House Democrats moved yesterday to strip GOP Georgia rep Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments if Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy refuses to do so. Mark this moment: House Democrats are right, and their demand is responsible. Greene is on the House education and budget committees, and she has amply demonstrated that she does not possess the judgment to serve om a PTA rummage sale committee.
If House Democrats being reasonable blows your mind, imagine: Mitch McConnell is also making sense. Calling Greene a “cancer for the Republican Party,” the GOP Senate leader said,
“Somebody who’s suggested that perhaps no airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, that horrifying school shootings were pre-staged, and that the Clintons crashed JFK Jr.’s airplane is not living in reality.This has nothing to do with the challenges facing American families or the robust debates on substance that can strengthen our party.”
Gee, I hadn’t heard about the “Clintons killed John-John” plot! But the Greene theory that came out this week is even better. Eric Hananoki is an investigative reporter at “Media Matters,” which means he’s a partisan hack, but in this case he has found juicy evidence. In a November 17, 2018 Facebook post, since removed, Greene expressed support for the so-called Campfire Conspiracy, which holds that the deadly California wildfires were deliberately set by a cabal seeking to clear land for the high-speed railway, led by PG&E. Here is the whole post that Hananoki unearthed:
This, my friends, is a crazy person, and no party can ignore or tolerate a House member who embodies the worst and most fevered stereotypes spread by that party’s opposition. Rep. Greene, like GOP dumb bunny Steve King, needs to be marginalized and isolated in Congress so that not only can she do as little damage as possible, but so that when she says ridiculous and offensive things, nobody can say that this loose cannon speaks for the party.
If her district objects, feeling put-upon because their representative has as little influence as possible, then its voters need only to look in the mirror to find the culprit. Electing an incompetent harms the entire nation, and it is the duty of both parties to mitigate the damage caused by such ignorant voters.
Ethics Alarms 
I was wondering what happened to former Governor Brown’s high speed railway. Route was supposed to be from Bakersfield to Fresno through highly scenic country. A cabal sabotaging this visionary project sort of makes sense, doesn’t it?
Oh, its already dead, and was then. It’s a scandal, with huge cost overruns. In a two party state, the fiasco would have doomed the Democrats for a decade.
Does the text below represent the thinking and positive intent of the Democrats?
Just wondering.
No, it was the disingenuous argument of the Democrats, based upon Trump trolling them with the Birther theory. That was unethical, but not crazy: Obama certainly had an unusual background and lineage, and his various candidacies were full of quite a few short-cuts. Trump was quite properly scored for that performance during the campaign; unlike, say, Joe Biden’s conflict of interest with his son, or the rape allegations against him, the episode wasn’t hidden from voters. They got to evaluate it in the context of other factors.
Don’t make me explain the distinction between a member of Congress and a President. It’s too early. But I will say that the degree of a member of Congress’s influence and power is very much up to party leadership and always has been. That’s not true of the President of the United States.
By the way, I assumed someone would make your point, and hoped so. Thanks.
Really? Your first two responses to this blogpost have me more curious about the old plot connections of elite than against MsGreen. You certainly haven’t proven anything in this post about MsGreen except someone dug up dirt on her. That’s the ethics blog?
Why are you dusting off 2018 posts and siding with a partisan hack, repeating that here? This post was deleted per MsGreens changed mind/ position/ not sure doesn’t matter why cuz it’s gone.
So – address the issue rather than getting sparkly old deleted social posts distracting you. Are there still ethics in that kind of focus?
Issue – Is she or isn’t she prepared to contribute in the committees? Let her free speech be… She is being harassed by the mob and I don’t trust the mob. What REAL qualifications does she bring to the table? If there are none, fine, but stop spreading a hack’s bs.
Am I wrong?
You’re wrong. The posts were deleted, as all such post are when idiots realize they are drawing fire, because she hasn’t the courage or integrity to admit she was full of it or defend what she wrote. So far, she hasn’t addressed most of her absurd and deranged positions. Of course they are relevant: these aren’t from high school or decades ago. The should have been found and publicized when she was running.
Look up “signature significance” in the definitions or in the tags. “Is she or isn’t she prepared to contribute in the committees?” I answered that: obviously not, just as someone who proclaims they are an a Empress from the Planet Zontar, or who goes to work naked with a duck on her head.
This isn’t hard.
“goes to work naked with a duck on her head.”
LOBSTERS out of season…?
Yes. It’s duck season.
jvb
It’s rabbit season!
That’s “wabbit”…
Ha!
RG- “Issue – Is she or isn’t she prepared to contribute in the committees? Let her free speech be… She is being harassed by the mob and I don’t trust the mob. What REAL qualifications does she bring to the table? If there are none, fine, but stop spreading a hack’s bs.”
It is not the job of the voters to prove that she is qualified to make policy it is Congresswoman Green’s job to demonstrate fitness to serve. So far, her only legitimate claim to fame is that she is a staunch Trump supporter and mouthed all the right things to be against in her district. It is really easy to be for or against something you know your constituents are for or against. Leading does not mean just being in front of your mob it means convincing people that your way is the better way even if it means imposing some hardship on your core voter block.
When you use conjecture, innuendo, or weave together unrelated relationships that have perfectly reasonable and far less sinister alternatives to create a far more sinister narrative to support your case you are not leading you are manipulating the gullible who are looking for a scapegoat or a cop out. Reasonable people will spot such behavior and will tend to dismiss everything you have to say – good or crazy. One’s credibility and integrity takes time to cultivate successfully but can be destroyed in a nano- second when spouting conjecture or repeating unsupported claims. That is the issue.
It is the responsibility of Congresswoman Green to create a sense of credibility no one else’s. So far, she is failing. Pointing that out is not being partisan hack it is being a reasonable and responsible citizen. Not pointing it out because it undermines the preferred narrative makes one a partisan hack.
Thanks Chris, for this reply. It’s relaxing to read it! It IS the responsibility of MsGreen to show her credibility. I believe she is failing, too. I just felt that only pointing to that one post and saying that’s enough – well – wasn’t. MsGreen is a symbol of our time, and of the frustration from another perhaps unwieldy element of America.
The crazy is strong with this one. Republicans should rebuke and censure her, and ignore her as much as possible. I was always told the best way to treat people like this was to simply ignore them to avoid giving their remarks currency.
This is my last serious comment on this woman absent some madness that I can’t currently foresee. I reserve the right to mock her relentlessly, though.
The former President has given her his blessing.
Anyone opposing her will be Primaried by the former President’s fanatical supporters.
” In a series of tweets, the Georgia Republican said she was “so grateful for (Trump’s) support and more importantly the people of this country are absolutely 100% loyal to him because he is 100% loyal to the people and America First.”
– CNN
” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene announced Saturday she had a “great call” with former President Trump and said she’ll “never apologize” in the face of growing calls that she be removed from office or stripped of committee assignments.”
— Foxnews
OAN has a revealing interview.
https://www.oann.com/rep-greene-discusses-call-with-president-trump-upcoming-meeting-with-gop-leader/
Like many leaders, the ex-President values loyalty over all else. That’s not only typical of leaders, its typical of successful leaders, and corporate leaders. After the way Trump was repeatedly betrayed and sabotaged from within, I assume his experience only strengthened that reflex.
Nonetheless. blind loyalty has doomed as many leaders as it has benefited.
As I predicted, the GOP did nothing to prevent a serial harasser of school shooting victims from being on an education committee.
Too afraid of Trump’s fans (short for fanatics).
What I didn’t predict was that the vote to censure and remove McCain would be a secret ballot. One where the motion of censure was defeated handily.
” After the way Trump was repeatedly betrayed and sabotaged from within…”
Have you ever considered the possibility that they might have been right so to do? See Claus von Stauffenburg et al.
His boss repeatedly claimed everyone around him was betraying him too, remember? And many intelligent people believed him for far too long.
A Hitler comparison? An Presidential assassination attempt endorsement? You’re right: beating Hillary Clinton, stopping illegal immigration and sending stupid tweets is exactly like starting a World War and murdering millions of Jews. Perfect analogy. Clarifies everything beautifully.
What time WAS it when you wrote that?
I have a number of friends, former colleagues and a few family members who live in Marjorie Taylor Greene’s district, and from my conversations with them I believe her election to Congress can be laid primarily at the feet of the Georgia GOP, but others bear collateral responsibility. After the then-incumbent congressman announced he would not run in 2020, there were NINE candidates in the Republican primary. Nine. Greene got only 40% of the vote in the first round, but in the resulting runoff with her nearest competitor, she received 57% to John Cowan’s 43%. Her support in the very conservative, very “pro-Trump” district came largely from being more “pro-Trump” than the other guys, and her positions on key conservative issues like immigration, gun control, and abortion bolstered a well-financed campaign. Many voters were only marginally informed about Greene’s off-the-wall ideas. Trump’s endorsement sealed the deal among his base. Then, her Democratic challenger dropped out before the election! Great job, everybody!
It now seems that the state GOP is in turmoil over Greene’s craziness, with many of the folks I know (who supported Cowan, or another of the Republicans in the primary) telling party officials, “We told you so!”. At least their recognition signals an inclination to avoid this type of debacle in the future. Rumor has it that an opposition conservative Republican candidacy is already gearing up for 2022. I personally believe she should be marginalized until she is replaced (but I also believe the same should be done to Democrat crazies as well, and we all know that ain’t going to happen). The Republicans should do themselves and the country a favor and let the Dems hold the “Party of Crazy” title uncontested.
This almost makes it worse…. With eight opposing candidates, none of them did even the base minimum of effort and turned up the Jewish Space Laser Caused California’s Wildfires theory?
Yes, Maxine Waters and Rep. Ihan Omar certainly need to be censored and having their committee assignments striped for their inflammatory and anti-Semitic remarks. But will it happen? Nah.
Greene, Waters, and Omar are, of course, responsible for their own conduct.
The electorate is responsible for not demanding better.
I don’t normally link RedState articles, as they are more a guilty pleasure for me than anything else, written in an overtly partisan fashion as surely as a Democrat party press release. They are also often too conspiratorial and fact-challenged for serious consumption.
However, occasionally they hit the mark, maybe with more than stopped-clock frequency but not a lot more. Still, this one actually makes a fair and cogent point that deserves consideration.
Playing “condemn our crazies” with the compliant media is counter-productive, which is why we really shouldn’t do it for either Democrats or Republicans too much. Yes, there are certainly times when ethics points must be made, and the crazies in both parties are rich sources of great examples of how not to behave.
Still, whenever we do this we do more to help the Democrats’ objectives rather than hurt them, and that’s a good ethical reason to avoid making it a habit. The AUC actually approves of their crazies, both in Congress and the media, and want to see them elevated to leadership positions.
That’s a big and important difference, and illustrates why playing “condemn the crazies” game is mostly a one-sided benefit.
Very good point. I concur.
That is where my Dr. Pepper-deprived mind is. I watched a bit of Don Lemon last night (it was penance for a long list of venial sins – next time, I am going to settle for the extra eons in Purgatory). He was hysterical that Greene is the new threat to the nation. Yeah, Don. That’s right. A whacko from Georgia, one of 434 other members of the House, is the biggest threat to national security. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if she has her own army and is developing a nuclear weapon in the Proud Boys’ compound basement.
On balance, the Republicans have been better at reining in the crazies in their party. When the Democrats do that with their own crazies, I will listen to their complaints. As it is, the Democrats have no standing to dictate anything to the Republicans about one of their members. None. The Democrats have done nothing to control Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Tlaib, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Watters, and a host of other morons.
jvb
As I said, the Democrats and their lapdog media largely agree with their crazies, unlike most Republicans
Bingo. The Dems want a whole nation of safe space for them, and an unsafe space for anyone who disagrees.
The lapdog media is their biggest enabler.
Trump’s experience with the Left’s “Fine People” hoax provides a perfect example of why condemning “the crazies” doesn’t actually help conservatives. Instead of acknowledging that some of these loons obviously fall outside rational conservatives’ range of acceptable behavior, the condemnation is instead used to keep the erratic behavior in the news.
Such condemnations aren’t taken at face value, either: They typically inspire media responses like “After four _long_ days of silence, Senator Ritewinger _finally_ issued a denunciation of Congresscritter Wingnut’s theory that President Jimmy Carter was actually a Muppet”. The partisan press uses attempts to clarify a politician’s rational positions as weapons, instead of just describing them factually.
Their reaction to apologies is similar. When a conservative apologizes, no degree of groveling will ever be good enough. They see such attempts as a sign of vulnerability and go for the jugular. The humbled conservative will be hit with multiple additional attacks, now that his apology has shown weakness in that area.
Excellent point. I also concur.
Somehow the Democrat party survives crackpots who believe in dangerous and unsupportable theories like socialism. They don’t isolate those crazies.
Marjorie Taylor Green should be isolated by a party of grown ups, but her presence in the party, while isolated, won’t do lasting damage.
Oh, of course it won’t.
Voters have the memories of Goldfish. If Trump fades away like I desperately hope he will, by 2022 any Democrats still making hay off the specter of Trump will look desperate and foolish. And they probably *will* be at least desperate, because with the entire party having spent the last four years configuring itself into an opposition of Trump’s cult of personality, they’re going to have to come up with actual party positions that somehow straddle the line between their very polarized base.
Yep. This makes sense, although I don’t hold any hope whatever Trump will fade away. His every utterance is money to both sides, and I just don’t see that changing.
I hope I’m wrong.
Is she nuts? Oh, yeah, obviously. Do the Democrats have a death pool? Well…
Can’t they create a “Committee on the Regulation of Inland, Landlocked, International Ports” and put her, Hank Johnson, and the rest of the crazies in Congress on it?
Her comment was crazy sandwich:
* It started off as a reasonable discussion of conflicts of interest between the governor and electrical company.
* Then she went completely bonkers.
* Then she finished off pointing out the obvious possibility of insider trading of the electric company’s stock.
Hell, I almost didn’t read the whole thing because it started off so ‘well’….
Speaking of crazy sandwiches, the late, lamented D.C. area chain Hamburger Hamlet offered, among its more than a 70 hamburger varieties, “The Carpetbagger”: a thick burger, oysters, peanuts, and hot peppers, with mayo.
My favorite!
That, my ethics czar, is a gustatory abomination and I am beginning to question your grasp on reality and/or sanity. Peanuts are a fine food but peanuts and oysters don’t belong anywhere near a burger. Ever. Oysters? Wretchworthy in any of their manifestations. Hell, I won’t even go into the same room as an oyster. Ever.
jvb
Man, that sounds yummy.
Yeah, I’m crazy too, I guess…
Wait. That sounds tasty? Dear Lord! I am on the wrong ethics alarms website. Either that or somebody has hijacked the correct one and is trolling me with oysters on hamburgers. Oh the humanity!
jvb
Hi Jack,
You make some great points about Green. I just wish the Democrats had the integrity to do the same to Maxine Waters. She advocated for harassing Trump administration officials in the streets. Though, if we start going down the road of stripping committee assignments for people who hold crazy beliefs, how much of Congress would we have left? I suspect many members of Congress (especially on the left) hold some truly insane beliefs that they simply don’t voice out loud. And, how crazy is “acceptable Congress crazy” and how crazy is too much? And who draws that line? Is Biden crazy for his delusional belief that Antifa is just an idea?
I’ve never commented before, but I really enjoy your blog. Even if I don’t agree with you, I respect your opinions. You’ve deepened my understanding of politics, and you are one of the few political bloggers that actively highlights ethics as ethics, and we need more of that in our society.
Thank you. That means a great deal to me, and I can use the encouragement, believe it or not.
Waters is immune as the representative of Watts, just as Adam Clayton Powell was immune for many years as the Congressman from Harlem.
The problem is not Representative Greene, it is the people who voted for her. However, we have a representative Democracy, so she should remain in the House and be allowed to do what lawmakers do. I felt similarly to Trump (up until recent events which I won’t debate here). Yes, Trump was a sleazeball, con man and — in my opinion — the most “unpresidential” President we have had since the invention of the radio, but people (notably, tens of millions of people) still voted for him to be reelected.
Representative Greene is crazy and ignorant and has no business being a lawmaker. But because the people wanted a crazy and ignorant lawmaker, we have to keep her. Using some procedural tactic to keep her off committees seems wrong and seems more befitting an oligarchy, not our form of government. The GOP’s time to act was when she was running for office, not now. There is no danger in having her pass any law or influencing policy as long as no one votes along with her, so there is no need for formal action to be taken against her. The real danger is if more Americans start signing on to these crackpot theories, and we get even more Representative Greenes in office.
Of course, she is not in danger—yet–of actually being kicked out. The question is whether it is fair to minimize her influence—harm?—by reducing her participation to voting, and speaking. But I think you make your point strongly.
I find her repugnant and embarrassing, much like Michele Bachmann, but the spectrum is wide, and the lines are blurry.
I see new commenter sooner8728 covered the point that was on my mind. Good. No defense of Greene here; just intended offense against the deplorable unaccountables (finally! I get to apply “deplorable” to Democrats!) for failure to similarly police their own party’s crazies.