The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 25, 2024, 01:07:58 pm
-
MTG denies causing division in Congress: ‘I’m not bringing chaos, I’m forcing change’
By
Asher Notheis
March 24, 2024 5:04 pm
.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) dismissed accusations that she is dividing the House of Representatives amid her criticism of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) over the recently passed $1.2 trillion spending bill.
Greene filed a motion to vacate Johnson after the spending bill was passed, prompting some of her fellow Republican lawmakers to criticize the idea of vacating yet another speaker. Several House Republicans are also resigning due to the division within the party. Greene argued that those leaving are responsible for the further division of Congress, as the Republican Party’s majority in the House continues to shrink.
“I filed this motion to vacate, but I haven’t called it to the floor,” Greene said on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. “This is like issuing a pink slip and giving our conference a notice saying that we have got to find a new speaker. This may take weeks; it may take months; it may not even happen until next Congress. But Speaker Johnson cannot remain as speaker of the House.”
more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2936104/mtg-denies-causing-division-in-congress-im-not-bringing-chaos-im-forcing-change/
-
Newsflash: She is
-
Newsflash: She is
If Donald Trump were to win, would she ever say no to him? It’s easy to do it right now because Biden is the president.
But do you think that she will ever say no to Donald Trump?
-
I like MTG but a chess player she is not. She's not even a checkers player most of the time.
Don't care much for impulsive and knee jerk, it rarely produces results even if you have a big majority. Leave that maneuver to the other side.
-
So, MTG was virtue signaling for the media.
With an ever-shrinking majority, the GOP members of the House need to learn to praise in public and chastise in private.
MTG is the kid who calls Child Services when her parents won't let her stay up late to watch TV on a school night.
-
Best description of MTG?
Political arsonist, and attention whore. I like a lot of her positions, but she has the tact of a bull in a china closet.
-
Best description of MTG?
Political arsonist, and attention whore. I like a lot of her positions, but she has the tact of a bull in a china closet.
Well, at least she's not quietly sitting back and doing nothing. Someone needs to stand up for conservatism. It may cost the GOP initially, but enough is enough! :shrug:
-
Well, at least she's not quietly sitting back and doing nothing. Someone needs to stand up for conservatism. It may cost the GOP initially, but enough is enough! :shrug:
Always remember it's only when conservatives fight back that the Establishment Loyalists of the Pub party say that person is causing division.
-
Always remember it's only when conservatives fight back that the Establishment Loyalists of the Pub party say that person is causing division.
I am all for full blown rabble-rousing, but a 2 seat majority is not the time or place.
-
If Donald Trump were to win, would she ever say no to him? It’s easy to do it right now because Biden is the president.
But do you think that she will ever say no to Donald Trump?
Hell, if Trump was doing the same thing Biden is, she would go along with it.
-
Best description of MTG?
Political arsonist, and attention whore. I like a lot of her positions, but she has the tact of a bull in a china closet.
We used to describe that as "bomb thrower". (Think Ann Coulter, early on, had she run for office. )
We need those because they set the edge. They define the extremes the rest can negotiate from, just as the Left has those way out past the Left Field line they use for the wish list, and everything they actually get can be described as "reasonable".
This is a tactic Republicans have yet to master, but the Left uses it mercilessly, and that's why the GOP is a miserable failure at negotiations.
-
I am all for full blown rabble-rousing, but a 2 seat majority is not the time or place.
Exactly. And I don't see a future plan in place.
-
Catfish leaps out o' the water with:
"I like a lot of her positions, but she has the tact of a bull in a china closet."
That's EXACTLY what I said about Mr. Trump 'way back BEFORE he was first elected in 2016.
And that's EXACTLY why I voted for him.
Looking back in retrospective, at the DCommunist establshment and "the swamp", was he not right?
If so, why is MTG not right today...?
-
Catfish leaps out o' the water with:
"I like a lot of her positions, but she has the tact of a bull in a china closet."
That's EXACTLY what I said about Mr. Trump 'way back BEFORE he was first elected in 2016.
And that's EXACTLY why I voted for him.
Looking back in retrospective, at the DCommunist establshment and "the swamp", was he not right?
If so, why is MTG not right today...?
Maybe because there is no long term plan that will stick? :shrug:
-
I am all for full blown rabble-rousing, but a 2 seat majority is not the time or place.
What difference does it make when close to half the conference are Establishment Loyalists, who are happy to vote with the Rats rather than fight for any type of change.
-
Catfish leaps out o' the water with:
"I like a lot of her positions, but she has the tact of a bull in a china closet."
That's EXACTLY what I said about Mr. Trump 'way back BEFORE he was first elected in 2016.
And that's EXACTLY why I voted for him.
Looking back in retrospective, at the DCommunist establshment and "the swamp", was he not right?
If so, why is MTG not right today...?
Your point is well taken, she is right.
There should be consequences for leadership when they don't even try to fight. It's not like anyone expects them to win on every policy, but if they would fight we can win on some policies.
-
What difference does it make when close to half the conference are Establishment Loyalists, who are happy to vote with the Rats rather than fight for any type of change.
What is the "it" here? Exactly what "change" is she forcing? Or to put it differently, what are the most likely tangible consequences of MTG succeeding in removing the Speaker?
Because I can't think of any probable consequences that would be an improvement, and quite a few that are likely to make things worse. For starters, if she was successful in removing Johnson, I think Hakeem Jeffries is most likely to be the next person elected Speaker. Either because a handful of moderate Republicans get sick of being dictated to by a tiny minority and vote for Jeffries, or because they just re-sign and hand the Democrats an actual majority.
-
As far as I can tell, the only tangible consequence of the McCarthy removal shit show is worse legislation, and a smaller majority.
The bills that have been put forward since his removal are literally worse than anything he proposed. Not that McCarthy was great or even good. It's just that these actions actually weaken the conservative bargaining position.
-
Your point is well taken, she is right.
There should be consequences for leadership when they don't even try to fight. It's not like anyone expects them to win on every policy, but if they would fight we can win on some policies.
You mean not doing things your way. I have news for you, the clown caucus is a tiny minority in Congress.
-
What is the "it" here? Exactly what "change" is she forcing? Or to put it differently, what are the most likely tangible consequences of MTG succeeding in removing the Speaker?
Because I can't think of any probable consequences that would be an improvement, and quite a few that are likely to make things worse. For starters, if she was successful in removing Johnson, I think Hakeem Jeffries is most likely to be the next person elected Speaker. Either because a handful of moderate Republicans get sick of being dictated to by a tiny minority and vote for Jeffries, or because they just re-sign and hand the Democrats an actual majority.
I'm not surprised you would not see any change. It's business as usual for the Establishment Loyalists in the Pub party.
-
You mean not doing things your way. I have news for you, the clown caucus is a tiny minority in Congress.
How typical just like the Establishment Loyalists in the Rat party, misrepresent what was said in order to reframe the conversation to your view.
-
As far as I can tell, the only tangible consequence of the McCarthy removal shit show is worse legislation, and a smaller majority.
The bills that have been put forward since his removal are literally worse than anything he proposed. Not that McCarthy was great or even good. It's just that these actions actually weaken the conservative bargaining position.
A smaller majority in numbers or a smaller majority of those actually voting and acting along conservative lines? There is a difference.
Had the majority that the GOP had to begin with acted and voted conservatively and stood their ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Either way you look at it McCarthy caved to the DEMS from the get go. So yes the number of Republicans dwindled in number because the Republicans refused or failed to stand up to the DEMS and some have vacated their chairs as a result.
Having a majority that refuses to stand their ground and gives into the minority is useless.
-
A smaller majority in numbers or a smaller majority of those actually voting and acting along conservative lines? There is a difference.
Both. Most of those who left weren't conservatives, but they still voted conservatively on at least some issues. Which is better than them not voting at all. And it will have been much better than if even more leave and the Democrats end up in the majority.
Had the majority that the GOP had to begin with acted and voted conservatively and stood their ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This is the point I never understand. Why should we expect them all to vote hardline conservative when the majority of House Republicans aren't hardline conservatives in the first place? The House Freedom Caucus is maybe 15% or so of the total. At the other end of the spectrum is the "Problem Solvers Caucus" that has about 30 Republicans and basically the same number of Democrats. They've never hidden who they are, and get reelected because they usually come from moderate/swing districts. Most importantly, there are those within that caucus that will never support the kind of shutdown the hardliners are demanding. That isn't going to change regardless of who the Speaker is. And that's the truth that limited the power of both McCarthy and now Johnson. The hardliner demand for a shutdown/holdout under these circumstances is something that cannot succeed because there aren't the votes to sustain it. That didn't change when McCarthy was booted, and it won't change if MTG and a few others ally with Democrats to give McCarthy the boot. There aren't enough conservatives in this Congress to make that happen. It's reality.
Either way you look at it McCarthy caved to the DEMS from the get go.
His hands were tied from day one by the narrowness of the margin, and by the reality that there were enough members on opposite ends of the spectrum to make a working majority impossible unless one side or the other was willing to compromise. What he did manage to achieve was general GOP agreement on a CR that would have cut 8%, and that also included the "good" House border bill. More importantly, he even got the Senate Republicans to hold off on passing the Democrat bill in favor of supporting the more conservative option. That was our best shot at the most conservative bill possible given the numerical realities in Congress, and with Biden controlling the Presidency.
But as we all know, there were a dozen or so hardliners that refused to support that bill in the House because they were opposed to any CR (which of course happened anyway even after McCarthy was gone). And after that bill died, the Senate Republicans gave up on the House, and just signed on to the Senate Dem bill with a few small concessions. Because they quite rightly realized at that point that the House GOP would be unable to pass a bill of their own.
Having a majority that refuses to stand their ground and gives into the minority is useless.
Useless? So you think the legislation passed by the House under McCarthy and now Johnson would be no different than if Hakeem Jeffries and a Democrat majority controlled the House?
And just to circle back around to MTG's claim that she's forcing "change", exactly what change would that be? Because the power that just a few disgruntled MTG-types have to topple a Speaker is equaled by the power the more moderate Republican members have to prevent a conservative from becoming Speaker. That's why Jordan couldn't get elected -- which shouldn't shock anyone given that he's from a caucus that represents only 15% of members.
-
How typical just like the Establishment Loyalists in the Rat party, misrepresent what was said in order to reframe the conversation to your view.
I hate to break this to you: But Trump and his goons are the establishment. WHO RUNS THE GOP???