U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyoming, could probably have held onto her seat in Congress as long as she wanted, if that was all she wanted. But she made a different, more honorable choice, and Tuesday night she paid the honorable price.
Cheney (daughter of Dick Cheney, who held the same seat when Liz Cheney was a kid and later served as U.S. Secretary of Defense and as vice president under George W. Bush), lost her seat in a primary Tuesday, and everyone knows why. She stood up to Donald Trump on the matter of Trump’s election lie and attempted coup.
Cheney chose political courage or political suicide depending on how you look at it. I’ll take courage.
Before she bucked Trump, she likely could’ve held that seat for decades. But when Trump insisted that all Republicans rally around his lie that he had been cheated out of reelection, Cheney was one of a relative few prominent Republicans who rejected the lie.
More than that, when her party’s leaders insisted that loyal Republicans refuse to investigate Trump’s role in the post-election violence at the Capitol, Cheney bucked the leadership and (along with another honorable, brave Republican, Congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois) agreed to serve on the investigative committee as vice chair. From that position, she has contributed tough, honest questions of the witnesses. The evidence, as you know, has been devastating to Trump. And the committee is not done yet.
Cheney, who is 10 times more conservative than Donald Trump and 100 times more honest, never flinched from her duty.
Kinzinger, presumably knowing how things would go, didn’t file for reelection.
But Cheney did. Trump vowed to oppose her and did so, supporting her primary opponent, attorney Harriet Hageman, who, as this Yahoo News story summarizes, “paid fealty to Trump by echoing his false claim that the 2020 election was ‘rigged.’”
The Cheney name has been magical in Wyoming Republican circles since Liz’s dad held the state’s only U.S. House seat through the 1980s, before serving as defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush.
But Liz Cheney committed political suicide by serving on that special committee investigating Trump’s coup attempt, and taking the assignment seriously. That slow moving act concluded last night as Hageman crushed Cheney in yesterday’s primary by 66% to 29%. (A small percentage of the vote went to minor candidates.)
To an enthusiastic crowd of her admirers in Jackson, Wyoming, Tuesday night, Liz Cheney said:
“Two years ago, I won this primary with 73 percent of the votes. I could easily have done the same again. The path was clear, but it would have required that I go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election.”
“It would have required that I enable his ongoing efforts to unravel our democratic system and attack the foundations of our Republic. That was a path I could not and would not take. No House seat, no office in this land is more important than the principles that we are all sworn to protect. And I well understood the potential political consequences of abiding by my duty.”
A spokesman for Cheney has told reporters she will be launching an organization to educate the American people “about the ongoing threat to our Republic.”
You know this is like a Nathan Hale kind of moment for Kinzinger and Cheney. To paraphrase: “I only regret that I have but one” (congressional seat) to “lose for my country.” Just proves the point how far the “R” party has gone to autocracy.
Cheney goes down and the MAGA rabble rejoice. They continue to see themselves as true patriots, God-fearing folks, fiscal conservatives, and believers in law and order despite worshiping a malevolent clown who is none of these things. January 6 didn’t do it and the likelihood that this guy broke laws after he was shown the exit isn’t going to make any difference either. Because, after all, what about Hillary’s emails, Hunter’s laptop, and the price of gasoline for my gas-guzzling pig of a vehicle?
Liz Cheney has despised Donald Trump ever since he criticized her father and the Bush clan for taking us through the foreign war debacle that robbed this nation of so much blood and treasure. And for what? Attempting to nation-build in Iraq and Afghanistan was a fool’s errand that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives lost or forever altered. In the 2016 election, it was Hillary Clinton who voted to go into Iraq (and Libya) which he used against her. It’s no coincidence that so many military veterans are Trump supporters, having realized now how we were used to support the neocons and the globalist establishment.
Her defeat also represented the end, finally, of the globalist republican establishment that was in bed with the Chinese for cheap foreign labor and with the Military Industrial Complex that promised jobs that congressmen could use to buy votes from the local civilian workforces. Trump’s America First agenda would end the Chinese dominance in electronics, pharmaceuticals and solar energy technology and bring those jobs home.
Trump’s anti-establishment agenda would also close the southern border. Last month, over 2 million illegals were allowed into this country because the border patrol is simply being overwhelmed. It’s no coincidence that so many working class people are Trump supporters, having realized that the factory jobs that used to be enough to raise a family without an expensive and fraudulent higher education were stolen from them and shipped overseas with the help of politicians who are in the pockets of the multinational corporations.
Liz Cheney was worth $6 million when she ran for office 6 years ago. Today she’s worth $45 million. How does that happen? Losing 66-29% actually could have been worse if it hadn’t been for Wyoming’s democrats voting in the GOP primary.
The corruption of bought-and-paid-for American globalists and their financial ties to Ukraine and the Chinese communist party will be exposed when the new republicans take over congress next year along with implementing the rest of the America First agenda, which she and her father and the rest of the establishment republicans so despise.
Sir, unlike MAGA-idiots who drank, urinated and re-drank said urine from the head pumpkin in charge, most sensible Republicans like myself wish that he would just go away. He played the Republicans like a fool. If I could go back to 2016 I would take back my vote for him in a heartbeat. His “presidency” was a huge ego trip for him. We need more Liz Cheneys and Mike Pences in this world for a more commonsense Republican party, not the swamp that it has become.
45 million? Cite your sources. Actually during Trump’s reign, the number of illegals in this country did not drop much if at all. Look, we need a firm border solution, but Trump and his inability to recognize humanity was not it. He, himself, had illegals at his businesses working. But never mind the facts, keep on pushing what you believe in your magical mind to feel righteous. We have a constitution, even many in the military have questioned Trump and his ethics. Then you have McConnell, changing rules to fit his vision instead of having fair process. History will judge Trump and his supporters harshly and see them for the far right, whackadoos that they are. It will be cited as a dark period in our history.
And most of those ‘illegals’ pay taxes (employer deductions) while not receiving services funded by those taxes.
Well, thanks for giving a glimpse into the rationale a “conservative” could hold for dumping L Cheney, but unfortunately it’s mostly nonsense.
1. Trump was never able to demonstrate he publicly opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and the available evidence indicated he supported it, as most militarists did. Bush and Daddy Cheney and their war policies were overwhelmingly and enthusiastically supported by Repubs in 2003, and the ticket was very strongly supported by Repubs in both 2000 and 2004. So the entire party was filled with “globalists” then but not now? Absurd.
2. I have severe doubts that you opposed the Iraq war in 2003, since you indicate that only “now” are veterans “realizing” they were “used” in an illegal war of aggression.
4. The idea that Trump or his followers are going to end US dependence on Chinese goods is ridiculous, especially if you hope to combat inflation. You do understand that one of the attractions of Chinese goods are their lower price due to much lower labor costs? If Americans really want to end Chinese imports, then they need to be prepared for real inflation and a much lower standard of living.
5. Your numbers on illegal borders crossing are comically incorrect; you have taken annual total border “encounters” and asserted it to be a monthly figure. And far more illegal aliens successfully crossed 20 years ago than now, when a much higher percentage are stopped. And if one really does want to reduce inflation, labor costs in a low unemployment environment need to be addressed. Perhaps these Latino migrants seeking asylum could be a boon to the economy? I know, impossible!
6. Your last paragraph is the height of fantasy if you imagine that the Repub party is going to be “investigating” itself, or that the Repub party is going to or has rejected”globalism”, whatever that is supposed to mean. The Repub party will spend most of its time running baseless investigation of the Dems, the party that has an actual anti-free trade wing!
Reporters address Trump’s 2003 statement in this video, at the 2:51 point:
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/donald-trump-explains-how-his-views-on-the-iraq-war-shifted/#x
Your statement, “Trump was never able to demonstrate he publicly opposed the Iraq war in 2003 and the available evidence indicated he supported it…” is wrong. Mr. Tester is correct.
Is it sheer coincidence that you have returned to posting at the same time as Mr. Duncan, or are you one person posting under two different names?
Perish the thought!
Hmm…interesting supposition. Obviously both are committed anti anti-Trumpers, who always bitterly criticize the left but rarely, if ever, the right. Both have nothing negative to say about Trump and his various outrages, and have now taken to linking videos as proof of their (usually Trump sympathetic) arguments.
I will say that commenter “WHD” has not to date made extensive appeals to “logic” in order to dismiss arguments that cite (demonstrated) experts in one field or another, as commenter “Audrey” does pretty consistently. But there are a number of suspicious indicators of sock-puppetry, as you speculate…
Sure it is. The reporter’s assessment is Trump was verifiably against the Iraq war “shortly after it started”.
“Did you watch the clip?” Yes. The reporting specifically states that Trump cannot be verified as having supported or not supported the war before it began. It can be verified he did not support the war after it began. Nothing more and nothing less. Your characterization is inaccurate and false.
It is also nitpicking. Tester’s point is Trump has been a consistent opponent of our endless military interventions. This is simply a fact, like the sky is blue, and if you want to argue otherwise, splitting hairs, nitpicking, dragging in unrelated issues, I will not engage.
Thanks kindly. Trump had to pretend to be on both sides of the issue, both to deceive himself as to his great “genius” and to “prove” he is never wrong about anything. At best he is a Monday morning quarterback, and a particularly stupid and ignorant one at that.
What a surprise.
Oh! For shame, Wyoming. For shame!
History will not judge you kindly.
Small populace Wyoming has about 3 times more registered Republicans than Democrats and about 4 times more than Independents. She knew she would lose. Although she is no trump cultist, she still does not understand that people come before excess wealth and privilege.
I listened to Rep. Cheney’s concession speech last night – it was really good. I agree with everything you said here, Eric. Rep. Cheney and Rep. Kinzinger both show the kind of honesty and integrity that one would desire to see in someone in politics, and sadly, we don’t see enough of these qualities nowadays, what with minions of Trump still bowing to him and continuing to spread the “big lie”. I worry about the future of America and where it is headed, much as Rep. Cheney laid out in her speech last night. I remember how desperate I felt in 2016 when I first learned that Donald J. Trump would be our 45th president. That desperation, anger and exasperation has only deepened along with the gnawing fear that America as we know it, may be slowly slipping away, and unless enough American citizens stop listening to conspiracy theories and outlandish, baseless LIES, mingled with pure hatred, AND VOTE THESE SCOUNDRELS OUT OF OFFICE, these Trump supporters, still hiding in the Trojan Horse of “the religious right” will continue to spread their brand of politics. I fear that our days of blessed freedoms, such as free elections, free speech and a free press, may be coming to an end.
I will be interested in polling to ask voters in Wyoming why they voted against her. I think it will show an amazing amount of people who didn’t want a Republican willing to be a useful idiot for Dems.
Party over country, right?
While her work with January 6 commission is admirable, lest not forget all the things she has voted against. As Eric said, she is very conservative. Too many people give her way too much credit.
While I do not share Rep Cheney’s politics, I can acknowledge that her actions regarding the Jan 6th investigations have been admirable. The people we most hold up as heroes in this country are those who sacrifice themselves for the greater good; for the freedoms we hold dear. Usually that means service members who give their lives. But it can also mean those, like Rep Cheney, who give up political power in favor of protecting our democracy.
In a word, NO
Disagreeing on politics is one thing, sadly too few put truth in front of politics.
You side would not fair much better
Don’t worry, the media will turn on her as soon as it’s convenient to leftists.
“Leftists” can thank her for doing her duty – real moral duty – in essentially abdicating a position of power to protect their country. But, like the Lincoln Project, we thank them for doing the absolute minimum work to retain their souls. You don’t get accolades when you take out the trash, and that’s what this is – taking out the trash. It’s simply what you must do. We still ain’t voting for her or her policies. We’ll just continue to support the essential work she’s doing – taking out the trash. That’s not to say that history won’t find her to be some sort of hero. On some level she is. She’s actually sacrificing something to take out the trash. But then, being elected should be a public SERVICE not a position of power. It’s not turning on her if the only reason we’re paying attention to her in the first place is basically just being agog that a conservative was doing the right thing this one time. (I feel the same way about Romney and McCain)
When and if the time comes – the dems will try to destroy her as they did John McCain, Mitt Romney, and V.P. Cheney.
So you think the no cross examination, make-up aided, teleprompter reading from the Hollywood script hearings was about getting to the truth?
Did OAN not tell you that the televised hearings were presenting evidence that was obtained through interviews with the witnesses? That these interviews were not televised because they could be long?
Working to defeat someone in an election is not “try[ing] to destroy them.”
It used to be that, in the United States when a candidate lost an election they accepted their defeat and moved on. They may not have been happy about it, but that was what happened. Republicans want to move us away from those days, so the imagery of “destruction” on a personal level is just a part of the program.
It’s not good that our political environment is such that standing up forcefully for the rule of law and a basic concept such as the peaceful transition of power should become noteworthy, let alone praiseworthy, but here we are.
Is there any other nation, excepting perhaps China or North Korea, where party loyalty is so all-important? The British Parliament relies on a strong degree of party discipline, yet Boris Johnson was brought down by members of his own party who saw him as inimical to the values they stood for. Here, the loyalty of Republicans is to the party or, more specifically, to the presumed leader of the party (their choice of leader in that regard is another distressing thing, but that’s another story).
Ms. Cheney is not courageous for rejecting the Trump 2020 nonsense. No self-respecting person could do otherwise. If she is courageous, it is for rejecting the nonsense loudly and formally, and thereby exposing herself to the gibbering mob, as opposed to simply choosing not to seek reelection and quietly leaving her post.
But we know that in all other respects, Ms. Cheney holds malignant anti-democratic views. How is it that she speaks so eloquently now about the rule of law, when her views are that a very few should hold power and extend it across the globe by force or coercion? This conundrum supports the conjecture that she has acted not on courageous principle, but to position herself politically for the future (whether or not that positioning should turn out to be well-considered for success). So, for now, while I vigorously applaud her public role and oratory, I’ll remain agnostic as to the virtue that lies behind it.
I don’t know enough to dispute your dark side of her motives, so I’ll hold off accepting it until further evidence. Meanwhile it may not take courage to reject’s Trump’s lies, but taking the role she has is very good for the country. She didn’t have to go the extra mile. I would not vote for her, either. But somewhere lies a suspicion that she’s secretly ashamed of her father’s Iraq War role and would like to restore the family’s tarnished name in her lifetime.
I said it before and I’ll say it again: If Cheney runs she’ll beat Biden if he’s the one on the ticket. Trump is, despite his “popularity” in some sectors of the GOP is a disorganized mess who will likely be under indictment or just plain imploded by the time the election rolls around. What will be interesting is to see what happens if Trump get the Party Endorsement? Will Cheney run anyways? In a three way race of some kind I’d say Biden or the Democrats win, and it’s looks Like Cheney would be OK with that as long as it keeps Trump out.
Not a chance in hades she could be nominated in 2024. No way would she run a 3rd party because it could elect Trump. She’ll be dubbed the “moderate” candidate incorrectly by the MSM that still can’t figure out Trump is more a right-wing populist than a conservative. Despite her conservatism she’d attract lots of disaffected voters who would be clueless about her politics, hurting Biden. She may be deceived by a lot of Republicans who might encourage her third party campaign but they’d all flop back to Trump the minute he names a woman or Black conservative to the ticket.
I don’t know about that. The GOP has made it plain that they won’t let “their” candidates debate on public platforms without requiring very specific requirements because they can’t handle hard questions. But, how can the GOP stop her from running as a Republican AND attending the debates, thus giving her more exposure than the compliant Republicans? It might be possible for her to really put a dent into primary votes because she’s not going to play by their rules, as insane as they are. Now, I’m still not interested in voting for her – as others have pointed out, she’s not even a moderate, let alone aligned with my values (which are not even all that far left leaning).
Even if Trump is not able to run – fingers crossed our slow-moving justice system doesn’t take that long – the MAGAts will flock to DeSantis. Liz Cheney will not win a Republican primary, so it wouldn’t be Cheney v Biden (or X Democrat if Biden doesn’t seek reelection). Cheney may decide to pull a Ross Perot and run as an independent, or she may decide to participate in Andrew Yang’s thinly-veiled vanity project backed by GOP money, but that will simply split votes away from Trump (or DeSantis).
She may not be a fascist boot-licker, but Cheney is conservative to the extreme and she will not appeal to Democratic voters (or Democratic-leaning Independents) in a general election.
Mike, you’re assuming that Republicans can only win if Democrats vote for them… I remind you, Trump defeated HRC. Second, I’m not endorsing Cheney, I’ll never vote for her, but I didn’t vote for Trump either. Third, Trump is sitting on a house of cards waiting for a stiff wind, and DeSantis would have been a better option before Roe was overturned, but women are now energized like they weren’t before. Not that Cheney was never a champion of abortion rights but she’d be much less polarizing than DeSantis on that front.
The WY primary demonstrates that if she runs for the Repub nomination she can’t possibly win, the party having obviously purged her. But she could be a millstone around criminal candidate Trump’s neck, forcing him and any other candidates to take a position on Trumpolini’s coup and attempted dictatorship, which Repubs would like to stop talking about. She also would would act as a counter to the dangerous election nihilism that it seems all other Repubs are yapping about. Obviously any “debates” between her and the comically uninformed imbecile Trump would be the most fantastic circuses imaginable. Indeed his fear of facing her might even prevent the monster from running.
If she runs as a third party it’s difficult to she which candidate she bleeds the most support from, Trumpolini (or a Trump clone) or the Dem. Given our faulty electoral regime, if one actually wants to defeat Trump in 2024 a vote for the Dem would always be vastly more effective.
BK, you’re assuming Wyoming is a representative sample of the entire nation. And you’re assuming that Trumpists are an organized collection of cooperative actors dedicated to a single coherent vision of some kind. Fascists are tearing the Republican Party apart, they’re NOT uniting it under a popular banner.
Again… Wyoming is NOT the US.
Appears some of the commenters cannot tell the difference between politics and personal performance. Kind of like a football or other sports game, it shouldn’t be an issue if you appreciate and/or compliment an opponent for there capabilities and performance, but you still try to beat them on the field. One should not have to sell their soul to a political ideology or political party, as noted above, what comes first. party or country, truth, honesty and integrity or loyalty? We all get to chose.
At this point the question becomes what is the bigger problem for the nation’s future, Trumpolini or the many voters who continue to eagerly subscribe to his lies? Or is it the Rightwing Noise Machine that spreads the lies 24/7?
These voters can no longer evaluate evidence or appraise reality, most likely thanks to the Noise Machine. The very idea of professing to believe this “stolen election” nonsense, as well as exculpating Trumpolini after extensive proof of his coup attempt. Irrational, emotional, that’s all one can say.
They can no longer be reasoned with, unfortunately. They and their candidates can only be defeated, if even a shred of democracy is to survive this era.
Maybe it was that sham kangaroo court hearing that alienated most of her voters? Such displays of one-sided, anti democratic authoritarianism alienate a lot more than Republicans.
When Republicans declined to participate because the hearings might implicate their supporters in unlawful conduct, they have no one to blame but themselves for a “one sided” process.
I don’t even want to know why you consider elected office holders investigating an attempted autogolpe is “undemocratic.”
Declined to participate? Shut out, except for those acceptable to Ms Pelosi.
How about “Declined to participate unless members with an obvious conflict of interest, or members whose only interest in the proceedings was to turn it into a carnival of other entirely unrelated issues were placed on the committee?”
Also, that was set up as a trial, but the defendant was in no way allowed to present evidence or rebut.
That, and all the “evidence” presented was treated as inalienable fact, despite that most of it would not have been allowed in an actual court.
Nor is any Congressional investigation “set up as a trial”. Nor is there any “defendant” in such investigations.
This is either wilful ignorance or the Rightwing Noise Machine at work.
The only people in America who care about those committee hearings exist in fishbowls like Eric Black Ink.
Then why are you wasting so much of your time commenting about it?
You are right. This is a colossal waste of time. Nothing is changed here.
Welcome back WHD. It’s not every forum that has its’ very own Trump supporting Trotskyite offering VERY unique takes on the day…
Trump supporting Trotskyite? That is quite a welcome on prodigal return.
So Edward, I am an arch Marxist Bolshevik and a fascist? Funny, no one says such things about me ever, except every time I come here. Good bye. Have fun with the midterms. Surely such as is written in these pages will lead to your great success!
The Republicans had people willing to serve on the committee, selected by Republican leadership, but they were ignored by Speaker Pelosi who chose two Republicans who hated Trump the most. True story.
The Republicans had people with obvious conflicts of interest who were willing to serve on the committee. They also had people who were interested in burying the proceedings under a mass of irrelevancies.
True story.
The Speaker chose to disregard decades of precedent and selected only those members (two, in a closely divided House) who hated Trump the most. She chose wisely to get the result that she wanted. The purpose of the committee was to “get Trump” and by making sure that there would be no counterpoint to any questions she chose the two people who would support her end result. Kudos to her.
What a crock of covfefe. What “decades of precedent” would have mandated putting members who were potential witnesses on the committee?
Did it ever occur to you that Trump really did try to orchestrate a violent disruption of the electoral count as a part of some insane plot to stay in power? And that those efforts are in no way mitigated, or worthy of being ignored, because of anything BLM may have done?
Yes, she decided not to have those Repub members linked to participation in the conspiracy investigate the conspiracy (and thus themselves). Scandalous.
The Repub party had the option of electing to get to the bottom of Trumpolini’s revolt. It collectively (and cravenly) decided that protecting the anti-democratic monster was more important than protecting the Congress, the Constitution and the government of the US.
Repubs and their “leadership” could have chosen differently, could have stuck to the sensible line they were taking on Jan 6 itself, could have chosen to be involved in a good faith investigation of Trumpolini’s actions from election day until Jan 6. But they pointedly refused. True story!
Eventually the true story will come out. Not from this year’s one-sided show trial, but from future investigations that might truly shed some light on the actions (or inactions) of those in charge at the time. The great thing about history is that it lasts forever and that the truth eventually is revealed.
I don’t think you know what a show trial is.
And waiting for some future investigations that will somehow reveal the falsity of the Mueller report, the Senate Intelligence Committee report(s), the record of the two Trump impeachment trials and now the findings of the Jan 6 Committee will be Waiting for Godot.
As we’ve seen multiple times, its turned out that “America First” was the first Big Lie.
“one-sided anti-democratic authoritarianism”
To paraphrase a quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep using these words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean…”
I know. Dem’s can’t see that they are turning into so much of what they accuse Trump and Republicans of.
You really can’t come up with anything better than this “mirroring” nonsense? I guess my quip was just that good!
“Trump is an authoritarian. Cancel! Cancel! Censor! Send in the FBI! Censor! Censor! Lockdown! Mandate! Cancel! Cancel!”
Mr. Duncan, when did you go from being a Devil’s Advocate to driving the clown car? I know that your positions when you were playing DA were less-than-serious (or at least I hope they were), but at least it was worthwhile to respond to your “concern” once in a while because you sometimes made a point. What prompted the shift? (I’m being absolutely serious in asking this question)
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2020, period.
You mean in 2016. Hillary Clinton was not on the ballot in 2020.
“honorable sacrifice”? “expose lies”? Is your TDS so severe that you stoop to praise a person who has publicly supported wars and torture? A person who was an informal consultant to a father who lied to the nation about WMDs in Iraq, setting off a series of wars nd destruction throughout the Middle East? Have you no shame?
Yes. Politics makes strange bedfellows, Politics 101. Especially when authoritarians need to be stopped, pro-democracy patriots will stick together, ad hoc.
So the ends justify the means?(!) It’s not too late to take that one back.
Hardly. See the comment below by Mr Adams if you want to understand the observation.
In response to Ms. Conti’s question “so… you stoop to praise a person who has publicly supported wars and torture?” Mr. Adams said “Yes”.
Your comment is “Hardly”? When is yes not yes? Someone is hardly awake this morning.
I think you may need to examine this portion of the thread again before you accuse someone else of not being awake…
People of sharply differing views have been teaming up to fight fascism for much longer than either of us have been alive.
Churchill and Stalin, for example.
I do appreciate at least some of Re. Cheney’s honesty. Speaker Pelosi formed the January 6 committee under the guise of “We need to find out what happened and make sure that it cannot happen again”. Rep. Cheney declared the real reason for the committee: To get Trump. And she intends to do “whatever it takes” to prevent Donald Trump from being anywhere near the oval office again. Does the FBI know the implications of “whatever it takes?”
I’m not campaigning for Cheney, I’m just saying I think she’s got a better chance than many assume. I don’t think Cheney could beat ANY Democrat, I just think Biden would have a hard defeating Cheney. My main concern is that Biden is setting the Democrat’s up for another defeat, much the same way Obama and Bill Clinton did. I know they’re all celebrating the big “wins” lately but I fear Democrats are bouncing around their own echo chamber of success. Once again they’ll be in a position of trying to sell the least they could accomplish as huge success, and that has a history of failing. If THAT worked HRC would have been able to run on Obamacare and win. It’s the same “moderate” trap we’ve seen before. Moderates are like: “Look all we accomplished!” and voters respond: “Well, if THAT’S the best you can do we may as well give Republican’s a shot at it.”
I myself am guilty of underestimating Trump, but I still say Trump sits atop a house of cards waiting for a stiff wind, and the illusion of Republican “strength” is on the verge of collapse. Once again, the next election is the Democrats to lose, not a sure win for Republicans.
I also underestimated Trump in 2016; watching the most qualified person lose to that madman was like a sucker punch to the throat. So yeah, I see your point, underestimating Cheney is probably not wise. She’s probably not going to make any decisions though until after the midterms.
Dems are up in most key Senate races, even McConnell cast doubt on the GOP retaking the upper chamber. New polling also shows it less likely Republicans will take the House. The question that has to be asked is what will Senate Democrats do when they can no longer (correctly) blame Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for holding up the party’s “lukewarm” progressive agenda? Say what you want about Pelosi, she wrangled her caucus and got every single thing Biden wanted through the House, so we’ll see how effective a leader Schumer can be without the Manchin noose around his neck. Will the majority of moderate Dems in the Senate remain brave enough to vote to gut or eliminate the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the George Floyd Police Reform Act, to codify Roe and marriage equality into federal law, and pick up key pieces of legislation Manchin and Sinema forced out of the 2021 Infrastructure bill? If the answer remains yes, then I think that will influence how Republicans behave going into the 2024 primary season.
Right now, going into midterms I am cautiously optimistic. The list of Biden wins is significant (for now) … add in the MAGA crazy (which just keeps getting loonier) and SCOTUS killing Roe … I think Dems might just buck political tradition and come out on top this year. I use the phrase “cautious optimism” because I’ve seen Democrats absolutely blow races they should not lose, so anything could happen between now and November. If the GOP manage to pull ahead and sweep the midterms, then I think DeSantis will take the 2024 nomination should Trump not be around. Just like the Tea Party voters the GOP courted to win the 2010 midterms, the MAGAts won’t be so easy to contain. If Democrats prevail, as it’s currently looking, then I could see Cheney making a play for 2024.
Back in the day you’d have these people with video cameras that walk around big demonstrations asking tea party/maga whatever’s obvious questions for comic effect. I remember one such instance when an interviewer pointed out to a bunch of Tea Party guys that Reagan created the first Federal Czars… like the Drug Czar… these guys turned on Reagan in a nano-second… THEY TURNED ON REAGAN. I’m just saying this coalition of idiots isn’t the most stable OR the most populous group in the country. The only question is whether or not Democrats can step up and exploit the weaknesses? For instance there’s an article in the NYT’s I think today about Democrats finally stepping up and taking advantage of the unpopularity of anti-abortion politics… they could/should have done this decades ago but their own “moderation” held them back and was self-defeating.
Getting back to the basic claim of the article… I have to agree with those who point out that it’s a sad commentary when meeting minimal expectations of integrity qualifies as an act of honorable courage rather than routine practice. One thing it would be to point out the rarity of basic integrity among Republicans and recognizing Cheney as an example, but celebrating Cheney looks like an attempt to recapture the bipartisan comfort zone of a bygone era in journalism. So Cheney’s single act of honor is heroic sacrifice while Omar’s daily heroism is an embarrassment… got it.
It occurred to me today that Rep. Cheney is the Sam Ervin of the January 6 investigation. Senator Ervin was an old-line, conservative southern Democrat, on the wrong side of civil rights legislation and, for that matter, on the wrong side of much progressive legislation, but he was still acknowledged as having a deep commitment to preserving the Constitution. He became the darling of many for his role on the Watergate Committee, but his national appeal was limited by his other positions (“Sure, he’s exposing Nixon, but have you heard what he said about the ERA?”).
We can respect Rep. Cheney’s work on the committee without supporting her continued political career.
I completely disagree with Liz Cheney on almost every other political issue she’s ever taken. As Dennis Tester pointed out above in his comment, she’s a neocon and a supporter of the Republican establishment that took this Nation into the Iraq War under false pretenses. Nevertheless, I do admire her and think she is worthy of commendation for her stand against Tr**p which cost her seat in Congress. No doubt, it’s a calculated move as most political actions are. But I ‘m not so cynical to believe it was entirely calculated because there’s no certain end for her. It seems to me her decisions and positions have been based upon an honest evaluation of the objective evidence of the January 6 Insurrection. That evidence has so far revealed that Tr**p and his followers will stop at nothing to achieve a return to power by him and his vile allies.
One would think that the testimony evidence against Tr**p in the January 6 Insurrection Hearings from his closest advisors, who were presumably appointed for their partisan leanings in his favor, would alert Tr**p supporters that this man cannot be trusted. Under the circumstances, I think commenter # 1, Dennis Wagner, makes a good and valid comparison between Nathan Hale’s sacrifice of his life and Liz Cheney’s and Adam Kinzinger’s sacrifice of their offices: Nathan Hale sacrificed his life against the tyranny of the British monarchy at the time; Cheney and Kinzinger sacrificed their offices against the tyranny of Tr**p Republican tyranny. This tyranny certainly will ensue if Republicans, who are completely under Tr**p’ s control, take control of Congress in November.
What I am waiting for is the courageous Democrats who vie for Presidential endorsement in 2024 when President Harris announces her re-election bid. THAT will be courage.
Why is that “courage?” Historically, it has not been unheard of for Democrats to challenge an incumbent of their own party (eg Carter vs. Kennedy in 1980). Democrats are not as committed to party loyalty as Republicans.
Or was that just an excuse for the pretty feeble crack about Vice President Harris becoming President by then?
Looking back on some the Fascist comments here… note these patriotic defenders of our liberties and the US Constitution will claim that treason and insurrection are acceptable because no is paying attention to the hearings. This is how you lose your Republic in the blink of an eye.
Two, maybe three years ago or so, had you told me that with a, a.) a coup attempt and a party and president fomenting terrorism; and, b.) now, what is very likely obstruction of justice and espionage in Mar-a-Lago, I wouldn’t have been surprised if maybe one or two of the right-leaning commenters here finally said, “enough is enough.” That finally, they could not excuse, condone, or defend it. I certainly wouldn’t have had any need to gloat or even feel vindicated. I’d feel relieved.
Silly me for being so naïve. It’s remarkable – and horrifying – that such historic, let alone heinous, acts are brushed aside, lied about or parried with the good old, “what about…” With so many comments echoing what I see and hear from the GOP and their broadcasting outfits, its also a prime example of how effective relentless lying and “flooding the zone with b.s.” (to paraphrase that bastion of integrity and democracy, Steve Bannon) by the aptly-named right-wing noise machine, is.
Yes, what we’re seeing here is that there simply is not floor… no matter how far Trump et al descend these people will happily follow. But that is after all the nature of Fascism… there is no limit to the dishonesty, immorality, and hostility.