Liz Cheney gives the finger to her constituents

The elite-born Liz Cheney purportedly represents the interests of voters in Wyoming. Back in July, she stated that investigating the January 6 insurrection might be “the most important thing I ever do” and, therefore, was presumably devoting maximum effort to this project.

Her non-elite constituents, however, by voting her out of office (66% to 29%! the elites are surely sorry that they neglected to take away the Deplorables’ right to vote!), have now told her that this is not something that they want her to do. What’s the former VP daughter’s response? “‘Now the real work begins’: Liz Cheney lost her election but vows to dig deeper into the Jan. 6 mission.” (NYT, August 17).

Ms. Cheney vowed to use her post on the House committee investigating Jan. 6 to continue prosecuting the public case against former President Donald J. Trump.

“This primary election is over,” she told her supporters Tuesday night. “But now the real work begins.”

Ms. Cheney, a Republican who is vice chair of the committee, quickly converted her campaign committee into a leadership political action committee called the Great Task, a sign that she plans to take her fight against Mr. Trump to new levels. But she also plans to dig deeper into her mission with the Jan. 6 committee, which could continue its work until the end of the year.

Also from Pravda, “After Loss, Cheney Begins Difficult Mission of Thwarting Trump”:

Liz Cheney is clear about her goal, but the path is murky: A presidential run is possible, she acknowledged, and she has a new political outfit aimed at the former president and his 2020 election lies.

Hours after her landslide loss, Representative Liz Cheney wasted no time Wednesday taking her first steps toward what she says is now her singular goal: blocking Donald J. Trump from returning to power.

The person who represents the voters of Wyoming has a “singular goal” that is actually at odds with what those voters want?

Ms. Cheney announced that her newly rebranded political organization, the Great Task, would be dedicated to mobilizing opposition to Mr. Trump.

(What if Trump gets killed by COVID-19 next week? Liz Cheney will have to disband the Great Task because it will be #MissionAccomplished?)

Is this a breakdown of representative government? It is almost as though a politician from Massachusetts were to say “lockdowns, school closures, vaccine papers checks, and forced masking are bad ideas when faced with an aerosol respiratory virus that has the ability to evolve” or “smoking marijuana daily might not be good for your health.”

Also, considering the 66%/29% defeat, has an incumbent ever lost by this kind of margin (37 points) before? For reference, AOC, the Democrats’ thought leader, beat an incumbent by 57%/43% (14 points) in 2018.


  • Recently celebrated by Progressives, Liz Cheney’s high position was condemned as an example of nepotism by Nobel laurate Paul Krugman in the New York Times: “The Sons Also Rise” (2002). “America, we all know, is the land of opportunity. Your success in life depends on your ability and drive, not on who your father was. … Talk to Elizabeth Cheney, who holds a specially created State Department job, or her husband, chief counsel of the Office of Management and Budget.”
  • “Liz Cheney’s biggest donors come from Texas and California” (Washington Examiner): “Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) far outraised her primary opponent … Cheney raised over $15 million in her reelection bid, with nearly $1 million coming from Texas and another $1.4 million from California, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. That makes the two states her highest contributors, raising only $386,000 from donors in Wyoming. … Comparatively, Hageman raised $940,000 from Wyoming residents.”

33 thoughts on “Liz Cheney gives the finger to her constituents

  1. Ironically, Europe, a hotbed of insurrectionists, widely thought that the 2001 election was stolen by Bush/Cheney:

    “In spite of the findings, no legal challenge to the Florida result is possible in the light of the US supreme court’s 5-4 ruling in December to hand the state to Mr Bush. But the revelations will continue to cast a cloud, to put it mildly, over the democratic legitimacy of Mr Bush’s election.”

    Incidentally, Bush and certainly Dick Cheney were less popular here than Trump. But opposing the elite bureaucracy seems to be a cardinal sin, so Trump must be brought down.

    Perhaps for a career bureaucrat sitting on a committee for Un-American activities is in fact “the most important thing he/she/ze/they [will] ever do”.

  2. I’m wondering who in his/her right mind voted for this terminally stupid and juast as ugly daughter of a notorious war criminal in the first place. Her face is totally devoid of any resemblance of human emotions or intellect, as reptiloid as they come.

    I personally blame TV for habituating Americans to the most blatant displays of emotional fakery and ugliness. To me, just watching any sitcom or news for five minutes is enough to provoke nausea, they got the uncanny valley territory covered. It’s like watching a freak show entertaining public with congenital deformities. The wooden Soviet propagandist faces were 100 times more human.

  3. My feeling is that there is a tremendous amount of really bad blood between the Bush, Cheney and Trump that goes back all the way to the Gulf War and probably involves a couple of very angry phone calls and deals worth a lot of money. I call that the “Hatfields and McCoys” theory of the animosity between them. It probably got a lot of salt thrown into the wound while Trump was President, with old wounds ripped open and scars that don’t heal. I think it transcends the politics and “noble aims” Cheney professes to be serving, in other words.

    I told my father the other day: “This the normal amount of political hatred and infighting between people with serious disagreements who are nevertheless on the ‘same team’ when the chips are down. This is personal. It has to be. She sounds like Hillary Clinton and in fact I think Hillary Clinton may be feeding her information.”

    The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend and this is all Brian DePalma Scarface Gangster stuff.

    Just my $0.02.

    • Sorry: “This is not the normal amount of political hatred….”

      And as I said right after was inaugurated, I kind of agree with Bernie Kerik – I think if Trump doesn’t make a deal and winds up as the nominee, both engines on his 757 will suffer a catastrophic failure in midflight and after a long investigation it will be pinned to a couple of dudes from Croatia or something.

      The Elite do not want him around, Republican, Democrat and especially European.

      But I think you’re pretty close: I can’t recall another incumbent for a serious office losing by that much at any time in my life.

    • There may be personal issues, but from what I read this looks like the eternal struggle between compliant politicians who increase the size of academia and the civil “service” and those who threaten the gravy train.

      In Europe, this is all an old hat. The situation has been laid out in “Yes Minister” (the best TV show ever produced), where Whitehall bureaucrats from the right Oxford college (not Cambridge or the LSE!) manipulate puppet politicians.

      The U.S. additionally has the dynasty element (Bush/Clinton/Cheney families), which cannot be threatened either, especially by a lowly real estate guy.

    • @Eurocrat: Thanks for the tip about “Yes Minister.” I’ll check it out and share it with friends so they can comprehend what has already happened to them while they were watching something else.

    • @Eurocrat: My first encounter with Bork, albeit at a very long distance, was the Senate confirmation hearings for his Supreme Court nomination. I was a very young man at the time and although I liked Bork in a very shallow sense, I also had a lot of other, much more random things on my mind also, which I regret. I had very little care at the time for “what it all meant.”

      Ted Kennedy won, of course, and Bork was not confirmed.

      “Perhaps the best-known use of the verb “to [B]ork” occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, “We’re going to [B]ork him. We’re going to kill him politically. This little creep, where did he come from?”[44] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after the most divisive confirmation hearing in Supreme Court history to that point.”

  4. She lost by more than you say. That 29 percent were partly Democrats voting for her in the open primary. Or, based on the vibe I’ve gotten from the internet on the subject (which is–the subject is uniformly despised) the 29 percent might actually be at the limit of the magic box vote-generation machinery’s capacity. I’m not sure how many closeted gay cowboys Wyoming has, but I don’t think it’s enough to give her much above the reasonable result of zero plus or minus zero.

    She was a fairly typical (if neo-conish) Republican until she decided to hate Trump. But that fact alone was enough to wipe her sins away and make her the darling of the media. I wonder if any ordinary Democrats are capable of seeing that the media is motivated by animus rather than ideology. Or, that they are indeed motivated by ideology, but not the one we speak of.

  5. Was Cheney going against any campaign promise she made?

    Did she campain on holding conservative positions? Following the consistution? Doing what she thought was best? Did she stop doing any of this?

    Did she campaign on protecting Trump no matter what?

    Doing what you said you would, even if voters now have new priorities, then getting fired for it seems like a fine way for things to go.

    When everyone’s grandkids learn about this time in the future, is there any doubt about who will be the role model and who will be the villian?

    • She most certainly did not campaign on canceling Donald Trump no matter what, which is what she’s doing now.

      Is the villain the one who lies about intentions?

    • @David, “When everyone’s grandkids learn about this time in the future” – LOL. How much your grandkids know about NY Rockefeller Republican stalwart Jacob Javitz elections?
      Do you really buy Liz Cheney comparison of self with Abraham Lincoln? There are big differences between them: Republicans voted for Abraham Lincoln and Democrats hated him. It is opposite for Liz Cheney. Comparison of Trump and Lincoln are more warranted. Liz Cheney is better compared to the only surviving child of Abraham Lincoln, Robert Lincoln, who become a multi-millionaire and president of chairman of the board of Pullman Car Company through his political position.

  6. Somebody tell me the Republican platform other than “kiss Trump’s ass faster and deeper”.

  7. Here’s an interesting “Letter to the Editor” from the LA Times. We hear all the time about the alleged phenomenon of blue-staters moving red states to turn them blue and bring their policies with them. I’ve been met with various shades of denial when I mentioned this phenomenon to blue staters, “…that’s just another red state myth…it’s because the people who are already there think our Progressive policies are better…”

    Now it’s in print, endorsed as a valid option by the editors of the Los Angeles Times (incidentally, it’s harder to find a better example than this string of Letters to illustrate the diametrically opposite, living-in-different-universes views of Redstaters and Bluestaters):

    “To the editor: For some perspective on Cheney’s loss in the Wyoming primary, it might be useful to look at the actual numbers.

    While Cheney did lose by a significant percentage, she lost by fewer than 65,000 votes. **A relatively small number of California Democrats could change Wyoming from red to blue by simply moving to that state. Over the next few years, 100,000 or so Californians could change the balance of the Senate.** (emphasis mine).

    So, Californians, join the Democrats already living in Wyoming and make a difference.”

    The LA Times is cute enough to publish this letter without comment but they don’t rebut it, either, or follow it up with a counter-suggestion.

    So there you have it. “Saving Democracy” means the explicit use of migration and immigration (depending on what kind of non-illegal person you are) to permanently alter the electoral demographics of entire states at a time. I wonder if the Californians who try it will refer to themselves as Asylum Seekers?

    I also wonder whether the remaining Wyoming Republicans who voted for Cheney will thank her for giving this idea to their Californian friends? Looks like they might all be out of luck in a few years if enough folks take advice from D. Wright from Long Beach. Great job!

    • Alex: If you assume that Progressives vote as they do out of religious faith or ideological belief, the plan that you cite could work. If you assume, however, that Progressives vote for bigger government out of self-interest, the plan falls apart. The Progressive who works for a university, for example, votes to expand the government that showers his/her/zir/their university with money. If the Progressive quits that job and moves to work in private industry in Wyoming, he/she/ze/they will no longer benefit from a larger government and may no longer vote for Democrats. The Progressive who pays 13% state income tax in California will vote for deductibility of state income tax against federal taxes (though this feature of the tax code benefits the rich and goes against everything that Progressives say that they want). Once in Wyoming, which lacks a state income tax, the same Progressive may not be enthusiastic about paying for New York and California state/city governments via this scheme.

      In short, if Progressive claims to moral superiority are empty, just as their commitments to housing the unhoused and welcoming migrants have proven to be, the plan falls apart. Progressives vote differently from conservatives, for sure, but generally their self-interest is different.

      A reminder to look at for the Progressive CEO who claimed moral superiority to conservative CEOs. Why do we assume that Progressive voters on average are any different? (other than being poorer and, therefore, not as able to reel in the young cash-oriented females)

    • @philg: I’m no theologian, most especially not a Harvard Divinity school graduate, but I think the former.

      “If you assume that Progressives vote as they do out of religious faith or ideological belief, the plan that you cite could work. If you assume, however, that Progressives vote for bigger government out of self-interest, the plan falls apart.”

      I don’t *believe* that or assume it, either. I just tend to think it’s true based on my accumulated experience, and I doubt myself often enough to self-correct. I think their self-interest is aligned in our particular moment in history with their “religious faith or ideological belief.” That’s what I’ve seen, and what I continue to see while I try to be as unbiased as possible.

      It’ll be interesting to see what happens if 100,000 Californian liberals decide to make the trek to Wyoming and ask them how, when and if their belief system has changed.

      Ultimately though, as far as Dan Price is concerned, he reminds me of a guy I once knew who was similar not just in his “values” but also in his physical appearance and charisma, at a Pretty Good School. His nickname was “Jesus.” The most important thing I noticed about him is that liked to fuck a lot of different chicks, he had a very cool vibe, was a superchick talker, and every time you turned around, it seemed, he was fucking some new chick who was really into him. Great talker, had money, big dick too, and a very Progressive “Jesus” kind of outlook and mien. Some guys are lucky that way until they step on a landmine.

      It’d be interesting to know how many chicks Price has laid. Looks like one of them finally said: “Listen, Jesus: now’s MY time.”

    • And BTW I apologize for mixing the subjects from two posts, but I’m very sure that we actually have multiple non-religious, quasi-religious belief systems people adhere to and guide them all the time in their thinking and voting. I’ve been seen as a heretic for saying a single sentence to a person here in MA who has a different politico-religious belief system, and in truth that’s what they are.

      This is why you usually have to accept the “whole enchilada” of issues that go along with party adherence in this country. You cannot pick and choose, in the same way that at one time you could not be a Roman Catholic and support contraception.

      We could debate every single issue that both parties claim to support until the end of the Earth and it would be a total Elephant Shit discussion, pointless. You either take all of it or nothing; you either adhere or you switch sides.

      You’re an independent kind of guy who enjoys analyzing differently, one topic at a time. That’s now how our world works, as far as I can tell, but I understand why you do it: You have a 150+ IQ.

    • Sorry, “…that’s NOT how our world works…”

      And people with money will believe whatever their local herd of wealthy friends believe. They’re all subject to the same peer pressure, except even more acute, because they will lose STATUS if they say the wrong things or think the wrong things. I have at least one relative who has succumbed to this way of “get-along” thinking because he’s got a lot of other important things to worry about and it’s a whole lot less trouble to just agree and go along.

    • And I have at least some anecdotal evidence to prove that, because before Mike Bloomberg ran for President, he wasn’t going to run and talked about the “Crime Bill” that Biden had voted for. He was quoted as saying that none of the Liberals ever read it, and if they had read it, they would think it was pretty good.

      I think that’s true right now. People get all their voting advice from other “influencers” they trust, and most of them don’t read a goddamned thing, or understand it. It suffices that it is part of the political liturgy they will recite.

      Nothing has changed. Human beings do not change very quickly. What we are seeing is the rise of a group of belief systems that people must adhere to. You can’t tell a MAGA guy that Trump ever made any mistakes! Not one! Same thing with a Chuck Schumer liberal. They don’t have the time, energy or brains to read things, they RECEIVE that knowledge and the instructions about how to act on it from people they BELIEVE IN.

      Not complicated. Humans are still the same people they were in ancient times. Computer technology changes fast. People don’t. You crush one belief system you have to replace it with something else. That’s why Greta is there in the airport.

    • If you’d like to gauge how truthful Mike Bloomberg can be, before he became so scared to death of the Trumpenfuhrer, look here and listen to him in Bermuda, starting at about 0:48.

      Of course, Beto is a really a Hüsker Dü punk, not a “smart guy” and Bloomberg subsequently ran for President despite saying that there was no path for him to do it.

      It’s just a continuous bath of changing “narratives” that comes from everyone from top to bottom. All lies, half-truths, situational ethics, political ass-covering and quasi-religious belief systems. It’s tough for me to get along in this world, it must be even more difficult sometimes for you.

      Go out to about 0:48 here:

    • Finally, totally off-topic, but a little bit of “Local Color” perhaps:

      There once was a woman named Melanie Sloan who was at one time a Chuck Schumer E. Cheese staffer and one of the leaders of C.R.E.W. She found it could be too much of a screw. So they founded American Oversight, a (hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaah) nonpartisan group. With a different name so nobody notices, she’s now a “Senior Advisor.”

      The really sophisticated Commies are so far ahead of the bumbling and stupid Republicans and Conservatives that the latter have totally fucked themselves, in my estimation. They don’t know how to glue a majority together even among people who think pretty much the same way. Idiots!

      But the Donks do.

Comments are closed.