Backlash Against Liz Cheney

Plus: The timeline for Trump's second impeachment trial starts to take shape.

By
121

Good morning. In a stunning violation of norms, the Senate is in session on a Friday.

Democrats officially took unified control of the White House and Congress this week, with President Joe Biden’s inauguration and the swearing in of two new Democratic senators, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, on Wednesday.

New Sen. Alex Padilla also took office, filling Vice President Kamala Harris’ former Senate seat representing California.

The Senate has begun considering Biden’s Cabinet secretaries, holding confirmation hearings for several key positions this week. On Wednesday, the chamber overwhelmingly approved Avril Haines to serve as director of national intelligence. Senators will vote this morning on whether to confirm retired Gen. Lloyd Austin as secretary of defense.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
121
By
Comments (121)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    DonC

    Knocking off Cheney, and then Sasse and then Meijer, and then the few others that can form complete sentences likely cements the end of conservatism in the Republican party as I know it. As someone registered as an independent and considers himself conservative (more fiscal than social), I find nothing appealing about the Trumpian core of the Republican party. I can't consider the party conservative if they fail to see that conserving the laws outlined in the Constitution as job-1. My hope is that a Trump without Twitter cuts off oxygen from the Q-Anon/Proud Boys inferno wing of the party and we can slowly return to the core ideas of conservatism. Reading the behavior of local and state GOP towards those like Cheney, however, puts downward pressure on that hope.

    Collapse
  2. Joe1776

    What a huge waste of time and resources.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin M. James

      Still, the Constitution requires us to have a Congress even so.

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        It doesn’t require them to impeach a president that already left office. This is supposedly done in defense of democracy. But the only reason is out of fear of democracy. Many just fear he will run again and that democracy they all claim to protect won’t give them the result they want. The irony is thick.

        Nor does it require republicans to argue about Cheney. Maybe I misunderstand though. Does she have any real power by being a senior Republican? Or is all this just posturing as well?

        Collapse
        1. Joe1776

          Edit it reminds me of the Cadaver synod.

          https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/cadaver-synod-exhumed-corpse-pope-formosus-was-put-trial-007104

          Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    It seems to me the responsible/centrist Republicans could approach the responsible/centrist Democrats and form a coalition. Something like:

    You disavow the jackass radicals in your party, we disavow the jackass radicals in our party and we come together on a couple big ideas. Get Joe Biden to sign off and start governing like damned adults.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    Cheney represents the will of 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 voter, at any rate. Or don't I count?

    Wait, isn't McCarthy a Trump defender? And yet his objection is about an offense consisting of "style"?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Amanda

    I rang Cheney's Washington office today to tell the chap that answered the phone that I support her, whatever those morons (though I didn't say that word) who want to rebuke and/or oust her think. The fact that I am not a Wyoming constituent is neither here nor there: as I told him, 'I am a voter, I'm a Republican, and I'm an American, and I support Liz Cheney'.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Donald Trump still exercises absolute control over the Republican party.

    Yes, 17 Republican Senators might not vote their approval of the 1/6 insurrection, but that will leave 33 Republican Senators who will.

    And even getting that many is a stretch right now.

    Anybody thinking Trump--and the violence--is just going to "go away" now that Trump is out of office should think again. He is as powerful within the party as he ever was.

    Collapse
    1. Seth

      I am hopeful that his power and influence may be less durable than it appears. I think his "Stop the Steal" campaign, filled with daily promises of "shocking and incontrovertible evidence" that never materialized, and his waffling response after the riot damaged his strongman brand considerably. For the most extreme supporters, his backing down and condemning the rioters, and passing on granting them any pardons undermined his "never stop fighting" image.

      My Trumpy acquaintances have almost entirely stopped posting Trump memes and propaganda on social media in the last couple weeks. Many have switched to uplifting Bible verses. I'm glad they've moved on to better material, but sad that God was their Plan B.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin M. James

        Some of mine kept at it through the inauguration (the "sure, look at all the downvotes to the official YouTube livestream and tell me again how Biden won" meme was a particular gem); now they've all transitioned to sharing every conceivable post that blasts/belittles/demonizes/preposterously and pettily criticizes Biden and Pelosi and the rest.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kmregan7

          Do we have the same friends? LOL....in all seriousness, I guess that's slightly better even if highly annoying.

          Collapse
  7. Nicco

    Haley,
    I’ve appreciated the addition of Uphill to the Dispatch newsletter lineup. Any chance we’ll be hearing you on The Dispatch Podcast (or even your own) any time soon?

    Collapse
    1. Seth

      I second this!

      As we all move beyond the past 4 years of Trumpy insanity, I think more discussion and debate about the legislation coming through Congress would be really great.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Michael Darwin

    Maybe I'm hairsplitting with McCarthy, but I can justify the differences in the two statements (I think - feel free to correct me. Soft language is not required).

    "Bears responsibility for the riots." Trump spent two months whipping up his followers into a fury that he hoped might a) overturn the results, b) keep his base energized and with him past 2020, and c) to rake in donations to "stop the steal". He did not intend for this to turn violent, but he lit the match. Had he accepted the results of the election, urged his voters to accept the outcome and fight back in 2022 and 2024 at the ballot box instead of the Capitol steps in January, there would not have been violence.

    "I don't believe he provoked if you listen to what he said at the rally." I wasn't there. Context matters. There is atmosphere and non-verbal cues that may be damning that I missed. But the text I read sounds like boilerplate protest rally stuff. It is what happened after that adds a different context to it. The question is whether that was Trump's intent? If what I've read is true a number of those nutjobs were already planning to storm the Capitol long before that rally. One can believe that Trump was speaking figuratively, and his followers took him literally. So it was, arguably, not his intention to provoke them into violence. They came prepared to do that anyway.

    I'm not generous to Trump. I think he is an ignoramus. He tapped into something he didn't understand, didn't care to understand, wound it up and let it go thinking it would benefit him - benefit his fame, benefit his power, benefit his influence, and benefit his bank account. It backfired horribly because he is a child playing with a power tool but I don't believe he intended to cause the riots (I'm also not convinced he cared much after it happened either).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Matmos

      Personally I think the refusal to intervene for many hours, refusing to send National Guard, releasing a statement supporting the cause and saying “I love you” also need to be taken into account - it’s not like he was like “That’s not what I meant at all!”

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Michael Darwin

        I agree. I don't believe the fact that he probably didn't intend for the rabble to storm the Capitol Building lets him off the hook. I have never thought the man fit for office, but simply his action after the election, his almost total effort to overturn a legal election (during a pandemic) and spreading misinformation and outright lies to the American people betray some mix of ignorance, incompetence and corruption that should have had him removed.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Michael Darwin

    So are we to believe that Cheney acted out of political self interest, but those voting against impeachment took a stand solely on principle? It is a political calculation for all of them. They can't help it - do that job and weighing political consequences is a reflex action - and I'm sure that some actually ignored that analysis and voted their conscience, but the vast majority gambled on which way they expect the GOP winds to be blowing in 2022.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Michael Darwin

    The National Security Act of 1947 is what prohibits Generals from serving as SecDef for seven years after retiring. Little known fact: It is called the National Security Act of 1947 because it was passed in 1947. They then waited a full three years - three! - before waiving it for Marshall in 1950. Either there was a massive change in the legislative body after the 48 elections, or they didn't take it too seriously.

    Collapse
    1. Seth

      Marshall was a figure above most of that era, though. Our nation is probably fortunate that he wasn't interested in seeking more power.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Bill Nelson

        Marshall was definitely a unique and special individual, recognized by all.

        Collapse
Load More