in the late 18th century, Jacobins radicalized the French Revolution, successfully destroying political parties to their right. Eventually, radicalism became so pervasive that it led to the Great Terror. Under the Terror, thousands of innocent people were accused of being enemies of the revolution and we’re summarily found guilty by kangaroo courts and guillotined.
Today, Liz Cheney was found guilty of not being radical enough to be in party leadership. Her crime? Telling Donald Trump to stop lying about his election loss.
There was no discussion on whether she was telling the truth or lying. Instead, she would not genuflect to the failed Republican revolution and it’s demigod. “Off with her head!” demanded the revolutionaries.
Mitt Romney was correct in predicting the final outcome. Ask many French, like Lafayette, fled France, we will see many moderate and true conservative Republicans flee the party of Trump, leaving the party smaller and unable to win elections.
Only when a new direction and new leader appeared, did the Terror cease. For France, it was Napoleon. Who will save the Republican party from itself?
The decision to remove Liz Cheney (Lynne Cheney is her mother) from leadership was a correct one based on what her job was as Chair of the Republican Conference.
As Chair, her job was to push messaging that will help the party win future elections, not to keep focusing on the past election. Her continued insistence on talking about Trump at a time when Trump isn’t on the ballot in the next election and doesn’t currently hold office hurts that messaging and helps the Democrats instead. It also has the effect of reducing fundraising for the party, which also directly impacts the ability of the party to win elections in 2022.
Whether you believe that she is telling the truth or not, she wasn’t doing her job. She became a fanatic according to Winston Churchill’s famous definition: someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. It’s the latter part that lost her the vote.
Congresswoman Liz Cheney.
Observer is right.
I was also concerned that she wanted to take the GOP back to the days of her Dad & GWB — nation building, war mongering, globalism. No thanks.
The GOP still needs to figure out what do with Trump, but she wasn’t helping. I hope she enjoys a comfortable retirement next year.
I think I disagree with the idea that there are any true conservatives left in the party or that Mitt would represent any of them.
What have they conserved? All they do is trail behind the progressives. The progressives increase the size and scope of government, and then the alleged conservatives just protect the “new normal.”
They lost their libertarian roots a long time ago and stopped fighting for small government.
I respectfully disagree with “Observer” and with Sister Anderson. There is a really dangerous fallacy in their thinking, which needs to be pointed out here. Rameumptom correctly points out that Congresswoman Cheney’s sin was not in skewing the Republican Party away from its basic foundation principles, but in trying to raise the alarm that someone else was insisting on doing exactly that — most sadly, in this case, the man who was supposed to be providing that leadership, former President Donald Trump.
Observer states that “As Chair, [Cheney’s] job was to push messaging that will help the party win future elections,” a terrifying assertion if you look at it straight on. If that is the logic governing a party’s agenda, then ANY action, word, platform, claim, premise or adopted belief, no matter how illogical, how contrary to all prior common practice or understanding, no matter how damaging to others or untrue by any accepted standard of fact-checking, is not only just fine but actually desirable, on the off-chance it will produce more votes than the other fellow’s party can.
Making “vote-getting” the sole standard of success means that you jettison reason, logic and any commitment to objective truth and instead adopt emotional appeals (“Please love me!”; “I can get you everything you want”; “Believe me…”; “I know better than anybody else that….”); illogical positions (“It’s just going to go away; wait and see!”) and outright lying (which the former President has now been fact-checked as guilty of over 300,000 times during his term of office). Utter loyalty to a person is only commendable if that person has shown himself or herself to be worthy of such support. Ms. Cheney is standing up for the premise that, because Mr. Trump has shown himself over and over and over again NOT to be a reasonable, logical and truth-loving person, he has forfeited the right to demand support at all. Ms. Cheney’s stand is courageous because she is saying we can be a party that stands for truth (including just plain factual accuracy), and that wants to be both respected and influential in the world, or we can become a conglomeration of non-thinkers, who allow a man to do our thinking for us who has been proven by his own words and actions to do very little thinking at all. Nothing could be more dangerous to the future of any sane, useful Republication Party than to continue rallying around such a man.
Let me ask Observer and Sister Anderson one simple question: If those who follow Mr. Trump’s lead are in the right (even if you stop talking about Trump for the moment because “he isn’t on the ballot” right now), why did the Republican Party not publish a platform of principles and/or positions prior to last year’s Republican Convention? Why does it not bother the heck out of you that NO platform was announced? Not “This is who we are” or “This is what we believe” or “These are the planks in the party platform”? NOTHING was stated — why? because then President Trump did not want there to be a party platform. Providing one would have created a set of real issues around which Republicans could gather, likely in opposition to platform points they perceived to exist in the Democratic Party, perhaps newer or revised or restated issues the party wished to put forward now as timely and important. The point is that Donald Trump didn’t want his followers discussing issues or supporting issues or claiming importance for issues that he, himself, isn’t interested in delving into (a) because he doesn’t understand them and doesn’t want to take the time and energy to do so, and (b) because talking about real issues means his followers aren’t talking about him.
Every person who calls themselves a Republican (I’m not — I am a registered Independent) must decide for himself or herself whether a standard of objective truth (i.e. facts which can be established by evidence from a large enough number of sources to prevent special or selective claims from being accepted) is what his or her loyalty to the party is based on. If it is based only on the concept that whatever brings in votes is automatically good and the party has no other reason to exist than mere self-perpetuation, then it isn’t a party at all, is it? It’s just a rallying point for whoever can shout the loudest, make the most extreme promises, dazzle the most gullible minds, or most glibly and successfully lie his way to the head of the pack of would-be leaders. I just don’t believe that Observer or Sister Anderson really want that kind of leader! (Would you really be thrilled, proud and loyal to him if President Russell M. Nelson had spoken and behaved the way Mr. Trump has spoken and behaved the past four years???)
Thank heaven there are people like Congresswoman Cheney who have the personal courage, knowing the scorn and anger she would have to face from her own colleagues, to stand up for what is both right and true. Republican party members owe HER their appreciation and support for trying to save bedrock Republican principles from being destroyed by a man who only wants complete fealty to his personal agenda. I understand the latest news is that around 100 Republicans are beginning to come together to find out whether they can re-establish some kind of logical, sane, grown-up basis for renewing a Republican Party that other logical, sane grown-ups can join and be proud of. I will certainly be hoping to see such an effort pick up momentum and that Ms. Cheney will choose to be part of it.
Frances,
I simply stated a fact of what Cheney’s job as the Chair of the Republican Conference was. To quote Wikipedia: “The House Republican Conference is the party caucus for Republicans in the United States House of Representatives. It hosts meetings and is the primary forum for communicating the party’s message to members.” As Chair of the Conference, it was Cheney’s job to communicate that message on a day-to-day basis.
By focusing her messaging on Trump, she was distracting from the party’s message, instead of serving as an effective communicator of the party’s message. Her job is to communicate the message, not decide unilaterally what the message should be.
She is welcome to express her opposition to Trump all that she wants, and it is up to the voters in her district to decide whether she should continue representing them. However, she doesn’t get to retain a leadership position when she is not doing the job (communicating the party’s message) she was selected for.
Frances, as I said, Liz Cheney wants the GOP to be like that of her Dad & GWB, 20 years ago, marching into countries, nation building. I lost a nephew and two students in George W. Bush’s wars, and a boy from our ward left half of his body in Afghanistan … no thanks to that kind of Republicanism. As I also said the GOP will have to decide what it wants to do with Trump’s legacy and future … but if you think political parties have any sort of values or morals you’re living in a dream land. The goal is always to win at any cost, by any means necessary — hence Joe Biden sitting in the Oval Office waiting for his pudding while the world falls apart this week.
I agree with the original posting. I am troubled by the party’s seeming idolatry of Mr. Trump and his vengeful attacks on others. Ms. Cheney is truly a conservative and truly a Republican
A commenter wrote, “As Chair, her job was to push messaging that will help the party win future elections.”. I disagree. Win future elections? No. Rather, to govern our country is the right answer.
Ms. Cheney is right in her message. She may have pushed too hard, but she is right in her message. Best wishes to her. The election was fair and square. Our electoral processes worked.
At least, that is how I see it.
You can’t govern, if you don’t win … so there’s that.
If you don’t govern well, you lose elections. If you base your agenda on a falsehood, you deserve to lose badly.
Observer is correct/ Cheney accepted that post as part of the Republican Party structure. By doing so she agreed to represent the party not herself. She was not punished for voting to convict Trump on the baseless impeachment charge, she received a strong vote of confidence after that. But she could not stop at that point she had to continue her jihad against the out off office and mostly quiet ex-President.
Furthermore that position is responsible for fund raising for other members and recruiting strong new candidates to run for office. She did a miserable job of both.
Her likely replacement Stephanik, is more liberal than Channey in her votes.
Her voters at home in Wyoming have repudiated her, she has something like a 30% popularity score and the Wyoming Republican Party has censured her.
She had to go.
In some ways, NeverTrumpers are in more danger from their fellow Republicans now that Trump has lost, than they were when Trump was in office.
The GOP (or at least a majority thereof) basically agreed, up through the 2016 primaries, that Trump was a bad guy. They agreed that he’d have a hard time accomplishing much in the way of a legislative agenda, and they agreed that his overall tactics and contempt for process and style of discourse were bad for democracy. But when he took the nomination, most of them swallowed their objections and got on the Trump Train. Only a relative few refused to kiss the ring—but four years later here we are—our only legislative gains were an anemic tax package (counterbalanced by drunken-sailor spending) and a criminal justice reform package; he got his keester handed to him in the last election; and we have an emboldened left fully prepared to follow and increase upon Trump’s example of governing by executive order. Oh, and a remarkable number of formerly decent, respectable, patriotic, conservative Americans have been converted into a bunch of self-entitled ninnies who in outlook and conduct are virtually indistinguishable from Antifa’s goons; thus neutralizing much of the GOP advantage in the military and law enforcement.
Trumplings can forgive a great deal. But they will never, *ever* forgive NeverTrumpers for the capital offense of having been demonstrably right. The more Trump obviously self-destructs, the more virulently his acolytes will seek to “purge” those of us who never bowed down before or kissed their stinking, festering, oozing pustule of a god.
“Trumplings can forgive a great deal. But they will never, *ever* forgive NeverTrumpers for the capital offense of having been demonstrably right. The more Trump obviously self-destructs, the more virulently his acolytes will seek to “purge” those of us who never bowed down before or kissed their stinking, festering, oozing pustule of a god.”
Seeing that Contempt and Dehumanization are the coins of the realm among all of the forces that are kicking this country down the road to decadence, factionalism and (G*d forbid) civil war, you’ll forgive me if I conclude that your mask as the sane one who would never stoop to the language or tactics of “Antifa’s goons” is slipping.
The First Rule of the Fanatic: When you become obsessed with the enemy, you become the enemy.
“I understand the latest news is that around 100 Republicans are beginning to come together to find out whether they can re-establish some kind of logical, sane, grown-up basis for renewing a Republican Party that other logical, sane grown-ups can join and be proud of. I will certainly be hoping to see such an effort pick up momentum and that Ms. Cheney will choose to be part of it.”
Ok, and what will be the formula for getting that number up from 100 to 100 million? I’m not asking this in a snarky way; I am really interested in how it will work. If the messaging is something along the lines of, “We’re the ones who are sane, logical and decorous,” then the movement will come up short.
The old Left v. Right divides are breaking down and, even without Trump, we have entered an era of nationalism on both sides. The Right (and here I’m not talking about Trumpist extremists) sees a vision of a “civic” nationalism in which reforms of abuses can occur (e.g., criminal justice reforms) and all can gather under the banner of America. These people are genuinely troubled by assaults on their faith, long-cherished rights and the overweening federal power that threatens to collapse the constitution into a de-facto unitary state system.
On the Left we have doctrines and policies that promote another nationalism: an ethno-tribal nationalism that sees America as not fixable by mere reform; rather, it must be torn down to its institutional roots and built again on a new, progressive vision founded on social and, if necessary, retributive justice for historically oppressed races and groups.
Naturally, as Republicans, the 100 are going to want to win over GOP members are their new base. The first question likely to be asked by that base is, “Will you fight for us?” If the answer to that question resembles one that I’ve heard from many never-Trumpers, namely: “Fight? Why? You’ve been deluded by Trump into thinking that threats to your rights, property and prosperity exist when they don’t. The “mainstream” politicians of the other party are planning no such things. Just trust us to work productively with the other side of the aisle and everything will be all right.”
That’s not a formula for enthusiasm. If the message is, “We’re going to quiet things down and return to the globalist, technocratic, D.C. establishment-centered rules of the GWB era,” the movement will fail. That era is extinct. It has a minimal remnant constituency and is no longer viable. Decorum and dialogue are still possible, but not a return to the past.
To quote (and somewhat paraphrase) C.S. Lewis from The Pilgrim’s Regress:
“But how are you going to fight? Where are your troops? Where is your base of supplies? You can’t feed an army on a garden of platitudes of rationality and pining for the past,” said the First.
“It is intelligence that counts,” said the Other.
“It moves nothing,” said the First. “You see that nationalists of all stripes are scalding hot and you are cold. You must get heat (i.e., passionate enthusiasm) to rival their heat. Do you think you can rout a million armed nationalists just by being ‘not Trump’?”
Dear BJohnson —
I did not take your excellent comment as snarky — you raise key questions. I was not trying to be over-idealistic in my comment about the possible-gathering 100. I wished only to convey that there are people with live minds out there who are not willing to settle for the insistent falsehoods of the Trump-minded, and that I still have hope that such folk do exist and are seeking each other. You are absolutely correct that all the questions are still in the air and none of the answers has yet materialized. That is why such people as I referred to in that paragraph need to examine their own thinking and realize that now and not later is the time to hammer out the kind of party that can stand for something both real (practical) and inspiring (influential) for those who want to reject Trumpery but don’t actually know how.
I wish I could offer an outline of steps to be taken to create a non-Trump as well as non-1960s Republican Party — one which is willing to roll up its sleeves, work out its 21st Century foundational principles and agenda, and then go proselyting, if you will, to their fellow citizens who remain skeptical at best and contemptuous at worst that the American dream still has life in it and can be resurrected to full viability. The only way to fight an entrenched idea is to offer a better one.
That was my only intention in that paragraph: I would like to see Liz Cheney and the other Republicans whom I can still (as an Independent) respect, join in that difficult, detailed, lengthy, dynamic, commitment-demanding effort. Why wish that on them when the endeavor is more than likely to fail? Because history teaches us that all good endeavors are likely to fail — too few numbers or too few articulate definers of purpose, or too little money or too little time or too little luck: ANYTHING can push a good idea into a dead end. But history also teaches us that good ideas that take hold can move mountains, save lives, free slaves, educate minds, compose great symphonies, walk on the moon and stop the abuse of children and animals, among a thousand other wonderful accomplishments. So, yes, I do think, despite the difficulties and the great gap between idealistic talk and tangible delivery, such an effort should be encouraged and prayed for, not dismissed as an impossible pipe dream. Mr. Trump has warped, has corrupted, our ability to think straight. We need to reclaim that ability — one mind at a time, if need be. A hundred minds thinking through how to build together is even better. And who knows what the 101st person with a sane, grounded mind might be intrigued enough or inspired enough to suggest?
I do not know Liz Cheney but from what I could tell she is the one obsessed with Trump. As far as the election being spot on in 2020 I have no trust in such a statement. My home county of Maricopa is going through an audit by the Arizona Senate. So far here are the problems that have been revealed are: 1. The Maricopa Board in charge of elections does not have the passwords to the voting machines. 2. The Dominion company has complete control of the machines and log in material, so which means my elected leaders abdicated responsibility of my vote to a company that I did not elect. 3. The Maricopa Board deleted several items of the election information that is to be saved for 22 months by law. 4 Secretary of State Katie Hobbs apparently did not conduct the audits demanded earlier. 5. The routers for the machines are being refused to be turned over and will be another court case. 6. The arguments of not turning over the routers is because it will violate HIPAA and MCSO law enforcement protocols which are completely bogus arguments. 7. Batches of the ballots are less than what the receipts say they should be. 8. The media is already calling this a fraud before anything was completed as we are only 15% of the way through it. 9. With all these problems coming up on live feed auditing at an old basketball arena for all to see online why do they refuse a transparent audit to show how wrong Trump was since he “lost?” Would this not be the perfect way to smear it in Trump’s face how wrong he was? I am sorry this lends me to think those who use moral arguments about Trump and refuse to be transparent means they are not arguing morally or ethically which by their own standards disqualifies them. So I see those who argue about Trump now are looking at the crises now of the Biden agenda. Could she not have focused on policy rather than pontificate on Trump and focus on the troubles we have now? She could have if she was moral which she is not.
Andrew, Dominion machines have been looked at several times now, and no major irregularities have been found.
Liz Cheney was speaking because Donald Trump continues to rev up his radical constituents with false claims of election fraud and his winning the election. If he would be quiet, she would not have continued. So, it really is Trump continuing to talk the Big Lie.
Even you seem to be caught up in it. Did you know that the Dominion machines have been reviewed several times by several states? Rudy Giuliani claimed to have hundreds of witnesses for Dominion machine fraud, but when it came to court, he had one witness: a part time worker at a polling place. The judge correctly through it out.
Why do you continue the conspiracy theories of Trump? 50 courts have knocked him down, including several Trump appointees AND the Supreme Court. There is NO conspiracy, except the frivolous one that Trump continues to spout out, trying to cause a Civil War. Even the First Presidency recently warned about conspiracy theories and put it in the updated General Handbook!
Cheney would have focused on policy, had Trump allowed her to do so. Instead of policy, Trump continues to make everything in the Republican party about him. The only Republican policy right now is genuflecting to Trump. There is no small government Republican party. No Constitutional Republican party. No 2A Republican party (remember, Trump banned bump stocks). No legal immigration, because Trump shut all immigration down.
If Trump would have focused on policy, rather than on his election, there wouldn’t be a problem right now. Instead, Trump continues. He is quieter, but only because he’s still banned from Twitter and Facebook. Still, he gets his info out to his minions. They keep pushing conspiracy theories, rather than really work on policy.
I’m not a fan of Biden, nor his agenda. But Trump is the one doing the distracting. And he is the one that will cause 1/3 to 1/2 of the Republicans to leave the party or not vote in 2022.
Gerald Smith, Dominion voting tabulations have been “looked at” by whom? Recounts are not the same as audits and having an audit by Dominion friendly tech firms is not an independent audit. Since Dominion machines are used no one has done a complete forensic audit before. That is what the Arizona Senate is trying to do. There has not been sufficient evidence pre discovery from any judge to pursue unless the governing body conducts an audit. I am a believe in trust but verify. There has been little to verify any of the troubling events surrounding the election of Biden. Voting integrity is policy. I am completely aware that the audits may not prove massive fraud and I am just fine with that. Ignoring Trump to focus on the troubles at hand of bad Biden policy is far more important to me for the Republican leadership. Since I have found that the dust kicked up by the Russian Collusion is false and Ukraine scandals unvetted why should I believe as I quote you: “No legal immigration, because Trump shut all immigration down,” that is completely false my brother. I believe there is a delicate balance that must be achieved also that is not be reached by the conspiracy theory that Trump is the worst and is the cause of our problems.” Lies that stoke anger are bad I agree but lies of carnal security by flaxen cord is just as bad. A sober approach is let the truth come out whether Trump is good or bad rather than assuming he is bad.
The problem with the claims against Dominion machines, is the conspiracy doesn’t hold up. See this link for a good discussion on it. Trump won in most counties with Dominion machines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/01/swing-state-counties-that-used-dominion-voting-machines-mostly-voted-trump/
Second, even the Republicans in charge of vote counts say there’s no fraud, and that Trump and his false class are crazy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/16/trump-unhinged-arizona-republican-election/
Claims against dominion do indeed hold up when looked at from a purely mathematical stand point:
https://www.fraudspotters.com/statistics-about-dominion-election-fraud/
And there is lots of (very strong) evidence:
https://hereistheevidence.com/
Just because popular opinion and courts says the emperor has clothes doesn’t make it true.
Mathematics does not prove fraud. It shows a tight race. Again, Trump won most counties using Dominion machines.
Second, courts DO matter when there is no evidence of mass fraud.
Third, the audit in Arizona is only showing that the Republican legislature is unhinged. They claimed documents destroyed in Maricopa county only to find them exactly where county officials said they were.
So, your math, which really doesn’t show the raw data used nor much methodology, doesn’t prove anything. It doesn’t demonstrate population movement, nor factor in other issues.
rameumptom, using the Washington Post that has fed us lies of Russia Collusion is not winning the argument. This paper is willing to put anyone on the front page that hates Trump or those who voted for him. This just tells that they create great narrative. The legislature is not “unhinged” they are just responsive to the consent of the governed to look thoroughly into the matter. Let us ask the question: why do they resist a legislature spurned on by the citizens request? The reasons they have provided to not cooperate are not valid (HIPAA violations, Law Enforcement issues), the games they play only increase the doubt and the resistance before it is conducted means they want to hide something whether it makes changes or not.
AAndrew, al media, left or right, is biased. The claim ofedia bias is true, but also lazy. It justified ignoring all reports we disagree with. This is what many do also to Liz Cheney anditt Romney.
The “unhinged” remark came from a Republican. Trump has been unhinged in his efforts to be reinstated as president by August. His claims of a stolen election are fake news and continues to divide our nation.
Recently, the Church added to the General Handbook a warning to stay clear of conspiracy theories. Listen to the Prophet, not Trump.