Way ta go, Dems. You've turned Marjorie Taylor Greene into a national hero

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Handout)

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Handout)

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the freshman from Georgia, fired back this morning at the close-minded Democrats and 11 Republicans that booted her off her House committee assignments.

At a press conference (below) she established herself as possibly the most eloquent, graceful, powerful and rational congressman in either party. And one of the most visible person in the Republican Party. She walked into the vipers’ den and emerged not just unscratched but more credible and loved.

If you had bothered to watch her entire press conference (I did; your cable stations didn’t), you now would know that you didn’t just turn her into a martyr figure. You also gave her an opportunity to establish herself as a national leader with an immense following.

By denying her the ability to represent her district on the education and budget committees, you have freed her up, as she pointed out, to pursue the conservative agenda not just in Congress but throughout the nation. By in effect partially disenfranchising the voters in her district, you have displayed the worst of your arrogant cancel culture urges.

If she had remained on those committees, she would have remained a largely ignored backbencher. Hell, I didn’t even know whom she is until you attacked her. Freshmen lawmakers typically don’t get much of anything done on committees. Now, she will be a much more influential national communicator, rallying conservatives around America.

When she agreed to take questions from the assembled media hacks, Greene further demonstrated her skills. You could sense the venom dripping from CNN and the rest of the mob. They obviously didn’t listen to her speech yesterday, in which she apologized for her previous posts. She repeated today that she was wrong and that she was refreshed by her confession.

Still, they pressed ahead with the same kind of accusatory questions laid on ex-President Donald Trump. Why, one reporter asked, aren’t you willing to say that you are sorry; you only said you regretted it. I’m happy to apologize, she responded. I’m sorry she said smiling–an answer that silenced the reporter.  She was skillful, graceful and transparent, unlike Trump who too often was course, angry and bungling.

When she finally ended the hostile assault, she walked away with a smile and the pack followed her away. Walking into a spotlight that will outshine the pathetic accusers.

Aren’t you sorry now?

 

To subscribe to the Barbershop, type your email Address the address in the box and click the “create subscription” button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • This lady is clown shoes personified. Your remark that you didn't know who she was seems difficult to believe. I can't imagine that knowing anything about her makes you think she's credible. She's claimed that Hillary and Nancy regularly talk that they need to manufacture more school shootings to generate political capital to allow them to ban guns.

    Say that out loud to whoever is around you. She has claimed that Hillary and Nancy regularly talk that they need to manufacture more school shootings so that they can get public sentiment to allow them to ban guns.

    Now, look at what you just wrote about her. I'm certainly afraid for what it means that you think she will now generate a national following. And, I can't imagine what you must think of the people you are claiming will now follow her.. Single data point... After being nominated to an education committee, she listed her priorities. We are going through a pandemic that caused millions of children to attend school from home and exposed the lack of sufficient broadband access that hindered the education of an embarrassing number of them. What are her education priorities? Making sure that trans males don't play soccer with females. That seems important, right? That'll probably affect a few dozen people in the next decade. Let's tackle the big important stuff first, right?

    No one, anywhere, with any sense at all regrets what happened with her. Maybe some people in Georgia are embarrassed that the country realizes what they voted for. Other than that, I can't imagine anyone regretting today.

  • Where do I start?

    "I can't imagine that knowing anything about her makes you think she's credible."
    What? Where did you find that casual link in my post?

    " She's claimed that Hillary and Nancy regularly talk that they need to manufacture more school shootings to generate political capital to allow them to ban guns."

    If you had listened to her, you'd know that she no longer stands by those nutty statements made a while ago. She apologized. You don't believe in redemption? I guess you believe in original sin, when you are cursed for all time. You believe that even a repentant Sen. Byrd should have been expelled from Congress for his past support of segregation. Let's go find a statue and tear it down. It'll make us feel better.

    "And, I can't imagine what you must think of the people you are claiming will now follow her.. "
    They're deplorable, right?

    "Making sure that trans males don't play soccer with females."
    Careful. You must mean trans female. If you don't learn the correct lingo, you're in line to be cancelled. It's a lot more than a few dozen. And even if it is, are you satisfied with the "equity" of a male, endowed with more muscle, etc. competing with the girls? If you have a 13-year-old daughter would you be content with her right to privacy dictated from Washington that requires her to be exposed to a male. Oh right, he thinks he's a she, so your daughter should just shut up about concerns about her privacy, body image, etc.

    "Maybe some people in Georgia are embarrassed that the country realizes what they voted for."
    Jerks have the right to elect jerks if they want, son. Assholes can do the same. Even you have a right to be represented in Congress by a person you vote for. No matter how nutty you are.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Was the ad hominem insult at the end necessary?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    > What? Where did you find that casual link in my post?

    So, you don't think she's credible? You just think that after hearing a press conference, other people will think she is credible? Please, clarify.

    Nothing to clarify. I meant it.

    > If you had listened to her, you'd know that she no longer stands by those nutty statements made a while ago.

    I don't believe her. Not even a little. One needs only look at her recent campaign to easily figure out what she stands by. If by "a while ago", you mean a couple short years ago, I agree with you. This isn't someone who made statements decades ago and has now spent years trying to disprove them. The political wind may have turned and she's saying what she thinks rubes will believe.

    Believe what you want.

    > They're deplorable, right?

    I don't know. What do you think of them, that they've decided to ignore years of consistent behavior and let their opinion be determined by a single press conference? Seriously, what do you think of people like that.
    I think they are American citizens and they have the right to elect whomever they want. You certainly are free to disagree with their choice.

    > Careful. You must mean trans female. If you don't learn the correct lingo, you're in line to be cancelled. It's a lot more than a few dozen. And even if it is, are you satisfied with the "equity" of a male, endowed with more muscle, etc. competing with the girls?

    Nice. Ignore what I say and attack something silly like "the lingo". Is that what someone with a credible argument does? Second, I'm not satisfied with a "male" competing against girls. Do I think that that is a problem that someone in Congress should consider a priority? No. I don't. I can't imagine anyone seriously thinking that this is a problem that people in Congress should spend any time thinking about at all. Yet, this is her priority. I notice you completely ignored my remark about something reasonable that she might have considered a priority. Again, telling, which things you choose to respond to and which you ignore.
    You're pretty good at ignoring things that I say and responding to things I didn't say. No I don't think that this is a problem that people in Congress and the White House should consider a priority. So, why are Biden and progressive congresspeople making it so?

    > Jerks have the right to elect jerks if they want, son. Assholes can do the same. Even you have a right to be represented in Congress by a person you vote for. No matter how nutty you are.

    I'm not sure what you meant by this, other than agreeing with me. If you don't think that the House or the Senate get to set their own rules, come out and say so. If you don't like how they do so when they disagree with you, at least have the honestly to say so. Don't act as though you've been wounded when they do the sorts of things they always do.
    I clearly don't know what you mean by this.

    Regarding your remarks about everyone having the right to be represented in Congress... I was looking to see what you wrote when Mitch decided unilaterally that the Senate was explicitly not going to do the job they were voted in to do, which was provide advice and consent regarding Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court. If you think the people of Georgia were grievously wounded, lord knows what you think about Mitch depriving 99 other Senators, and therefore hundreds of millions of constituents their representation.
    Under Senate rules, Mitch has that power. I don't necessarily agree with it. I do wish that the rules would be better in several ways: Christmas tree ornaments shouldn't be tucked into unrelated spending bills, for one.

    That's right, we do know what you really think and your hypocrisy here is more transparent than I think you realized. Stop lying to your readers and treating us like clowns.
    Only some of my readers are clowns.

    Sorry about the formatting errors. I'm an old guy who hasn't figured this out yet.

  • In reply to dave77:

    When the House exercises its rules, you make claims about 'disenfranchised voters'. When the Senate exercises its rules "Mitch has that power".

    Yeah, you seem to have taken the reasonable point of view with this one.

    > I clearly don't know what you mean by this.

    I meant that sometimes disenfranchisement of voters isn't important enough to attract your attention. And sometimes, it's important enough to merit its own blog post.

    You do know, "whataboutism" isn't about trying to call out the behavior of another politician, it's about identifying the hypocrisy of the person talking.

    Mitch has that power... disenfranchised Georgia voters. Yeah, hypocrisy.

  • "At a press conference (below) she established herself as possibly the most eloquent, graceful, powerful and rational congressman in either party. And one of the most visible person in the Republican Party. She walked into the vipers' den and emerged not just unscratched but more credible and loved."

    Ah, a new conspiracy theory?

    Can you, Dennis, give us an example of her "eloquence"?

    "Graceful" with an AR-15?

    "Most rational"? You jest.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    "Ah, a new conspiracy theory?"
    What is? That she faced a hostile media?

    "Can you, Dennis, give us an example of her "eloquence"?
    In the eye of the beholder. Did you watch the entire press conference?

    ""Graceful" with an AR-15?"
    Does she own an AR-15? Did she bring it to the press conference? Does she have a right to own one? I don't have an answer to these questions. Do you?
    I'd say graceful because in spite of the hostile tone and shouting at her (e.g. the CNN reporter) she didn't lose her cool. Her answers were straightforward and clearly a lot less confrontation than her rabid questioners.

    ""Most rational"? You jest."
    In contrast to Nancy Pelosi? By a long shot.

    I was willing to give her a chance to explain herself, unlike some commentators here who, as soon as they hear a name, immediately say that she, and people like her, don't have a right to be heard. Very democratic.

  • And Democrats by attacking MTG you've exposed yourself to loads, no tonnes of Hypocrisy!

  • A gift of a Repub Pol representing a district of "deplorables" saying outrageous things...what's not there for the Dems to hate & demonize. At least she didn't say in reference to 9/1/1 "some people did some things that day". Who could be that outrageous? Cancel culture and petty revenge virtue signaling is front and center.

  • You describe MTG as "the most eloquent, graceful, powerful and rational congressman." I have a different candidate, as least among the Republicans. That is Liz Cheney. She clearly knows the difference between patriotism and partisanship and she is graceful, powerful and rational in asserting the former over the latter.

    You should like Liz, Dennis. She is a powerful, persuasive conservative. When I heard her party was contemplating removing her from House leadership, the liberal, Democratic partisan in me hoped they would succeed. But my patriotic side told me that she is needed to preserve the party of Lincoln as both a loyal opposition and (on occasion) the party of responsible leadership. The Republican party absolutely does not need Greene.

  • Dennis, so you can even give me an example of MTG's eloquence. I presume she owns an AR-15. She made a political ad toting one with pictures of the Squad around her. Imperturbability is not the same as grace. "More rational than Nancy Pelosi? Doubling down on this assertion is like MTG's explanation for California's forest fire, or did you buy into that irrational idea?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    I meant: ..."so you can't even give..."

  • I’ve said it before: those hoping to see the republican party self-implode, need only look to the likes of MT Greene et al, to have their hopes fulfilled. Of course we’re caught short when we’re reminded that Greene is simply the off-shoot of a long legacy of lunacy in the john birch party straight-jacket into which the republican party has evolved, yet inexplicably, somehow, still survives-much to our chagrin.

    iMessage for PC

Leave a comment