Marjorie Taylor Greene

1235»

Comments

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I can't find the reference now, but at least one of the House Democrats made a statement blaming Republicans for making the whole House deal with this issue. Kevin McCarthy was willing to strip Steve King of committee assignments by acting within his prerogatives as Republican House leader, but with Greene it took the House as a whole acting.

    Why did he blame the Republicans? What happened showed that a vote of the whole House in effect condemned her and her stance. I'd say that that was worthwhile.

    As @Dave W points out, it's usually the job of the parties to discipline rogue members (except in instances of actual criminality). This fulfills a couple of purposes. It fosters party discipline, illustrating what kind of behaviors are outside the lines. It prevents the perception that maintaining standards is a form of partisan payback. And it allows the House to concentrate on doing its job. The complaint here is that by failing to enforce discipline within their caucus Republicans have failed in all three ways, forcing the House as a whole to divert time and energy from legislating to maintaining the standards that the Republican House caucus should be able to maintain itself.

    Moreover they create the space for her to play the victim and claim it's a partisan attack. The reason for doing so? There are a few. All shameful. They are playing to the Trumpian bloc rather than shutting them down. Also they give themselves the option of the veto on future Dem committee members (when they're in the majority) with the specious excuse that it's just a political manoeuvre and the Dems did it first.

    It is beyond disgusting.

    I've said before that I have no sympathy with the GOP for Trump capturing the party because they played with fire for decades making space for Trumpism. And now it is clear that Trumpism will outlast the Orange menace himself, they still choose the easy over the morally vital. That will not end well.

    AFZ
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I've said before that I have no sympathy with the GOP for Trump capturing the party because they played with fire for decades making space for Trumpism. And now it is clear that Trumpism will outlast the Orange menace himself, they still choose the easy over the morally vital. That will not end well.

    There is no "Trumpism", only Republicanism.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I've said before that I have no sympathy with the GOP for Trump capturing the party because they played with fire for decades making space for Trumpism. And now it is clear that Trumpism will outlast the Orange menace himself, they still choose the easy over the morally vital. That will not end well.

    There is no "Trumpism", only Republicanism.

    I think that's slightly unfair. But not entirely.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    It's poignant to read the Gilead novels and look back on a time when Ames and his friends, decent if somewhat compromised descendants of anti-slavery activists, are able to vote Republican almost automatically.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Not quite. She started off running for the seat in Georgia's 6th Congressional District in 2020 and then switched over to the 14th when the Republican incumbent there announced he wasn't running for re-election. She's got family money. Not a huge amount, but enough to make that kind of district shopping available to her.

    Ah, a carpetbagger.

    Hmmm. Presuming the post-Civil War carpetbaggers are still thought badly of in the South, I wonder if calling her that the next time someone runs against her might help defeat her?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Not quite. She started off running for the seat in Georgia's 6th Congressional District in 2020 and then switched over to the 14th when the Republican incumbent there announced he wasn't running for re-election. She's got family money. Not a huge amount, but enough to make that kind of district shopping available to her.

    Ah, a carpetbagger.

    Hmmm. Presuming the post-Civil War carpetbaggers are still thought badly of in the South, I wonder if calling her that the next time someone runs against her might help defeat her?

    Maybe if she was actually from the north, and was allied with business or political interests viewed as favouring the north and harming the south, it might carry some resonsnce.

    But, if it's just being used to mean what in Canada we call a "parachute candidate", I don't think most people would link her to the Reconstruction carpetbaggers, even if the word were used.

    (Caveat that I know little about Georgia's political culture. Is there any sort of taboo against parachute candidates there?)
  • stetson wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Not quite. She started off running for the seat in Georgia's 6th Congressional District in 2020 and then switched over to the 14th when the Republican incumbent there announced he wasn't running for re-election. She's got family money. Not a huge amount, but enough to make that kind of district shopping available to her.

    Ah, a carpetbagger.

    Hmmm. Presuming the post-Civil War carpetbaggers are still thought badly of in the South, I wonder if calling her that the next time someone runs against her might help defeat her?

    Maybe if she was actually from the north, and was allied with business or political interests viewed as favouring the north and harming the south, it might carry some resonsnce.

    But, if it's just being used to mean what in Canada we call a "parachute candidate", I don't think most people would link her to the Reconstruction carpetbaggers, even if the word were used.
    Correct. For those in the South who remember the term and its original meaning, “carpetbagger” would be used these days to refer to someone who moved here from the North, got involved in politics and proceeded to tell us how we ought to be doing things, based on how things were done wherever they came from.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    People in Georgia's 14th congressional district would have already known where Greene was from by last November, but she won nearly 75% of the vote. And next time the district boundaries may be different anyway, since the decennial redistricting will have happened by then (probably).
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    One of the poorest excuses I heard for voting for Greene was: "I am a Republican. I have always voted Republican. Green was nominated for the Republican ticket. I will vote for her."

    Come on, I am a Democrat. I usually vote for the Democratic ticket, but not always.
  • Re "carpet-bagger":

    Actually, I was thinking it would be a far worse insult for a *Southerner*.

    IIRC, the original ones looted, or pressured people to sell them valuables far below a reasonable price.

    FWIW.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I can't find the reference now, but at least one of the House Democrats made a statement blaming Republicans for making the whole House deal with this issue. Kevin McCarthy was willing to strip Steve King of committee assignments by acting within his prerogatives as Republican House leader, but with Greene it took the House as a whole acting.

    Why did he blame the Republicans? What happened showed that a vote of the whole House in effect condemned her and her stance. I'd say that that was worthwhile.

    As @Dave W points out, it's usually the job of the parties to discipline rogue members (except in instances of actual criminality). This fulfills a couple of purposes. It fosters party discipline, illustrating what kind of behaviors are outside the lines. It prevents the perception that maintaining standards is a form of partisan payback. And it allows the House to concentrate on doing its job. The complaint here is that by failing to enforce discipline within their caucus Republicans have failed in all three ways, forcing the House as a whole to divert time and energy from legislating to maintaining the standards that the Republican House caucus should be able to maintain itself.

    I can understand that point of view, but would be selling my line also.
    Were there any Republican votes in the House ballot to exclude her?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Yes. 11 of the 211 House Republicans voted to relieve Greene of her committee assignments.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Re "carpet-bagger":

    Actually, I was thinking it would be a far worse insult for a *Southerner*.

    IIRC, the original ones looted, or pressured people to sell them valuables far below a reasonable price.

    FWIW.
    Yes, but the original ones were from the North. A (white) Southerner who behaved similarly was a scalawag, not a carpetbagger.

    Being an outsider, with no ties to the area one seeks to exploit or influence, is basic to being seen as a carpetbagger. I realize the term is now sometimes used to mean “parachute candidate.” But in my experience, whether used in the more traditional sense or the newer sense of a parachute candidate, Southerners who use “carpetbagger” only use it to refer to Northerners, or at most non-Southerners.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Not many, but a start.
  • Nick--

    Thanks for an explanation that even a Westerner can understand!
    ;)
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Yes, but the original ones were from the North. A (white) Southerner who behaved similarly was a scalawag, not a carpetbagger.

    The similar word here, and obviously not used in that precise sense*, is scallywag. I assume a similar derivation.

    * The usage when I was growing up was a description of a mischievous child, but in previous times was much more perjorative.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    One of the poorest excuses I heard for voting for Greene was: "I am a Republican. I have always voted Republican. Green was nominated for the Republican ticket. I will vote for her."

    Reminds me of the evangelical mantra you see on bumper stickers sometimes: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." Never mind how do you know God said it?

    Never mind that the Republican Party has deteriorated to something quite different from what Lincoln envisioned it to be, or even Eisenhower. Vote Republican even if Hitler himself is reincarnated and runs on the ticket.

    Oh, wait . . . .
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Meaning, I suppose, 'I believe God said it. That settles it'. In other words, 'I've made my mind up. Don't trouble me with the facts'.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    Meaning, I suppose, 'I believe God said it. That settles it'. In other words, 'I've made my mind up. Don't trouble me with the facts'.

    Yep. This one I find very annoying. It's a classic heresy: a good thing in the wrong place.

    How many things in your life (or more importantly, mine) would simply be better if I just listened to God's clear instructions? It's a helluva lot in my case.

    Conversely, of course what they are getting at is a narrow theology and no possibility of listening to anyone or anything.

    My main response to this kind of non-Christian thinking is to point to the HUGE number of verses on social justice and caring for the poor, the widow and the alien. It's a safe bet that the people sporting these kind of non-truth messages will be prosperity gospel nativists...

    AFZ
  • Re "God said it":

    Different churches and different Christians have different ideas about the Bible, how we got it, how to interpret it, etc. From what I've heard, other traditions with other scriptures have the same situation.

    My childhood fundamentalist church taught that the entire Bible was from God, much of it actually dictated to the writer. It mattered to them. They weren't the stereotypical, crazed, "foaming at the mouth", mindless type of fundamentalist. They weren't much given to slogan theology.

    They studied the Bible, including the meaning of words in the original languages. The Bible, in the original manuscripts, was considered infallible--so understanding the languages (at least particular words) was crucial in understanding what God had to say. When a brand-new college offered Biblical Greek and Hebrew, some took classes. The pastor's sermons often were a journey through particular passage, word by word in the original languages. Sometimes, the sermon itself was over an hour. (This last led to some grumbling, not the least because roasts left cooking in home ovens all morning for Sunday dinner got dry and burned!)

    ISTM that Christians in other parts of the Christian spectrum also have ideas and interpretations that seem crazy to other Christians. I think fundamentalist Protestants wind up being made scapegoats for Christian craziness, when that's actually pretty well spread around. And a person can be fundamentalist about anything: the Bible, sports teams, music, breakfast cereals, beer.

    As far as fundamentalist Protestants not listening to anyone or anything else: IME, they purposely don't adhere to "Scripture, tradition, and reason"--only the scripture part. The rest is from fallible human beings, therefore not trustworthy. They want to know what *God* has to say, how to live, and what to expect.

    And, IME, they aren't remotely prosperity gospelists.

    YMMV.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Very well said Golden Key.
  • alienfromzogalienfromzog Shipmate
    edited February 7
    Golden Key wrote: »
    And, IME, they aren't remotely prosperity gospelists.

    YMMV.

    Nice Post.

    I highlighted the last part because so many of the Trump-supporting Evangelicals are definitely prosperity gospelists. (As well as natavists etc.)

    Your post was far more comprehensive than mine but in the context of this thread, these were the specific type, I was trying to describe. But I wasn't trying to create a tangent.

    AFZ
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Golden Key wrote: »
    This last led to some grumbling, not the least because roasts left cooking in home ovens all morning for Sunday dinner got dry and burned!

    Must have been in the days before the Crock Pot.
    I wasn't trying to create a tangent.

    Nor was I. I am, erm, happy (not exactly the right word) to get back to the despicable Mrs. Greene, but I do confess that this tangent has been interesting.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    From CNN: 'The growing GOP rebellion against Marjorie Taylor Green'; link here.

    (Italics mine.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Wesley J wrote: »
    From CNN: 'The growing GOP rebellion against Marjorie Taylor Green'; link here.

    (Italics mine.)

    It would be more convincing if CNN had bothered to name any Republicans willing to go on record with their "rebellion" against Rep. Green. The link they provide claiming "just 18 Republicans voted against it" seems to redirect to an unrelated 2006 tweet. I think this is what they were trying to link to and just left off the last several digits. I would have simply linked to the Clerk of the House's website listing of the vote, but I'm not a national cable network.
Sign In or Register to comment.