FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Osodecentx said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.
Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?
The caucus and the base are not synonymous......
You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.
Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.
She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.
Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).
152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13
Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.
That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.
Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.
Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...
Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.
We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.
I don't know, Dems are pretty effective in getting their agenda passed into law despite having a lot more and crazier MTG types. They have a 1-seat majority in the Senate and get everything they want enacted into law. No theatrics. We have a 4 seat majority in the House and, well.......
Dems know how to triangulate. The GOP can't get there because they are offended by the very people they should be using for triangulation.
Has it occurred to you that a pretty conservative speaker with a razor thin majority might appreciate the fact that someone else is bringing heat on the moderates?
If they were working on tandem to get an agenda delivered? Yes, I agree would be good. But MTG is attacking Johnson and made a move for removal, requiring Dems to step in. Weakening the Speaker, not the move of a organized move. I actually would be thankful for SOME type of coordinated strategy, even if it failed. It would show some forethought to accomplishing an agenda. Right now, too splintered to get anything done.
Hell, have a retreat and create a strategy on how all fractions can work to deliver something. Pick, I don't care, border, budget, energy, Ukraine, Israel, taxes... I want to see some organized, coordinated, thought process.
That's what a caucus is....a retreat to discuss stuff.
REPEATEDLY, you absolve the moderates from any responsibility for the division. It is the moderates who always balk at voting for the platform agenda. That forces the Speaker to move to center and then start whipping the conservatives. Then, predictably, the conservatives start to squawk. You should not have to whip your base. You should have to whip your center. If you're always whipping your base, you're not pushing the platform agenda - which is the whole reason parties have primary elections = to elect representatives who will enact the platform into law.
Every time MTG threatens to remove him, she strengthens his hand with the moderates. It allows him to say to them "hey guys, I need some room here,....remember how it went last time? You could end up with a speaker more conservative than me." And this speaker appears to be doing exactly that. The previous one sure didn't.
GOP has a long tradition of electing leadership from blue/swing districts/states, the theory being that moderate leadership would extend appeal in swing districts. All it did, though, was give leadership positions to people whose worldview was that the GOP should always hide its conservatism in order to survive. Dems do not do that. Dems elect leadership from hard blue states/districts. Pelosi? San Francisco liberal. Jeffries? Member of the Democrat Progressive Caucus (the functional equivalent of the GOP Freedom Caucus).
Fact - MTG is no further right than Jeffries is left.
Yet you only want to beat up on MTG and don't have syllable of complaint about anybody on their side.
There you go again. MTG IS NOT THE BASE, she is the fringe Right. Both her a Gaetz's actions of the last 6 months have shown they are not the base. If they were the Base, Johnson would not be Speaker. Gaetz would not have needed a "morphed" rule to remove McCarthy (which he struggled to get done).
Just because you and two or three posters on here like MTG and the Fringe Right message doesn't make them the Base. Look at the recent votes, they are not the votes of a Matt Gaetz/MTG base. Johnson has a much better grasp of the Base than MTG.
Don't mistake a fluke of a messed up election versus the most progressive President ever, as determining the Base. Voting for Trump does not make MAGA the Base. Look at the votes, that is a better indication of the Base, much more Moderate GOP than the 8-15 MAGA squeeky wheel Reps.
nope. She's right in the middle bubble of the conservative base.
https://heritageaction.com/scorecard/members
She's not the most conservative. a 60% score is passing, on the Heritage Action scale. Half the caucus has a score of 75 or higher. She's at 87. For comparison, Jeff Van Drew is at 92 (he's the New Jersey Democrat congressman who switched parties). Jim Jordan is at 85. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is 79. Cathy McMorriss Rogers, former chair of the House GOP Conference who gave the rebuttal to one of Obama's SOTU speeches = 73. Elise Stefanik = 59 (failing grade). Steve Scalise = 54. Mike Johnson = 52. Michael McCaul 49.
Notice the trend.....as one moves up in seniority/leadership, one tends to get more moderate. Not always, but it is a trend. So it should be no surprise that the base is always fighting to drag the Speaker back into the mainstream of conservative thought.
You don't like her style, fine. But she's speaking for an awfully big slice of the base.
We disagree. She not the Freedom Caucus pulling her strings are the base of the GOP. Your slice of the GOP, yup. The fringe right. The media wand the electorate to believe they are the GOP base, which helps Biden.
They get more moderate because that is the only way to get anything done. All you listed just sold out and abandoned their believes. You are missing the reality of Congress, it is set up to create compromise.
Create compromise how? Dems do it with progressive leaders and help from moderate GOP leadership. GOP does it by just caving to Dem demands.
I put up MTG's Heritage Action score for a reason. Compare it to this one from a prior session of Congress. (Hint, she is squarely in the mainstream of the conservative movement. She's just not afraid to say what she believes.
This is a great example. Look at what DeSantis did as Gov and the bills he introduced, how he voted, compared to MTG.
MTG made tv splash bills with no further action. DeSantis was involved in real legislation (probably because he actually understood it). Look at his leadership score to go with his conservative ranking. MTG is a conservative AOC.
You tell me RDS represents the base, I look at his record and say "yeah, I get it.". MTG? I am not sure she knows what it means, she like Broebert seem more interested in hype, not a platform. Just look at her legislation, it is mostly bringing up censure vs the squad. Reality TV *****
apples & oranges. Governors don't introduce or pass bills. They sign them. But when we look apples & apples, what each of them did in Congress, we see comparable records.
Number of bills introduced by RDS in his first Congress? 11
Number of bills introduced by MTG in her first Congress? 27
Number of bills passed by RDS in his first Congress? 0
Number of bills passed by MTG in her first Congress? 0
You continue to conflate substance and style. Substantively - policy, voting records, legislative accomplishments, policy positions - RS and MTG are two peas in a pod. Both of them members of the Freedom Caucus. Stylistically, she was far less polished. Notably, MTG was kicked out of the FC for supporting fmr speaker McCarthy (and, specifically, spats with FC members over that issue).
You can knock yourself out researching, but you won't find a ton of difference between the two in Congress on anything other than working with fellow Freedom Caucus members.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/membersAgain, the record is clear - MTG is well within the Republican mainstream on policy matters. She is also well within the Republican mainstream on frustration with Republican Congressional leadership. The only area where she's remarkable is in style....
HOW she chooses to fight for what she believes in. And a large percentage of Republicans
LIKE the way she fights. I find it amusing but not infuriating. Good leadership will find a way to exploit what she does for advantage.
But for some Republicans, the style is all that matters, and none moreso than the Moderates.......
