From CNN: Liz Cheney vows to carry on fight against Trump after conceding defeat in Wyoming primary

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

63 Responses

  1. Jacob
    Ignored
    says:

    This may not be 100% attributable to her opposition to Trump. Hard to tease out which effect is stronger, but Hagerman is a more “Wyoming” candidate.

    Better explained here: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/running-to-unchain-wyoming/Report

    • Philip H in reply to Jacob
      Ignored
      says:

      What’s interesting tome in that assessment – and notably overlooked by the author – is Cheney’s voting record is decidedly conservative and in support of positions Hagemann asserts are pro-Wyoming.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Honestly, if it reminds me of anything, it reminds me of how Rowling is treated.

        Was she a treasured author? Was she a feminist author?

        Absolutely!

        But. Well, you know. There are things that trump being an important part of one’s childhood and feminism. And pointing out how she was regularly on the side of goodness and truth and light doesn’t really make up for the stuff that is important.

        But remember when Christians were saying “don’t read Harry Potter!” back in the 90’s? LOL. Good times.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Actual feminists are not threatened – as JK Rowling apparently is – by transwomen.

          And alleged Christians opposing the Harry Potter series was all about opposing magic and witches and sorcerers. Which they have been frighteningly consistent on for several hundred years.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            If you can see why Rowling is not embraced by the community despite being mostly good on most things, I think that you may be able to see why Cheney might not be embraced by the Wyoming community despite a decidedly conservative voting record.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Yes, a good comparison.

              Rowling committed an unforgivable transgression by being intolerant of trans people.

              Cheney committed an unforgivable transgression by supporting the rule of law.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                While I’m sure that the choir is on board, I’m not sure the heathen will have it correctly communicated that their concerns have been understood.

                That’s the problem with having different cultures around, I guess. Different people having different meta-ethics.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What meta-ethics do you think are in play when a person who votes for things supported by her constituents and against things they don’t support – which is Cheney’s record – is removed from office because she won’t give public fealty to someone who is demonstrably not supportive of anyone other then themselves?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I think it has something to do with “tribal membership”.

                If you want a good example of someone who does an excellent job of constantly and continually communicating tribal membership, I’d point you to Chip.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              You assume I haven’t seen it all along. My problem with the narrative that Cheney wasn’t paying attention to her state is the same as my problem that Rowling is a feminist – its not actually true under event the most minimal scrutiny. That Wyoming preferred to avoid the scrutiny it as telling as Rowling preferring not to be scrutinized.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure that the narrative is that “she’s not paying attention to her state!” as much as “she’s not representing Wyoming”.

                “But she’s voting conservative more than 90% of the time!”

                Yes. Heck, you could make that 99.44%.

                “Therefore, she should have been embraced!”

                I neither agree nor disagree with that. I merely see it as beside the point.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Wow it sounds rather complicated.

                Are you sure it isn’t as simple as, “She crossed Donald Trump?”

                Like, are you really sure?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m pretty sure that any conclusion that can be summarized as “the outgroup is venial” is probably more complicated than that.

                I mean, that’s almost always a good starting point whenever you see people argue that the outgroup is venial.

                This particular case doesn’t strike me as novel enough to leave “almost always”.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Are you sure “venial” is the word you want?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m using it to mean “sinful (but, like, they can reconcile themselves by coming to me and begging forgiveness)”.

                Is there a term you’d rather I’d have used?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Well you have to understand, it’s complicated…”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Select as needed:

                Liz Cheney was no angel.

                Liz Cheney was never a loyal Party member.

                Liz Cheney made a furtive movement.

                Liz Cheney fell out of a window.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure that the narrative is that “she’s not paying attention to her state!” as much as “she’s not representing Wyoming”.

                How fascinating. So your conclusion is that, despite the rest of her voting record, her refusal to cowtow to Trump is “:not representing her state” and thus a perfectly acceptable reason to turn her out?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I think that “she doesn’t represent me” is as good a reason as you’re going to find to not vote for someone to be your representative.

                And if Wyomans see her statements about Trump as signaling a disjoint between Cheney’s values and their own, then that’s as good a reason as any to vote for someone other than Cheney.

                “But they *SHOULD* like Cheney! Cheney agrees with them on most things!”

                It’s weird how there are little things that can signal “I’m not with you guys, I’m with those guys.”

                For example, I cannot believe how many fans of Cheney are to be found among the Democrats despite how she voted with Trump 91% of the time.

                It’s wacky.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What is the dispute here? Philip says Wyomingites who had previously found Cheney highly satisfactory voted against her solely because she refused to osculate Donald Trump. Jaybird says they voted against her because she no longer represented them. Not that they minded her (perfectly understandable) spending lots more time in Washington than in Wyoming before. What changed? She would have skated to a win if she had climbed on the Trump bandwagon and nobody seems to be saying anything different. Philip says something specific and useful; Jaybird raises the question to a higher, and less useful, level of generality.
                As for all Cheney’s alleged Democratic friends, remember a Republican President talking about the soft bigotry of low expectations? Cheney deserves, and has gotten, credit for getting one big thing right, but that doesn’t mean they are fans or supporters. One can acknowledge that Hitler loved dogs, after all.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s an echo of the “states rights” argument.

                “Its not about the Big Lie, it’s about her not representing our values!”

                “What are those values?”

                “To embrace the Big Lie!”Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I had had the same thought.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Personally, I think that if she had remained silent on the Trump thing (“no comment”), she’d have done well.

                The willingness to “go against” Trump signaled a bunch of stuff.

                See, for example, her new fans. They heard the dog whistle.

                We just seem to be surprised that Wyomans hear it too.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Who, exactly, was “surprised”? Just about everyone was predicting this result. And for the obvious reason.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Apparently the people who think “Team Good supports Cheney!” would not be a message heard loud and clear by Team Evil.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Wow, Liz Cheney supports the rule of law, even when it is her own party.”

                “GRRRR we are now compelled to vote against her! See what you makes us do?”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                RT IF YOU THINK THAT SOUNDS TRUEReport

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                based on the evidence in front of us, that’s the one change she made between her last election and this one in her policy stance . . . .Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                It involves stuff like “tribalism” and “is this politician likely to stab us in the back like the rest of the GOPe did for a few decades prior to Trump?”

                If you can wrap your head around why someone ostensibly “conservative” might feel betrayed by the GOPe, you might understand the mindset more.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, we understand it fully. Everyone does.

                No matter how many euphemisms you guys create, they are all describing the same thing.

                “Doesn’t represent our values”; “Stab us in the back “; “Go against Trump”;

                These all describe the one exact action she took, which was to refuse to embrace the Big Lia and provide excuses for the attempted coup.

                We get it. Everyone gets it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                As I said before: RT IF YOU THINK THAT SOUNDS TRUE

                Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes very true.
                There is nothing that can shake the Republicans loyalty to Trump.

                But this is actually strengthens my point since as has already been pointed out, there is only one area of disagreement between Cheney and Trump which is her refusal to embrace the Big Lie.

                She has only one point of contact with the Democrats which is her refusal to embrace the Big Lie.

                P.s. is someone keeping track of all the evershifting talking points for why Republicans reject anyone who doesn’t embrace the Big Lie?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                In the neighborhood, but closer to Jaybird’s stomping grounds:

                https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22157793-priola-statementReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                there is only one area of disagreement between Cheney and Trump which is her refusal to embrace the Big Lie

                That’s certainly one perspective.

                There are others.

                “No, there are not others!”

                That is one perspective.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                The other excuses perspectives must be highly classified which is why they cannot be divulged here.

                Hey, maybe we can read them in the Mar A Lago papers? I mean, after the Russians and Chinese are finished with them.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, it has to do with the attitudes of Team Evil when it comes to how they’ve been treated by the GOPe over the last, oh, couple of generations.

                It has to do with communicating Tribal Membership.

                Cheney is doing a great job of communicating that she is a member of good standing in Team Good.

                Team Good noticed. See the poll.

                Why do you expect that Team Evil would not have also done so?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You think makes the Wyoming Republicans look good?

                You’re telling us that the Wyoming Republicans chief reason to reject Cheney is spite, because liberals said nice things about her.
                Not that she voted the wrong way or changed her position on issues, but that the hated Outgroup said nice things??

                And this is their preferred excuse to the real reason which that shouldn’t lie for them?

                So the talking points are, No, we’re not venal, just petty and spiteful.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                “You think makes the Wyoming Republicans look good?”

                To whom?Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Wyoming Republicans, obviously.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                I imagine, from the perspective of a California Democrat in good standing, it looks pretty bad.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                I wish there were some actual Republicans on this site, so we could get their perspective on your Spiteful Not Venal theory.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Unfortunately the middle-of-the-road dems seem to have chased them off.

                More proof of their veniality, I guess.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And who, exactly, was that?
                You can’t just keep making s**t up.
                Well, yes you can.Report

      • Jacob in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Here’s a more clearly written assessment:

        https://thefederalist.com/2022/08/16/liz-cheney-is-no-martyr-just-another-rich-entitled-member-of-the-d-c-establishment/

        From the very beginning, Wyoming has known her to be an entitled carpetbagger, out for her own good, more concerned with raising her own image as the Anti-Trump than she was in taking care of what was important to them. Note the difference between “voting conservative” – which she surely does – and taking action on the issues revealed to matter to her constituents in polling. She thought the former would be enough, and it wasn’t.

        This is honestly great for her. No more pretending to like being in her district! Now she can go back to CNN appearances in preparation for her 2024 white house run, and never have to leave DC again.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jacob
          Ignored
          says:

          From the article:

          Wyoming voter Brett Kupec made short shrift of the talking point. “If that was the ‘rule of law,’ why doesn’t [Trump] have a defense team in that courtroom?” Kupec said. “That ain’t the rule of law. That’s a kangaroo court. That’s not the Wyoming way.”

          Which shows three things – first an ignorance (all too common) of what Congress does and why hearings are held; second, ignorance (probably willing) of the offers tot he former President to testify and clarify; and third, a willingness to grant the former President unlimited forgiveness for sins until convicted by a judge and jury.

          Republicans in Wyoming are concerned about inflation and high energy prices. They want someone who works for the state of Wyoming and its constituents and represents conservative values. And yes, they agree with the vast majority of Republican voters that Trump was a very good president who deserves credit for fighting the D.C. establishment that is destroying the country. They hate Cheney’s foreign policy and what it has done to national security.

          I’m not sure what the author thinks they are saying, but when you vote consistently with President Trump – as Cheney did 93% of the time he was in office, and you then vote the Heritage Foundation position on all the legislation presented in the Biden Administration, you are conservative. The only place she seems to have disagreed with her voters – and this author – is Trump.

          She’s not the hero that her media fans claim her to be. She’s also not a martyr. This is not some brave Wyomingite who stood strong on principle after she failed to persuade her constituents to follow her. Cheney has always used Wyoming and the Republican Party for personal ambition and to push discredited and politically toxic foreign policy.

          Ironically, this makes her extremely like the former President.Report

          • Jacob in reply to Philip H
            Ignored
            says:

            Granted, that pull quote from the voter ignorant of the impeachment process was kind of a weird flex.

            No one is questioning that she’s conservative. I’m not arguing that she’s a RINO or a closet lefty. The point of BOTH articles is that “conservative” is not a monolith, and that voters are not obligated to re-elect their incumbent just because she is a good “conservative”. There is a DC conservatism and a Wyoming conservatism, Cheney was and is clearly the product of the former, and the voters of Wyoming wanted the latter.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Jacob
              Ignored
              says:

              When you look at her voting record, and the significant size of her previous win, I really don’t think this was anything beyond her refusal to back Trump. Until that moment she was as effective for Wyoming politically as any other Congressman in the state’s history.

              And yes, Wyoming Republicans are certainly in their rights to throw her out on those grounds. I just happen to be of the mind that they should be honest about that, instead of hiding behind hollow rhetoric about her not support or representing her state. Which she had been doing quite effectively until January 6th 2021.Report

              • Jacob in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Here’s where I think we’re talking past each other. I’m not arguing that she wasn’t effective for Wyoming. I’m arguing that the distaste for her among Wyomingites goes beyond her self-aggrandizing anti-Trump grandstanding.

                Is that distaste tribal ingroup/outgroup signaling? Almost certainly. I don’t think it’s based in policy, or in her voting record (although she did sign on to some pro-contraceptive and pro-gay marriage legislation right before the primary, which maybe wasn’t the best move). But I also don’t think it’s solely due to her anti-Trump positions.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jacob
                Ignored
                says:

                in 2020 she was received 68.8% of the vote in the general election and 73.5% of the Primary vote. in 2018 She received 63.8% of the general election vote and 67.3% of the primary vote. In 2016 she was elected to office with 62 % of the general election vote after managing a squeaking plurality primary where 39.9% of Republicans was all she needed to make it to public service. So once she got into office she enjoyed solid support – until she refused to back Donald Trump.

                Has her electorate shifted under her? Apparently. But this notion that she was somehow distasteful for any non-Trump related reason isn’t matched by the available statistics.Report

  2. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    No. Just a matter of trying to figure out what you are trying to say, which is often difficult and rarely worth the effort. Your self-translation is as obscure as the original.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
      Ignored
      says:

      I’ll simplify, then.

      I’m pretty sure that any conclusion that can be summarized as “the outgroup is bad” is probably more complicated than that.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The problem is that sometimes they really are bad.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        This isn’t true, at all.

        You routinely describe liberals as Bad People who are hypocrites who don’t follow their own principles, and are only interested in “crab bucketing” their way to power over conservatives.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
          Ignored
          says:

          I do? My goodness!

          Surely this is something you can document rather than being something you’ve made up entirely!

          “Here’s an example of you claiming that these particular liberals are crab bucketing against other liberals!”

          “I was hoping for an example of the thing you said I said.”Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            When you accuse liberals of tribal signaling or crab buckets, you are calling them Bad People, or hollow people as you put it, lacking principle but merely desiring status and power.

            Liberals are your Outgroup, which you can’t tolerate.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Oh, is that the case?

              Fascinating.

              What if I said “no, you’re wrong”?

              Would you interpret me saying “no, you’re wrong” as me calling *YOU* a “Bad Person”?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Most of us would, yes.

                That’s why, for instance, when I want to lambaste Republican politicians in a comment or post, I use the term “Republican politicians.” Or when I want to critcize Democratic Politicians I call them “Democratic Politicians.” Or when I want to call out your convoluted writing style I use the name “Jaybird.”

                Things have names for a reason. Using the word “you” in any dialogue is meant to refer to the person you are dialoguing with.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                I have no problem with someone saying “when Jay said ‘you’re wrong, he was talking to me'”.

                I disagree that me saying “you’re wrong” means “you’re bad”.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird, surely you know that bad is wrong and wrong is bad, and good is right and right is good.

                That’s about all these people can handle. Anything more complicated is like asking Violent J to talk to a scientist.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird, surely you know that bad is wrong and wrong is bad, and good is right and right is good.

                While I know you were attempting to be snarky – what with calling me and Chip and others “these people,” instead of using our names and all – things that are bad are in fact wrong, and things that are wrong, are in fact bad. Now there are definitely layers and levels to bad and wrong, but those words have meaning which relates one inextricably to the other.

                One does not, for instance, speak of a wrong thing being good or a bad person being right.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.