Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why make Elise Stefanik chairperson of the House Republican Conference? Why not give it to Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Because MTG is legit too crazy for even the GOP.
As for Elise? They wanted a female that supports Trump, and she was the one they could get that wasnt bonkers. But of course...in reality Elise votes with the GOP less then Cheney. Im sure they explained how she needed to behave better if she wanted responsibility. so her votes will be 100% whatever Trump wants.
Not like they want someone who speaks their mind, it would get in the way of minimizing women again.
Why make Elise Stefanik chairperson of the House Republican Conference? Why not give it to Marjorie Taylor Greene?
I think that the Republicans are going though a phase of trying to find out what or who they are.
On the one hand you have Cheney, a bona fide conservative, which was at one time what it meant to be a true Republican.
On the other hand you have someone who is not a conservative but panders to the low information Trump supporter. At the end of the day, it's about catching as many fish as possible.
With this move, the only people left out of the "big tent" are actual conservatives.
Stefan was moderate but she certainly changed over the last 2 years to a rabid Trump supporter, there is big money to be had supporting conspiracies and backing Trumps claims.
Why Cathy Rodgers? Why Jaime Harrison? Notice the common factor?
Despite the fancy name for the position, it's actually not a position for someone politically powerful. They want a nobody, who will not create problems.
In each party, there are ambitious people and in fighting such as what you see in the primaries. So the logical person to elect as "leader" is someone who is a threat to no one. It's the only way a group of people with big egos can all agree. Someone nice, inoffensive.
Why Cathy Rodgers? Why Jaime Harrison? Notice the common factor?
Despite the fancy name for the position, it's actually not a position for someone politically powerful. They want a nobody, who will not create problems.
In each party, there are ambitious people and in fighting such as what you see in the primaries. So the logical person to elect as leader is someone who is a threat no one. Someone young, plays nice.
You can see Cheney no longer fits that bill.
But why pick someone who is on record slamming Trump?
They couldn't find anyone who has been loyal all along -- lol.
But why pick someone who is on record slamming Trump?
They couldn't find anyone who has been loyal all along -- lol.
That's sad.
In both parties, no one who has had that position ever amounted to anything career-wise. It's not a good position.
I've been on committees where we elected someone that nobody supported, just so that no one is offended. Stefanik is young and perceived to be amenable. She slammed Trump but he endorsed her so she became neutral.
Why make Elise Stefanik chairperson of the House Republican Conference? Why not give it to Marjorie Taylor Greene?
And that was a brand new keyboard, too...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
