It’s hard to know which is a worse look for a politician: Expressing enthusiastic support for bad legislation that you thoroughly understand or expressing the same level of support for bad legislation you don’t understand but nevertheless want to go on record as supporting because it earns you cool points with your supporters.
Whatever the case may be, the net effect of endorsing bad legislation (or ideas) the likes of what Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) supports is the same, which brings me to a rather revealing interview the radical “Squad” member recently did with Axios’ political correspondent Jonathan Swan.
The news outlet shared a couple of clips of Swan repeatedly trying to get her to give a straight answer on a couple of hot-button issues – her support for the controversial “Breathe” Act which among other things calls for emptying out all federal prisons within the span of 10 years as well as her opposition to the filibuster, even though the filibuster is no longer used in the House of Representatives.
In the first clip, watch below as Swan busts Tlaib on the issue of ending federal prisons, getting her to tapdance all around the issue of whether or not she believes some hardened criminals shouldn’t be released from prison considering their violent records. Embarrassed, Tlaib bizarrely smiles as she attempts to get back on solid footing on the issue even though Swan has just thoroughly exposed her as supporting the release of the types of people who should never be allowed back into polite society ever again:
.@jonathanvswan presses Rep. Tlaib on backing a bill to end federal prisons: To what extent have you wrestled w/ potential downsides?
Tlaib: I think everyone's like, oh my god, we're going to just release everybody.
Swan: But the act you endorsed actually says release everyone pic.twitter.com/ZBX3T9wxQy
— Axios (@axios) November 22, 2021
In the below clip, Tlaib tries to paint the filibuster as a “racist” tool that was designed to block legislation aimed at allegedly helping communities of color. When Swan presses her on the fact that a number of Democrats during the Trump administration including then-Sen. Kamala Harris expressed strong support for not eliminating the filibuster in the Senate (Swan also noted it helped them block pro-life legislation in the past), Tlaib again tried to smile her way through the awkwardness and promised Swan that in the event Republicans retake the House, Senate, and White House that she will still support eliminating the filibuster.
But then she backtracked at the end by saying she would do so as long as there was another tool Democrats could use to block Republicans in the Senate, prompting a classic “gotcha” moment from Swan in the process:
Tlaib: Of course … I mean, if there's a tool though…
— Axios (@axios) November 22, 2021
Despite her claim to be an anti-establishment politico, Tlaib is the very embodiment of the worst kind of politician there can be in public office. She takes the most radical positions out there possible to appease her woke mob base, and then when confronted on the dangerous downsides to them, instead of backtracking or conceding the point she doubles down and refuses to acknowledge the dire folly of her positions.
This is precisely the type of person that doesn’t even deserve to be elected dog catcher in her local community let alone allowed anywhere near the levers of power in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen happen with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) getting reelected over and over again despite her gross ineffectiveness as a “leader,” voters in Tlaib’s district will continue to vote to allow her the privilege of keeping her seat and advocating for awful policies that won’t impact her personally but which would have a devastating impact on the people she claims to want to serve.
These districts would be better served by having a different kind of “woke” politician representing them, the kind that is awake to the real harm that can be done when extremists like Rashida Tlaib (and Waters) are given the opportunity to help shape and craft legislation that will have detrimental effects on their constituencies.
Maybe one day a majority of voters in Tlaib’s district will wake up to that reality, but I won’t hold my breath. Democrats are notorious for voting for the same people/things repeatedly in hopes that the type of “change” they say they want will come if they simply keep trying, which is why the Rashida Tlaibs in the world aren’t going to go away anytime soon.
The upside to this, of course, is that the Tlaibs of Congress are very useful tools for Republicans come election time when they want to demonstrate exactly what we’re likely to get from our local representatives if the Democratic nominee is elected. Though Tlaib is bad for her district, she’s been good for Republicans. Silver linings and all that.