cult of personality, Donald Trump, Elise Stefanik, joe biden, Kevin McCarthy, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, RINOs, Steny Hoyer, the stupid party, Wyoming
As regular readers know, I’ve been writing about the number three Republican in the House of Representatives, Liz Cheney, for some time now. As a recently resettled resident of Wyoming, this is a matter of some interest to me as Cheney is Wyoming’s sole Representative. To find everything I’ve written on her, enter “Liz Cheney” into the SMM homepage search bar.
It now seems certain another attempt to oust Cheney from her leadership position is imminent. The last attempt failed, but it is much more likely another will not.
Cheney is not only very unpopular in Wyoming, she continues to alienate her House colleagues, calling them, among other things, “neo-Marxist,” and accusing them of supporting insurrection, lying about the 2020 election—because they aren’t generally willing to call it an entirely fair and honest election—and even denying the Holocaust(?!).
In anticipation of the upcoming ouster attempt, a number of politicians on both sides of aisle have been commenting, as Breitbart.com notes:
‘I think Liz Cheney’s greatest offense apparently is she is principled and she believes in the truth,’ [House Majority Leader, (D-MD) Steny] Hoyer told the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty on Wednesday.
Translation: she supports D/S/C narratives and is willing to attack fellow Republicans.
‘She’s obviously a very conservative Republican from the state of Wyoming, so it’s not a question of ideology,’ Hoyer continued, contending it is a ‘question of cult.’
Wyomingites disagree it’s not a question of ideology. They haven’t figured out exactly what Cheney’s ideology is, but they’re pretty certain it isn’t theirs.
‘It’s a question of cult of personality — that if you’re not 1,000 percent for Donald Trump, somehow you’re not a good Republican, you’re not worthy of being in the leadership,’ he said.
‘It is a shame that the party has fallen to the place where a Liz Cheney, as I said, principled, committed to the truth, and a conservative Republican, is somehow not accepted as a leader in the Republican Party,’ he added.
Republicans aren’t poised to remove Cheney from leadership because she’s a conservative Republican, but because she’s not. The idea support for Donald Trump is some sort of cult is nonsense and projection. Normal Americans appreciated Trump as President because he kept his promises, spoke honestly, and was willing to fight for America and Americans. It is D/S/Cs that worship politicians and think them god-like, transformative figures. In addition, Cheney is repeating D/S/C talking points in her attacks on her fellow Republicans, which is not something acceptable in the person holding the number three Republican leadership position in the House.
This—for Cheney—isn’t good:
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has also broken from Cheney in recent days, caught on a hot mic stating he ‘lost confidence’ in the Republican Conference Chair.
‘I think she’s got real problems,’ McCarthy reportedly told Fox and Friends co-host Steve Doocy. ‘I’ve had it with… I’ve had it with her. You know, I’ve lost confidence… Well, someone just has to bring a motion, but I assume that will probably take place.’
Here’s what I mean about Trump:
Former President Trump has also blasted Cheney in recent days, effectively endorsing [Rep. Elise] Stefanik to replace her.
‘Liz Cheney is a warmongering fool who has no business in Republican Party Leadership,’ he said in a Wednesday statement:
‘We want leaders who believe in the Make America Great Again movement, and prioritize the values of America First. Elise Stefanik is a far superior choice, and she has my COMPLETE and TOTAL endorsement for GOP Conference Chair. Elise is a tough and smart communicator!’
Rep. Steve Scales has it right:
Perhaps the best indicator of how to vote, or what to believe is to listen to D/S/Cs and vote and believe precisely the opposite of what they say, Temporary President Gropin’ Joe Biden, being the primary example:
To be fair, there’s not much Biden does understand these days. The disgraced Lincoln Project, is another example:
And then there are certain “Republicans” that fall into that category, such as this squish who was recently booed and heckled at a Utah state GOP Convention:
The true test of character might be thought to be who hates us. If D/S/Cs and RINOs don’t hate you, it’s time for a bit of introspection. In the case of Liz Cheney, that’s obviously true, and should guide any Republican who actually supports the Constitution and puts America first. But of course, they are, with good cause, known as “The Stupid Party”…
My understanding is that she has neglected the fundraising aspect of her position with the party. This seems to have been the straw…
It would be tough to keep the job when the Number 1 and 2 people in the H of R from her party want her gone.
Her name recognition got her the seat, her father having held it for many years.
It won’t help much based on her actions and comments. She really seems to think people still will support her.
Mike McDaniel said:
That’s as I understand it as well. It’s not a matter of anyone denying her the right to an opinion, but when one is a member of party leadership, one can’t express opinions opposite those of the leadership, to say nothing about insulting fellow Congressmen and constituents. Wyomingites are not amused.
Not being a Wyoming-ite, nor a current member (anymore) of any party calling itself Republican (as of now, in-name-only)… I’ve been hearing/reading for days that Cheney’s Conservative voting record is 80% while Stefanik is something like 45%… as any educator would rate that an “F”. Seems like a fair performance for Cheney’s loyalty to what used to be called Republican Conservatism. If indeed Cheney has not been performing in her job as required by the Republican Party, like beating the drum and raising money effectively, and this alleged “new leadership” is calling the shots now, that’s one thing. But we all know it’s all about Trump and the cult of personality because he controls the money and feeds all the conspiracies his poor-me base loves. But hey.. traditional Republican Conservatism is out-the-door now, and time to purge those with a traditional conscience.
The funny thing is Doug, the term “RINO” has been around a long time. Since the 90’s at least. It’s been used to describe politicians that keep getting elected due to their connections, wealth, and institutional inertia.. that Republicans kept voting for even though they were despised. The current leadership of the Republican party (Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Mitt Romney, and yes, Liz Cheney) have long been despised by a significant portion of their voter base. I distinctly remember despising McCain even as I cast my ballot for him, and likewise I was none-too enamored of voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket. I did so despite my personal distaste for their brand of “bipartisanship” – which consisted of giving the Democrats a large chunk of whatever they demanded and getting nothing in return for their voters. I mean, aside from personally enriching themselves, these Republocrats could be consistently counted on to lose votes by the narrowest of deliberate calculated margins on anything important, fail to advance any bills in the interest of their constituency, and generally get paid to do at best, nothing. At worst to actively work against their constituents.
For the longest time we were told that this is just how it is. That the alternative was worse. Hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil.
in 2015 I had already resolved that If the Republican party nominated Chris Christie or another member of the Bush Dynasty I would not vote whatsoever. Then Trump came along. Trump was a giant middle finger to the RINO Republocrat establishment. You seem to think Conservatives worship Trump – no. Trump just represented an alternative to a system that is so corrupt that our votes are meaningless.
Liz Cheney and her ilk do not give a fig about the Constitution. They are there because they view themselves as part of the elite aristocracy. They deserve to rule over the rest of us, the poor, miserable deplorables. A man (or woman) is measured not just by the quality of their friends, but of their enemies as well. By that measure Liz Cheney and the other RINOS like her are thrice judged, and found guilty in action, word, and association. She and the other warmongering RINO’s who are in favor of wars everywhere that’s none of our business, mass importation of foreign labor to drive wages down to the poverty level, and general worship of profit at the expense of our nation are the worst of traitors.
THAT is why so many Republicans voted for Trump. THAT is why we are furious with a Republican party that is eager to get back to business as usual.
No. We’re not playing that game anymore.
Now THAT is an honest explanation.. and THAT is pretty much how I understood the typical Trump supporter. In fact, I have met many with the same or similar opinion through life.,, even have a best friend who often lamented similar feelings back in the 60’s and 70’s.
But while you’ve succinctly stated your reasoning.. I am curious who in this blog will completely or partially agree with you… or can add to it.
For me as an American my concern what the Trump’s 2016 win illustrated is that your feelings are shared by a much larger political demographic than even I expected. That being said, a lot of Trump votes in ’16, while not a populist majority, included those that simply hated Hillary more personally but maybe didn’t go along with Trump to your personal degree.
I personally don’t agree with your perceptions but to me that really doesn’t matter as much as recognizing your feelings are held by so many Americans that do not feel represented. From what you said it seems you need a new political party.. not a re-make or re-cycle, or trying to piggy-back, with a Republicanism you equally despise. Why fight your battle on two fronts… trying to convert the existing Republican Party to a “new” cause and at the same time organizing/unifying the base? That’s more a rhetorical ask.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear optimistically pessimistic:
I quite agree. I’d just add a primary reason Normal Americans don’t like the politicians you’ve named, and others, is their lack of actual fidelity to the Constitution. People like John McCain were also horrible people, cruel, angry and vicious, not only to whoever they thought an enemy, but to the American people.
One primary difference between D/S/Cs and Normal Americans remains Normals do not remotely worship politicians. We vote for very flawed people because D/S/C choices are even worse. And even if we can vote for a Republican candidate with fewer reservations than usual, we keep a very close eye on them.
Mike McDaniel said:
As I keep explaining, Normal Americans don’t do cults of personality. We distrust all politicians too much for that. We’re not the ones publishing photos of our “gods” with halos around their heads. Good Lord, they’re actually doing that with Biden!
Normals are working to restore more or less traditional conservatism against great odds. Much of the Stupid Party isn’t.
Then let me ask this.. your struggle (and I am using that collectively as defined by OP above, not necessarily you personally) you say is a battle against great odds. I am assuming those “great odds” is the bulk of the population/voters not aligning with your opinions.. or you referring mostly to GOP leadership in general and the normal opposition with Democrats?
I guess I am wondering if “you” have the correct message why is it a minority at the ballot box?
Mike McDaniel said:
The struggle of which is speak is the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law. Too many D/S/Cs, and far too many Republicans–one is far too many–are proposing measures that are obviously unconstitutional, and they make little or no pretense otherwise.
I suspect, if we had a media that was honest rather than the propaganda arm of the D/S/C Party, most Americans would, once again, believe the primacy of the Constitution necessary. Sadly, that’s not the case.
I’m unconvinced that “message,” which is the fundamental, underlying message every American should embrace, and must embrace if America is to survive as a representative republic, is a minority opinion, election results notwithstanding. We may, unless the Stupid Party is even more stupid than usual, see just how majority that opinion is in 2022.
By who’s interpretation is the Constitution.. and the rule of law… being judged as not being followed? You’re suggesting that all branches of government are defying someone’s interpretation of the Constitution?
In the 240+ years of the nation at what point did all this go astray?
Mike McDaniel said:
Whose interpretation? Anyone who can read English. H.B.1 violates the Constitutional authority of states to conduct elections, and any attempt to make DC a state likewise violates the clear language and intent of the Constitution.
Law must be written in such a way as a person of normal intelligence can understand it. That’s why it’s so distressing, and dangerous, when elected representatives try to call the Constitution a ‘living document,” which means they can ignore or alter it to suit their whims. Such law is not law at all, and politicians that knowingly try to violate the law deserve more punishment than even the law provides.
Oh c’mon, Mike. Being a former educator you know very well that your students will all interpret any assigned reading very differently. Why would the Constitution be any different given it was created by humans who are demonstrably of infinite variety.. and opinion?
“Law must be written in such a way as a person of normal intelligence can understand it.”
I whole heartedly agree with that! Let’s start with the Constitution itself, shall we? I’m all for a complete re-write into updated contemporary English, grammar, and punctuation. But then we’d have to argue for decades what the original guys all meant in order to translate it all. No one would ever be satisfied.
BTW.. the Constitution being a “living document” has zero to do with your idea… “…they can ignore or alter it to suit their whims.” The Constitution itself doesn’t support that… how could anyone even do that. The fact the Founders created the document to allow for changes directly points to it being a living document.
As for H.B.1…. I’m not sure I understand your “worry” about this. It’s just a bill originated in the House. Gotta pass the Senate.. then the challenges in the court… and I have total faith that any court along the way.. even SCOTUS… will judge appropriately to the precepts of the Constitution. This thing is a far cry from being gospel… if at all in it’s original form, which likely not. You ticked off that the Dems even worked this thing up? Is not this the process for creating law.. to stand the scrutiny of debate on multiple levels and subsequent judicial review? Sure you can not like it.. and hate those that dared to create the thing… but unless you’ve fallen completely for Trumpian autocracy, this process is also the law of the land.
Mike McDaniel said:
C’mon yourself. One need not be a constitutional scholar/attorney to understand the plain text of the Constitution. And we elect representatives supposedly because they are adult and sufficiently educated, intelligent, and experienced not to need the kind of instruction and support a high school freshman needs. There are of course, exceptions, and many who simply ignore plain meanings for political ends.
There is also an enormous difference between the D/S/C concept of a “living document,” and the mechanisms the Constitution provides for lawful alteration. Proponents of a “living document,” for example, argue the Second Amendment’s “keep and bear arms” language means the opposite of its plain meaning because things have changed over two plus centuries and the Founders wouldn’t have written that plain language if they knew about AR-15s. Constitutionalists simply say if you want the Second Amendment to mean other than it’s plain meaning, you can pass a Constitutional Amendment, which the Founders made purposely difficult, which is why D/S/Cs would rather pretend plain language is its opposite. All that amendment nonsense is just too much trouble and those damned Normals aren’t smart enough to know how things really ought to be. Let them vote on things and they vote the wrong way!
You don’t understand my worry about H.B.1? It has passed the House, there is a 50/50 split in the Senate, and the passage of a companion bill in the Senate hangs on the vote of one D/S/C Senator. If he changes his mind, we no longer have even a pretense of election integrity.
Your faith in the courts is, arguably, misplaced. That’s a large part of the entire “living constitution” movement, and why D/S/Cs are threatening court packing. They see the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, as nothing more than a super legislature that will interpret, or ignore, the Constitution to their ends. There are more than enough judges currently on the bench that buy this philosophy, hence judge shopping.
Just curious, and certainly not setting you up to challenge…. have you had this general opinion most your life or was this evolutionary… which is more the case for most of us? Was wondering if these conclusions were realized as a result of your years wearing a badge. We are all, after all, just a collection of life experience and the old nature vs. nurture thing.
Mike McDaniel said:
As you say, we’re the sum of our experiences. More recently, the whining of various D/S/Cs to the effect that it’s impossible to understand the English of the Constitution, written in the late 1700s, therefore it’s perfectly legitimate to interpret it to say whatever they want it to mean, was more than annoying. Considering my 15 year-old students could, with a little assistance, read and understand the English of Shakespeare from the late 1500s, that’s a ridiculous assertion.
I think, as you might agree on some level, that reading, and even reading for comprehension, can be a far cry from reading for legal application, much less trying to interpret 18th century grammar at the same time. Yeah… the big dispute to illustrate this is the Second, of course. I own guns.. I enjoy guns. I simply do no see anything in the wording of the Second to indicate we can own guns outside of serving in a militia… and original meaning is entirely different and not “it’s a right to own a gun”. As I’ve said often, SCOTUS has decided otherwise and in pledging my allegiance to the Constitution I acknowledge all SCOTUS decisions as the law of the land. I believe and trust in the process. I cannot side with your cynicism regarding government… although I can understand the “Walter Mitty” approach to want to own a gun “just in case government goes too far.”. Yet the Constitution fails to describe where/when that line in the sand occurs that allows use of guns to make corrections, and who everyone is supposed to follow. This likely means a free-for-all once some pretender to the throne convinces the vulnerable “disenfranchised” that they should be afraid of something, and truth be damned.
Mike McDaniel said:
Of course the Constitution doesn’t specify the trip wire. Our founding documents do, however, make clear we the People, have the right to abolish an oppressive government and establish another. This is a very good thing.
No.. not “founding documents”. You don’t lump the Declaration and those Federalist Papers.. or any other published opinions of the day that expound governmental theory as some sort of “divine wisdom” we fall back on when Constitutional interpretation gets a tad dicey. The Constitution is the only document that was debated though representation, accepted and ratified by the individual states by majority. I believe Madison himself said the same thing when he was being constantly called upon to make Constitutional interpretation over the years because he simply was one of the “old guys” who helped create it… when his word carried no legal weight over SCOTUS.
Not sure where it says in the Constitution that we can overthrow a government alleged to not be following the Constitution… not when that line might be crossed. The Second Amendment was a preparedness to meet the possible dangers of England showing back up again (which they did later), or meet the threat from any other world power of the day, like France or Spain. That’s likely why it doesn’t say precisely that “Americans can own guns to overthrow the government that they do not like…. and by the way, the guns must stay in technological parity to that used by military.”
Mike McDaniel said:
One normally considers the Declaration and Constitution as the two primary founding documents. the Federalist Papers, Common Sense, and similar documents are usually considered part of the inspiration for the founding documents, as was the Declaration the inspiration for the Constitution.
Divine wisdom? Not if made by human hands, but I’ve no doubt of the Divine inspiration of the Founders. What are the odds many of the brightest men–and women–in history were in the Colonies at exactly the right time to bring together the collective wisdom of Man and produce the Constitution? I see God’s hand in that, and in much of American history, just as I see His hand in my life. Still, one need not profess any faith to appreciate the majesty and goodness of our Constitution.
I don’t deny in the spirituality that God is infinite and had a hand in creating our Constitution simply by creating the circumstances by which the Founding Fathers were able to create it. But I am not sure I’d go as far as to appreciate the “majesty and goodness” of the document as if it were to be held in some sort of reverence. Yes, absolutely it is arguably the most historic document created for self-rule in the history of mankind.. with an admirable 240 year of proven application that has created the most powerful and effective and benevolent country also in the history of mankind. It is a tool for governance, not a political “bible” or even a collection of political “best practices”. It took, and continues to take, dedicated Americans to apply it and adhere to its precepts and give the document life. Unlike you and the current Trumpian Conservative movement, I don’t tend to assign any side of this political divisiveness as trying to “tear down” the Constitution. All sides exist under it’s “protection”, which is nothing more than continuing to follow it. It’s a document that encourages compromise to set laws, and fairness to liberty to the individual in carrying out justice. In fact, it’s one thing to not trust a particular administration and how that distrust might spill over to various institutions of government that include political appointees, but to just plain blanket say, “I don’t trust government at all, ever.” is pretty much suggesting the Constitution doesn’t work. The Founders included the rules for making corrections when deemed necessary. But that’s my simple opinion… and the variety of opinions is the reason we defer to the Constitution.
Mike McDaniel said:
The Constitution does work, but only if everyone recognizes it as the supreme law of the land and do not knowingly try to subvert it. It was written, after all, by men who knew exactly how government goes bad. The Constitution is their attempt to restrain the worst facets of human nature, and to keep absolute power from corrupting absolutely. They did not trust government, so wrote the Constitution to limit it.
I do trust some politicians, and some governments–state and local–in general, but always keep an eye out, because I understand human nature.
As I’ve often said, if we don’t embrace that understanding of human nature, and the role of the Constitution in tempering it, the Republic fails. And yes, some people are trying to tear down the Constitution in a variety of ways. Surely you can see that?
Oh yes.. to be sure the Founders, the educated of their day, utilized what they knew about human nature and the extremes of an un-tempered, oppressive government, and created the Constitution to defy that outcome. But, in agreement to you, it’s not being aware of human nature that makes one presume that a document like the Constitution being in place and ratified by a majority, would not have its detractors or enemies along the way. The simple idea of “anarchy” playing a role of any number of civil unrest events in our history is a simple example.
But the real challenge is being able to separate simple difference of opinion from an outright agenda to upturn the Constitution. Someone wishing to control guns, for example, is labeled a “communist” and wants to destroy the Constitution. It’s also human to want to vilify another who doesn’t believe as you do in order to personalize a collective threat by giving such threat an identity or form to rally against. Case in point.. your use of the “D/S/C ” as a universal label of all that is bad with the country… up to, and including, wanting to “destroy” the Constitution. My whole point here is that we presume we are 240 years better educated than the Founding Fathers when in fact we are just human beings acting in the same old ways.. except we have electricity to amplify the chaos.
Yeah.. I realize there are Americans “out there” who would like to literally “tear down” the Constitution. Whomever they are, they don’t appear to be any sort of an organized threat… no apparent numbers who have misguided the public into electing them to office so that they can carry out their dastardly deedsy. If they try overtly or covertly I have faith in our legal system and institutions to guard us against groups working outside the system with the goal to to subvert the system. Now.. the Trumpian Conservatives seem to have all the answers and all the names. Perhaps you can share a few.. or a couple… or one… that is hell-bent on tearing down the Constitution… and showing your work… or how you reached that conclusion and perceived threat level to the nation, would be a plus.