The conservative case for Liz Cheney
-
Conservatives have been crowded out by sycophants and cult members.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Lynn Cheney:
Conservatives have been crowded out by sycophants and cult members.
What policies would these cult members be expected to support? Feel free to list a handful of the most objectionable ones if that is easier. Let’s stipulate that you believe that given the opportunity they would support coup attempts and God Emperor status for Trump. In the unlikely event they followed the rules and wielded their power through voting, what are your scariest expectations for those votes?
-
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Lynn Cheney:
Conservatives have been crowded out by sycophants and cult members.
What policies would these cult members be expected to support? Feel free to list a handful of the most objectionable ones if that is easier. Let’s stipulate that you believe that given the opportunity they would support coup attempts and God Emperor status for Trump. In the unlikely event they followed the rules and wielded their power through voting, what are your scariest expectations for those votes?
Policies? Yeah right.
At best they are secondary to loyalty to the supreme leader. Compare Liz Cheney’s voting record to Elise Stefanik’s and then compare their fates in the party.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
Policies? Yeah right.
At best they are secondary to loyalty to the supreme leader. Compare Liz Cheney’s voting record to Elise Stefanik’s and then compare their fates in the party.
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Lynn Cheney:
Policies? Yeah right.
At best they are secondary to loyalty to the supreme leader. Compare Liz Cheney’s voting record to Elise Stefanik’s and then compare their fates in the party.
Question avoided.
-
I answered your question. The bulk of the party simply supports the supreme leader. If he chooses policy X, they’re for policy X. If he chooses !X, they’re for !X. At least for a very very wide range of X.
-
I answered your question. The bulk of the party simply supports the supreme leader. If he chooses policy X, they’re for policy X. If he chooses !X, they’re for !X. At least for a very very wide range of X.
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Lynn Cheney:
I answered your question. The bulk of the party simply supports the supreme leader. If he chooses policy X, they’re for policy X. If he chooses !X, they’re for !X. At least for a very very wide range of X.
Great, could you name your top several most objectionable such policies one can expect a cult member to support while Liz Cheney would not? That was the question, not misdirection about the allegedly sinister or irrational way in which the policies are decided on.
-
The willingness to put a de facto end to our democracy if that's what it takes to keep the supreme leader in power would top the list. Everything else would pale in comparison. Indeed, its the hill she chose to die on.
-
The willingness to put a de facto end to our democracy if that's what it takes to keep the supreme leader in power would top the list. Everything else would pale in comparison. Indeed, its the hill she chose to die on.
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
The willingness to put a de facto end to our democracy if that's what it takes to keep the supreme leader in power would top the list. Everything else would pale in comparison. Indeed, its the hill she chose to die on.
I understand that it is your truth that these Trump backed politicians are eager to put a de facto end to our democracy in order to secure Trump's God Emperor status, but I doubt many non-TDS sufferers confuse that belief with a rationally held perspective.
I do understand that your position is a very comfortable one in our current culture wars.
-
Policies? Yeah right.
At best they are secondary to loyalty to the supreme leader. Compare Liz Cheney’s voting record to Elise Stefanik’s and then compare their fates in the party.
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
Policies? Yeah right.
At best they are secondary to loyalty to the supreme leader. Compare Liz Cheney’s voting record to Elise Stefanik’s and then compare their fates in the party.
This.President Trump is narcissist. What is good for the country is not necessary good for him. And vice versa.
But he is only concerned about what is good for him. That guides all his decisions.
-
@jon-nyc said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
Policies? Yeah right.
At best they are secondary to loyalty to the supreme leader. Compare Liz Cheney’s voting record to Elise Stefanik’s and then compare their fates in the party.
This.President Trump is narcissist. What is good for the country is not necessary good for him. And vice versa.
But he is only concerned about what is good for him. That guides all his decisions.
…Trump is narcissist.
That could be said of almost any politician past, present and future. I do however believe that Trump has little self control over his narcissism. That does not play well in a democratic society operating under republican or parliamentary governance.
-
Here's my take.
I've always considered Cheney to be, for the most part, a principled conservative. I first became aware of her in the early 2000s, iirc, and looked forward to hearing and seeing her viewpoints.
I have little, if anything to say about her "cred" in that regard.
However, my beef with her is not that she is on the Jan 6 committee/commission/trial, but that she participates in what is little more than an exposition of accusations, with no avenue for the "accused" to question their accusers. That's a bedrock of our system of jurisprudence, and she, perhaps tacitly, supports it. When only one side presents evidence, it's not a hearing or a trial, it's theater.
-
@Axtremus said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
@Mik , do you mean to say “Liz” or “Lynn” in the thread title?
As for the substance of the article, let’s see what @Jolly has to say about it.
Chaney has to go.
During the impeachment process, she stood on principle and voted to impeach the President. Duly noted by leadership, IIRC nothing untoward happened to her.
But her present crap is far beyond principle. It hurts the cohesiveness of the party. Like it or not, this is not Jon's GOP. We've morphed and moved beyond that. The Bushies are gone and an insult is to be called a Romney Republican. This GOP is a party of blue collar working people, of white collar cubicle rats, of conservative latinos, blacks and whites. It does not think populism is a bad word. It seeks to reduce the power of the Federal government by bringing more power back to the states. It seeks to end privileges for the wealthy and attack the roots of poverty by emphasizing opportunity and not hand-outs. This version of the GOP thinks we pay enough taxes and that low taxes spur economies. It understands the games the Left has played with the Federal court system and seeks to change those courts back to what they were intended to be - interpreters, not makers of laws.
Secondly, not only has Cheney thumbed her nose at the national party and party unity, she has pissed on the voters of Wyoming. Instead of putting her head down and doing the best for the people she represents, she has spent her time "standing on principles" and not doing her primary job. And then, when her constituents let her know, in no uncertain terms, that they did not agree with her current actions in Washington and they did not agree with the fact she was spending the majority of her time in Washington, she ignored them. So they decided it was time to give her the old heave-ho.
Come election day, she is going to get beat like a red-headed stepchild. Just like she deserves.
-
@Axtremus said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
@Mik , do you mean to say “Liz” or “Lynn” in the thread title?
As for the substance of the article, let’s see what @Jolly has to say about it.
Chaney has to go.
During the impeachment process, she stood on principle and voted to impeach the President. Duly noted by leadership, IIRC nothing untoward happened to her.
But her present crap is far beyond principle. It hurts the cohesiveness of the party. Like it or not, this is not Jon's GOP. We've morphed and moved beyond that. The Bushies are gone and an insult is to be called a Romney Republican. This GOP is a party of blue collar working people, of white collar cubicle rats, of conservative latinos, blacks and whites. It does not think populism is a bad word. It seeks to reduce the power of the Federal government by bringing more power back to the states. It seeks to end privileges for the wealthy and attack the roots of poverty by emphasizing opportunity and not hand-outs. This version of the GOP thinks we pay enough taxes and that low taxes spur economies. It understands the games the Left has played with the Federal court system and seeks to change those courts back to what they were intended to be - interpreters, not makers of laws.
Secondly, not only has Cheney thumbed her nose at the national party and party unity, she has pissed on the voters of Wyoming. Instead of putting her head down and doing the best for the people she represents, she has spent her time "standing on principles" and not doing her primary job. And then, when her constituents let her know, in no uncertain terms, that they did not agree with her current actions in Washington and they did not agree with the fact she was spending the majority of her time in Washington, she ignored them. So they decided it was time to give her the old heave-ho.
Come election day, she is going to get beat like a red-headed stepchild. Just like she deserves.
@Jolly although I don't support her stance during the impeachment(s), I understand it. That's politics.
Of course, as someone said, "Voting to impeach Trump when you represent a state that went 70% for him is like telling Wyoming to go vegan."
Politics.
So, she put her principles above politics. I suppose that's admirable, but, I doubt she represents her constituency ("democracy" after all).
I'll forgive her vote, though I disagree. I cannot forgive her sitting in a piece of congressional theater.
-
@Jolly although I don't support her stance during the impeachment(s), I understand it. That's politics.
Of course, as someone said, "Voting to impeach Trump when you represent a state that went 70% for him is like telling Wyoming to go vegan."
Politics.
So, she put her principles above politics. I suppose that's admirable, but, I doubt she represents her constituency ("democracy" after all).
I'll forgive her vote, though I disagree. I cannot forgive her sitting in a piece of congressional theater.
@George-K said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
I'll forgive her vote, though I disagree. I cannot forgive her sitting in a piece of congressional theater.
Which itself was unprincipled. Why would a deeply principled person be a figurehead for that?
My guess is that even after she loses this election, she will find a way to capitalize on all this attention to her and her Principly McPrinciple way of living her life of public service.
I remember that principled social climber who wrote the NYT op ed and later book about adults in the white house containing Trump's impulses. He parlayed his principles into multiple fat private sector positions, the first for Google as its government liaison.
-
@George-K said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
I'll forgive her vote, though I disagree. I cannot forgive her sitting in a piece of congressional theater.
Which itself was unprincipled. Why would a deeply principled person be a figurehead for that?
My guess is that even after she loses this election, she will find a way to capitalize on all this attention to her and her Principly McPrinciple way of living her life of public service.
I remember that principled social climber who wrote the NYT op ed and later book about adults in the white house containing Trump's impulses. He parlayed his principles into multiple fat private sector positions, the first for Google as its government liaison.
@Horace said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
@George-K said in The conservative case for Liz Cheney:
I'll forgive her vote, though I disagree. I cannot forgive her sitting in a piece of congressional theater.
Which itself was unprincipled. Why would a deeply principled person be a figurehead for that?
My guess is that even after she loses this election, she will find a way to capitalize on all this attention to her and her Principly McPrinciple way of living her life of public service.
I remember that principled social climber who wrote the NYT op ed and later book about adults in the white house containing Trump's impulses. He parlayed his principles into multiple fat private sector positions, the first for Google as its government liaison.
PMSNBC loves Trump hating Republicans. Wonder what the name of her show will be? Mad Cow II?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Hageman slightly increases her lead (only up by 30 points)...
-
What a strange commercial...
That's a whupped Lizard talking...
