The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that you do have a point, although perhaps not the point you think you do have. In fact, many states have their welfare benefits structured so that they work against low income families if the parents stay together. Would it not be much more beneficial to allow people to keep their benefits, or at the very least, those related to birth control, pregnancy, childbirth and recovery, medical care for the entire family, SNAP and WIC, housing subsidies, subsidized childcare, affordable education/job training in order for people who make babies together to be able to stay together, legally married, and provide that better security for the children? I know families where the parents do NOT get married specifically because when they marry, they lose benefits they need for their children. Note: In every case, both parents are working.

This is much more an incentive not to marry than an incentive to split.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would have thought the libertarian argument would be that the government is already meddling too much in social engineering by being the arbiter of legal marriage in the first place and doling out various legal and tax incentives pertaining to marriage. The idea that government should go even further and start getting into judging divorces seems anathema to that.

But I admit to not being academically literate on modern libertarian ideologies.

 

[bilby]

The pressure to sell isn't that great if they're being civil about it.

Yeah, it is.

Did I mention I have done this?

Twice?

 

[bilby]

It is not pointless amongst those who have appreciable assets.

Most people don't have "appreciable assets". Particularly if you exclude their house from that list, which you should, for the reasons I already mentioned.

Despite the desire of many right-wing Americans to believe otherwise, rich people are not the norm, and most people will never, ever, become rich.

 

[Toni]

I think that you do have a point, although perhaps not the point you think you do have. In fact, many states have their welfare benefits structured so that they work against low income families if the parents stay together. Would it not be much more beneficial to allow people to keep their benefits, or at the very least, those related to birth control, pregnancy, childbirth and recovery, medical care for the entire family, SNAP and WIC, housing subsidies, subsidized childcare, affordable education/job training in order for people who make babies together to be able to stay together, legally married, and provide that better security for the children? I know families where the parents do NOT get married specifically because when they marry, they lose benefits they need for their children. Note: In every case, both parents are working.

This is much more an incentive not to marry than an incentive to split.

Yes, it is. But if people really support no fault divorce fir the benefit of the children, then they’d make it easier fir lower income people to marry and maintain needed benefits. People are choosing not to marry because if they marry, they will lose needed benefits for a child with a chronic illness or a disability. Similarly, some people choose not to marry because marriage would cause them to lose disability benefits, without making them more able to work

 

[Toni]

In my experience (no kids, twice divorced, three times married, apparently a slow learner), divorce dramatically lowers the wealth of both parties, even when no children are involved, and even when the explicit costs are minimal. It's a lot more expensive to run two single person households than one two person household.

No. You are mixing up "wealth" with "standard of living". Yes, divorce lowers the standard of living but unless they fight and give a hefty chunk to the lawyers it does nothing to wealth

That's a rather pointless nitpick. Particularly given that ...

It's pointless for those who have little in the way of savings. It is not pointless amongst those who have appreciable assets.

--although many overlook the fact that half of the wealth was their partner's.

Most of the wealth of a married couple who own their own home is tied up in the home. Unless one of them can afford to buy out the other, they will need to sell (and will tend to need to take an early, hence low, offer), which will be considerably less than they could have expected to get if the sale were unforced, and probably dramatically less than they might have anticipated it's future worth to be.

Add to that the costs of then acquiring a new home (x2), in which lawyers, agents, bankers, and insurers all take their cuts, and it's a very expensive business.

Did I mention I have actually done this; Twice? I'm inclined to take my actual experience as more valuable than your guesses about how things might be in theory.

The pressure to sell isn't that great if they're being civil about it. A hostile divorce is very bad for both parties.

Loren, even if two people are renting, when they split, they have the same total income but now it must support two separate households. It’s probably been a while since you’ve rented but it’s expensive: First and last month’s rent plus security deposits plus movers, furnishings X 2 = a lot of money for people who don’t have much.

 

[lpetrich]

Lauren Boebert's divorce exposes the dark little secret of red state life | Salon.com by Amanda Marcotte - "Lauren Boebert's divorce is funny — it also reveals why GOP men are doubling down on the misogyny"

AM then discussed Lauren Boebert and her soon-to-be ex-husband.

But it's also a window into an aspect of red state life that hasn't been much discussed, one which is likely fueling the ugly surge in misogynist rhetoric and policy being pushed by Republicans, especially the men. The dark little secret of red state life is there's a lot of Lauren Boeberts out there: Conservative women who disavow feminism, but, when given a shot at more independence for themselves, gladly use hard-won rights like divorce and abortion. Republican men are getting increasingly angry about even this minor loss of control over women.

...
As anyone who is connected to conservative communities could tell you, conservative women may denounce feminism, but still feel it's important to be self-sufficient. The story they tell themselves is that it's not political, but pragmatic: Finding a good man is hard. It's safer and smarter to be able to take care of yourself and keep your options open. Life without men is often, frankly, easier. Statistics even show that single mothers have more free time than married mothers.

After mentioning that MTG is also getting divorced,

Unsurprisingly, male leaders of the GOP do not view it as merely an apolitical expression of "independence" when conservative women make use of hard-won women's rights. Instead, they're reacting like Jayson Boebert flipping his lid on a process server handing him divorce papers, i.e. they are not happy about it.

Like opposition to abortion. "In many cases, female Republican leaders seem downright stunned at how extremist their male counterparts are on this issue. In South Carolina, for instance, female Republicans in the Senate joined with Democrats to block an abortion ban, often acting as if it just occurred to them that all this anti-abortion talk from their party was serious."

 

[lpetrich]

The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

Steven Crowder, the right-wing podcaster, is getting a divorce. “No, this was not my choice,” Crowder told his online audience last week. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted.”

Not just in Texas, but in all 50 states and DC.

It was a hard-fought journey to get there. It took more than four decades to end fault-based divorce in America: California was the first state to eliminate it, in 1969; New York didn’t come around until 2010. (And there are caveats: Mississippi and South Dakota still only allow no-fault divorce if both parties agree to dissolve the marriage, for example.)

Researchers who tracked the emergence of no-fault divorce laws state by state over that period found that reform led to dramatic drops in the rates of female suicide and domestic violence, as well as decreases in spousal homicide of women. The decreases, one researcher explained, were “not just because abused women (and men) could more easily divorce their abusers, but also because potential abusers knew that they were more likely to be left.”

Today, more than two-thirds of all heterosexual divorces in the U.S. are initiated by women.

Not surprisingly, right-wing men don't like that. Republican politicians in TX and LA are considering rejecting no-fault divorce, and in NE, R's have considered allowing it only for childless marriages. Would empty-nest marriages also count as childless? “Children are made to be loved by both natural parents united in marriage. Legal structures such as No Fault Divorce, which divides families and empowers the state, should be replaced by a Fault-based Divorce.” As if no-fault divorce is some evil plot to divide happy families.

Despite its deeply embarrassing premise — that the only way to retain a partner is to literally trap them in the relationship — right-wing blowhards like Crowder have been embracing arguments against no-fault divorce with increasing frequency. (Within the past year, conservative pundits Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, Tim Pool have all criticized it.)

Steven Crowder ought to be grateful for no-fault divorce, because his ex-wife could use his conduct as a reason for divorce. Would he like a court deciding that he is an angry and abusive husband?

Unnervingly, it wouldn’t necessarily take a vote of the Legislature to end no-fault divorce in Texas. With the right argument, a motivated plaintiff could bring the case before a sympathetic judge — and there happens to be one sitting on the federal bench in Amarillo who has expressed such ideas. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — who has issued rulings attacking access to birth control and mifepristone, a critical component of the abortion pill — repeatedly bemoaned the idea that the “sexual revolution” ushered in a world of “permissive contraception policies,” abortion — and no-fault divorce.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think that you do have a point, although perhaps not the point you think you do have. In fact, many states have their welfare benefits structured so that they work against low income families if the parents stay together. Would it not be much more beneficial to allow people to keep their benefits, or at the very least, those related to birth control, pregnancy, childbirth and recovery, medical care for the entire family, SNAP and WIC, housing subsidies, subsidized childcare, affordable education/job training in order for people who make babies together to be able to stay together, legally married, and provide that better security for the children? I know families where the parents do NOT get married specifically because when they marry, they lose benefits they need for their children. Note: In every case, both parents are working.

This is much more an incentive not to marry than an incentive to split.

Yes, it is. But if people really support no fault divorce fir the benefit of the children, then they’d make it easier fir lower income people to marry and maintain needed benefits. People are choosing not to marry because if they marry, they will lose needed benefits for a child with a chronic illness or a disability. Similarly, some people choose not to marry because marriage would cause them to lose disability benefits, without making them more able to work

While true I don't see the relevance to the issue of no-fault divorce.

It seems to me that we might be better off with scrapping all means testing with regard to disability payments. (We already do that with SSDI and it doesn't seem to be a problem other than excessive denials when the disability isn't due to one overwhelming, clear-cut cause.)

 

[Toni]

I think that you do have a point, although perhaps not the point you think you do have. In fact, many states have their welfare benefits structured so that they work against low income families if the parents stay together. Would it not be much more beneficial to allow people to keep their benefits, or at the very least, those related to birth control, pregnancy, childbirth and recovery, medical care for the entire family, SNAP and WIC, housing subsidies, subsidized childcare, affordable education/job training in order for people who make babies together to be able to stay together, legally married, and provide that better security for the children? I know families where the parents do NOT get married specifically because when they marry, they lose benefits they need for their children. Note: In every case, both parents are working.

This is much more an incentive not to marry than an incentive to split.

Yes, it is. But if people really support no fault divorce fir the benefit of the children, then they’d make it easier fir lower income people to marry and maintain needed benefits. People are choosing not to marry because if they marry, they will lose needed benefits for a child with a chronic illness or a disability. Similarly, some people choose not to marry because marriage would cause them to lose disability benefits, without making them more able to work

While true I don't see the relevance to the issue of no-fault divorce.

It seems to me that we might be better off with scrapping all means testing with regard to disability payments. (We already do that with SSDI and it doesn't seem to be a problem other than excessive denials when the disability isn't due to one overwhelming, clear-cut cause.)

I was really speaking to why people choose not to marry. But I suspect that sometimes people do divorce because a single parent of a special needs child is more likely to qualify for Medicaid and other benefits. It’s a terrible system..

 

[lpetrich]

Finally, Amanda Marcotte writes,

A lot of the culture war issues that wind up Republicans are, to them, mostly abstractions: Drag shows they don't go to, "woke" pop culture they don't consume, books about racism they don't read, cosmopolitan lifestyles in big cities they don't visit. But, when it comes to gender and power, the struggle is keenly felt, even in Republican households. Right-leaning women may talk trash about feminism, but, as Republican men often learn the hard way, even conservative women have their limits on how much crap they'll take from men. This is about keeping power over their own wives and daughters, not just controlling some strange women who live far away. Boebert and Taylor Greene may insist their divorces are merely "personal," but as any feminist could tell you, the personal is political, baby.

"The Long Southern Strategy": How Southern white women drove the GOP to Donald Trump | Salon.com - "Political scientist Angie Maxwell on how the anti-feminist movement and the Baptist church drove the GOP right"

The "Long" Southern strategy? Because the usual account of it is a "short" version: the South turning Republican after Barry Goldwater's failed campaign and Richard Nixon's Presidency. In actuality, it was a very gradual process that was not completed until many years later, and that process was partially interrupted by Jimmy Carter's Presidency. JC seemed to many Southern white voters to be much like them, so he got their votes. But the Republican Party resumed its Southern strategy with Ronald Reagan, and got a lot of antifeminist support by dropping its former support for the Equal Rights Amendment.

This was a radical thing to do because the Equal Rights Amendment — and second-wave feminism in general — was a completely bipartisan effort. There were legions of Republican women feminists. In fact, they were some of the leaders in the movement. At the 1977 National Women's Convention, the only national women's convention we've ever had, every living first lady of both parties was there.. All the major congresswomen from both parties were there. What happened then was Phyllis Schlafly's effort — she had written the book [A Choice, Not An Echo] that kind of inspired Goldwater to run years before — she started an anti-feminism counter rally, also in Houston, and had massive attendance at that, and their slogan was "family values."

After Ronald Reagan and George Bush I, Bill Clinton ran for President, and he also seemed much like them to many Southern white voters. He interrupted this process again, but he then did gays in the military. That issue flopped miserably, and the process continued, with the Republicans winning big in 1994.

So it's this long process, and it’s kind of two steps forward, one step back. Even that’s a simplification, because the effort to win over white voters on racial angst morphs from all-out aggressive language to coded language to a zero-sum kind of language about how white privilege and black advantages equal white losses to Reagan's colorblindness efforts and "We need to move past race." Those extend and overlap through the whole process.

But at every turn, there's a fork in the road, where the parties almost match on whatever issue it is, and the GOP — always against some people within their party, by the way — goes right. And they do that on those policy positions to secure enough Southern white voters to flip that region, and give them that base. But it takes a long time, and it will take a long time to turn it back to the Democrats, who are making such an effort in places like Texas and Florida and Georgia.

 

[lpetrich]

"The Long Southern Strategy": How Southern white women drove the GOP to Donald Trump | Salon.com
More:

In order to win those Southern white voters, it wasn't just a policy position, there had to be a sense of urgency. Getting people to change their party ID, when a region has been so solidly one-party Democrat for so long, is not an easy thing to do. They didn't have infrastructure in a lot of places for the Republican Party. So they had to create this sense of urgency, and you do that by tapping into things that people feel are fragile and are being threatened. Of course the Civil Rights Act gives you a perfect opportunity and this is how it starts: "Your children are going to be bused across town, your whole world's going to change."

That may explain the Right's culture warring by manufactured outrage. Like over critical race theory, for instance. Being outraged gets people voting, even if it is outrage stoked by Republican politicians and activists.

A deeper point that I try to get across is this notion that white Southerners in particular — and this becomes adopted by the Republican Party, nationally — were looking at this history from the other side of the room, so to speak. Everything that progressives would champion as a success or progress — I mean, if you already had the ideal society you wanted, then "progress" is just chipping away at that.

So many of us, looking at the world, are constantly saying, "We can get better about this," or "We need policies to make this more accessible." We tend to think, "Isn’t that an American thing?" But it's really not an American thing, and was definitely not a Southern thing. Because for many, many decades of its history it was about restoring what was lost after the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Then talking about Southern white womanhood.

When the Equal Rights Amendment was coming in, Phyllis Schlafly in particular portrays feminism as a not a choice, but as "You will have to go do this, you will have to go to work, you will have to put your kids in government day care." These women do not want that world to change. Phyllis Schlafly’s organization STOP ERA stood for "Stop Taking Our Privileges," and they felt like this pedestal mentality overwhelmingly benefited white women in the South overwhelmingly. It’s how they asserted what little power they had. It was based on this status as morally superior but fragile. They shouldn’t be involved in public life, had to be protected and taken care of, all that.

 

[lpetrich]

So just among white women — more white women voted for Hillary Clinton outside the South, but inside the South that is reversed. So that gender gap is not universal at all, even among just white women. We know it isn't universal among white women and women of color — hopefully we’re getting that message — but just among white women, there might as well be two different groups entirely. They do not track together on policy issues or on anything else, and if they’re Southern, that culture still holds really tight and feels very threatened by a woman being president.

So it's mainly Southern white women who vote for someone who seems like he will be on their side. Though it's curious that they didn't turn out for some Mitt Romney type in the primaries. I mention MR because he seems much more like their ideal of manhood than Donald Trump.

Then how fundie hard-liners took over the Southern Baptist Convention. - "Moderates were really purged from that organization. Women were kicked out of the seminaries, at the big Baptist seminaries, not outliers, but the major ones. A lot of people left the church, and really were shocked by it."

So they really go all in to the American system and it's not just "Let's maintain the free exercise of our religion." It is, "Let's establish Christianity."

Southern theologically conservative Protestantism, of course.

What struck me was how this was a complete transformation of the Baptist faith. It was very individualistic, non-hierarchical — the individual's relationship with God — and it was turned into the pastor telling believers what to believe, with the national organization over them. It just seemed to completely violate not just the Christian spirit, but the specific doctrinal nature of Baptism.

Absolutely. Here's the craziest thing about it. Because when I grew up Catholic, which is very hierarchical, the Baptist church was the opposite, exactly. It was about the individual relationship with God. Each church stands separately. This is one of the reasons so many moderates are so upset.

... Turning fundamentalist and then becoming so deeply politicized is what ends up breaking down the denominational barriers between, like, Baptists and Catholics. I mean, the anti-abortion and anti-ERA movements start to create a denominational unity that's political. Even with Mormons, who were a huge piece of the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Mormons?

Since you mentioned the Mormons, I’d like to ask about support for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, and the perception of Romney as a Christian vs. Barack Obama as possibly a Muslim.

When folks were saying, "Are these Southern Baptists going to vote for Romney?", I’m like, "Oh, they will." They will because they are on the same side, politically. They will vote for whoever they have to vote for who will support the agenda they want, period.

Like Donald Trump, who is at best a nominal mainline Protestant.

How else do you get Southern whites, many of them not in good economic circumstances, supporting a New York billionaire with little to any church attendance history? Because he is not what they’re not, he must be one of them.

 

[Toni]

So just among white women — more white women voted for Hillary Clinton outside the South, but inside the South that is reversed. So that gender gap is not universal at all, even among just white women. We know it isn't universal among white women and women of color — hopefully we’re getting that message — but just among white women, there might as well be two different groups entirely. They do not track together on policy issues or on anything else, and if they’re Southern, that culture still holds really tight and feels very threatened by a woman being president.

So it's mainly Southern white women who vote for someone who seems like he will be on their side. Though it's curious that they didn't turn out for some Mitt Romney type in the primaries. I mention MR because he seems much more like their ideal of manhood than Donald Trump.

Then how fundie hard-liners took over the Southern Baptist Convention. - "Moderates were really purged from that organization. Women were kicked out of the seminaries, at the big Baptist seminaries, not outliers, but the major ones. A lot of people left the church, and really were shocked by it."

So they really go all in to the American system and it's not just "Let's maintain the free exercise of our religion." It is, "Let's establish Christianity."

Southern theologically conservative Protestantism, of course.

What struck me was how this was a complete transformation of the Baptist faith. It was very individualistic, non-hierarchical — the individual's relationship with God — and it was turned into the pastor telling believers what to believe, with the national organization over them. It just seemed to completely violate not just the Christian spirit, but the specific doctrinal nature of Baptism.

Absolutely. Here's the craziest thing about it. Because when I grew up Catholic, which is very hierarchical, the Baptist church was the opposite, exactly. It was about the individual relationship with God. Each church stands separately. This is one of the reasons so many moderates are so upset.

... Turning fundamentalist and then becoming so deeply politicized is what ends up breaking down the denominational barriers between, like, Baptists and Catholics. I mean, the anti-abortion and anti-ERA movements start to create a denominational unity that's political. Even with Mormons, who were a huge piece of the fight against the Equal Rights Amendment.

Mormons?

Since you mentioned the Mormons, I’d like to ask about support for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, and the perception of Romney as a Christian vs. Barack Obama as possibly a Muslim.

When folks were saying, "Are these Southern Baptists going to vote for Romney?", I’m like, "Oh, they will." They will because they are on the same side, politically. They will vote for whoever they have to vote for who will support the agenda they want, period.

Like Donald Trump, who is at best a nominal mainline Protestant.

How else do you get Southern whites, many of them not in good economic circumstances, supporting a New York billionaire with little to any church attendance history? Because he is not what they’re not, he must be one of them.

Re: Mitt Romney. For Southern Baptists and other evangelicals, being a Mormon is a huge non-starter. They do not consider Mormons to be Christian. Joseph Smith is seen as a false prophet and his teachings and doctrine are seen as incompatible with Christianity. FWIW, they don’t really regard Catholics as Christian, either. I think that the LDS history of polygamy also works against them in the eyes of Southern Baptist women, at least.

I think that Donald Trump was familiar to them, on a certain level. I think they are used to men who are womanizers, who like women with big hair and big boobs in stiletto heels. They are accustomed to the casual bigotry —which they would never call racism. I think they believe that Trump speaks in public the way most people talk in private because that’s their experience. The tacky/trashy boorish lack of taste or manners? Well, he’s from New York so what do you expect? Or it mirrors their own aspirations: very Barbie Dreamhouse. And he claims to be anti-abortion. I know people who supported him for that reason alone.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that Donald Trump was familiar to them, on a certain level. I think they are used to men who are womanizers, who like women with big hair and big boobs in stiletto heels. They are accustomed to the casual bigotry —which they would never call racism. I think they believe that Trump speaks in public the way most people talk in private because that’s their experience. The tacky/trashy boorish lack of taste or manners? Well, he’s from New York so what do you expect? Or it mirrors their own aspirations: very Barbie Dreamhouse. And he claims to be anti-abortion. I know people who supported him for that reason alone.

Donald Trump's only god is Donald trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What happened to that small government GOP?

I've never believed the myth that they were "small government". Only those who wish to believe it in spite of the evidence continue to do so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I was really speaking to why people choose not to marry. But I suspect that sometimes people do divorce because a single parent of a special needs child is more likely to qualify for Medicaid and other benefits. It’s a terrible system..

I strongly suspect you're correct in this. Our system does not handle the disabled well.

 

[Patooka]

I'm starting to wonder if Beau of the Fifth Column lurks on this forum;

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

Don't worry, Beau addresses this bullshit strawman argument.

 

[lpetrich]

Amanda Marcotte on Twitter: "The bet most Republican women are making ..." / Twitter

The bet most Republican women are making is that complicity will protect them.

But GOP men will stab them in the back without hesitation. Marjorie Taylor Greene's ouster shows it.

So does DeSantis cutting off alimony for Republican housewives.

Why to read this 2 minute article past headlines: I cut through the BS of why Greene got ousted from the Freedom Caucus.

Also, you may not know DeSantis just screwed a major voting bloc for the GOP: White women who don't work for a living.

"Greene has designs on being a real power player.

"She is swiftly discovering that Republican men like the glass ceiling exactly where it is."

"Now even post-menopausal women are finding they aren't safe.

"Late last month, Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., signed a bill dramatically curtailing access to alimony and, in particular, ending permanent alimony."

It's not feminists DeSantis just screwed over. It's mostly Republican women.

"Typically, permanent alimony is awarded to women who tried to live a 'traditional' lifestyle: Older women who spent decades as housewives and who have no marketable skills."

It's not a surprise Moms for Liberty quoted Hitler.

"Their views reflect what Hitler was advocating at the time, which is a claim that women's 'power' runs through home and hearth, instead of the 'men's' realm of public power."

"The 'soft power' that women are promised through the dutiful performance of traditional roles isn't real power.

"That's why women spend decades being obedient housewives, only to be slapped in the face when they want fair compensation."

 

[lpetrich]

Republican women learn the hard way: Complicity will not protect you | Salon.com

There's no rhyme or reason to the given reasons for why the House Freedom Caucus ousted Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., last week. She should be right at home in a group established to draw the House GOP to the right. After all, she's one of the nuttiest members in historical memory, an avid fan of both right-wing conspiracy theories and nakedly fascist rhetoric. The claim that she's "too close" to Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., also doesn't make sense. As Politico's Rachel Bade told ABC News over the weekend, fellow Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is one of McCarthy's "best friends." Plus, most of the 49 members of the caucus in January voted for McCarthy as speaker on the first ballot. Nor does it follow that she was booted for calling Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., a "little b*tch." Freedom Caucus members all worship at the altar of Donald "Grab 'Em By The P*ssy" Trump, and are neither offended by profanity nor misogyny.

Author Amanda Marcotte then proposes that it was plain old sexism.

Greene's celebrity and ambition clearly alienate the mostly-male membership that still views women either as helpmeets or sex objects, not as equals. This resentment of Greene for trying to rise above her station isn't far from the surface in most coverage of the controversy. One member whined to CNN that Greene is "bigger than the group," while excusing Jordan's similar fame because "nobody has done more for the cause." Considering how Greene is a fundraising powerhouse for the GOP, this explanation for differential treatment falls apart.

She then says that LB is tolerated because she doesn't have leadership ambitions. However, AM did not mention Elise Stefanik, who is in the Republican House leadership. But she isn't much of a celebrity, unlike MTG.