our military?” he joked at a campaign event on Tuesday. “How do you identify? In our military? These are war times. What happened to push-ups? Sit-ups?”

“Because I can tell you right now, China, Iran, and Russia are not talking about pronouns,” Walker said, referring to three countries with poor records on human rights, especially when it comes to LGBTQ people.

“They got us believing we can bring wokeness into our military,” Walker continued. “We should never bring wokeness into our military.”

Then Walker suggested that “the people on the left” are going to “take your kids” to Hell.

“You’ve gotten a little bit too smart,” he said. “You don’t fall for it. You don’t let them take you in that elevator [to Hell]. So they’re going to take your kids now. They’re going to take your kids down now.”

“But they want to tell the white kids, ‘You’re an oppressor.’ They want to tell the Black kids, ‘You’re a victim.’ No. All of them are victorious.”

Walker has never served in the military, despite his recent claims to the contrary.

In September, he told Rolling Out: “I’ve been very fortunate in the business world. I’ve been very fortunate in my military, uh, career – that I was doing a lot of things in the military.”

CNN said that he may have been referring to how he worked as a paid spokesperson for a business that runs mental health programs for veterans. That is not the same as having a military career or being “in the military.”

This isn’t the first time that Walker has attacked transgender people as part of his Senate bid. In September, he said that his opponent, Sen. Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), “voted to put men in women’s sports,” which also isn’t true.

“I ask every parent out, would you like Herschel Walker to compete against your daughter? Right now that’s what you voted for,” Walker said on The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Showin September.

Warnock didn’t vote in favor of any measure concerning gender and sports. Rather he voted against a last-minute amendment to cut funding to school districts that allow transgender girls to participate in school sports that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) tried to insert into the 2021 COVID relief bill.

Moreover, no schools are allowing grown, cisgender men – much less professional athletes like Walker – to compete in school sports on girls’ teams. Herschel Walker is not a transgender schoolgirl and Warnock’s vote didn’t allow him to participate in high school girls’ volleyball.

The state of Idaho has been ordered to pay $321,224.50 in legal fees because of an anti-transgender law it passed in 2020 that had already been ruled unconstitutional.

In 2018, U.S. Magistrate Judge Candy Dale ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) to completely block transgender people from correcting the gender marker on their birth certificates. That case was brought by a transgender woman who was called a “tra**y” and a “fa***t” at a Social Security office when she showed them her birth certificate.

In 2020, state Rep. Julianne Young (R) introduced a bill to ban changes to birth certificates outside of a narrow set of exemptions. She claimed that the birth certificate is a “historical document” and that allowing transgender people to have birth certificates that reflect who they are threatens women.

“There is an ongoing discussion about this, but I will tell you, as a woman who is aware of the crime statistics related to the vulnerability of females as a group, this concerns me,” Young said at the time.

Later in 2020, Judge Dale ruled that IDHW had to follow her ruling and let transgender people correct the gender markers on their birth certificates.

The plaintiffs not only succeeded in getting the state to follow the Constitution, but they asked the court to have the state pay their attorneys’ fees. Instead of getting the nearly $450,000 that they initially requested, Dale awarded them $321,224.50.

The ruling would not have surprised opponents of the 2020 bill. State Rep. John Gannon (D) said at the time that it would be “a legal disaster” that would open the state up to “an expensive losing lawsuit paid for by taxpayers” since a federal judge had already ruled against it.