RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/554951-of-martyrs-and-manipulators-liz-cheneys-pointless-spectacle

In American political life there is always a certain group of people who love the idea of martyrdom — not actual physical death (that might hurt), but electoral death: the “I’d rather be right than win” crowd. Rarely do these wannabe martyrs achieve real martyrdom, i.e., become heroes around whose memory millions rally. Instead, they mostly are forgotten, losers.

Which brings us to Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).

In years past, the third-ranking member of minority party leadership would be a barely noticed presence at the periphery of national politics. But, in a time where Donald Trump is the litmus test for everything, any Republican who will publicly criticize Trump is an instant folk-hero — even pro-life, anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-interventionist politicians. If you hate Trump, anything is possible.

Cheney’s martyrdom was well-planned. She purposefully agitated her colleagues. There are no reports she actually worked the GOP caucus, canvassing and counting heads. Cheney didn’t fight back, she planned to lose.

The reality is that Liz Cheney should not be in Republican leadership — and not because only Trump acolytes belong. The neocon politics of Cheney (and her father) is not just in eclipse, it’s practically dead. There is hardly any constituency in Republican politics for it.

The truly principled move for Cheney would have been to resign from leadership and not put her colleagues through the public relations meat grinder. After all, being in leadership means you have to at least generally represent the rest of the caucus. Cheney can still serve the voters of Wyoming as a rank-and-file member, retain her seniority and serve as a ranking member of committees (and be in line for a chairmanship if partisan control flips in 2022). She can even complain about Trump anytime and anywhere she wants.

But staging her own ersatz crucifixion opened the door to her own martyrdom and the avalanche of fawning publicity she craves. Too bad her time in the sun probably won’t last nor have much — if any — effect on Trump. 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/fake-outrage-over-cheney-ouster-dems-ousted-bernie-larry-elder/

House Republican leadership removed Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., from her leadership position, a position her indignant liberal defenders likely did not even know existed until days ago. Cheney became Republican roadkill when she not only voted to impeach then-President Donald Trump but also became a vocal critic of his alleged “big lie” about the 2020 election.

Cue the fake outrage by Democrats and the media.

A CNN headline read in part: “Ousted Cheney Warns Direction of the Party is ‘Dangerous.'” MSNBC wrote, “The GOP infighting reached a turning point after Republicans ousted Congresswoman Liz Cheney from her leadership position.”

PBS wrote, “In less than 20 minutes behind closed doors, House Republicans made their allegiance to former President Donald Trump clear by ousting … Cheney.”

The Washington Post said Cheney’s removal from leadership “offered the clearest sign yet of how far Republicans are willing to go to support or tolerate Trump’s lies about the election as well the degree to which many members are trying to rewrite the history of Jan. 6 to erase the former president’s culpability.” Never mind that for four years and counting, Hillary Clinton has referred to the 2016 election as “stolen” and then-President Trump as “illegitimate.” Two-thirds of Democrats believe that in 2016, the Russians changed vote tallies to defeat Clinton, despite the exhaustive Senate report that found zero evidence that the Russians succeeded in changing a single vote tally.

Bear in mind we were talking about Cheney, the daughter and ideological soul mate of the former Vice President Dick Cheney, who was labeled a “neocon” and loathed by the left. MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan praised Liz Cheney for “her stance against her own party,” but added: “But what about the argument that Liz Cheney herself isn’t a stranger to, quote/unquote, big lies? She backed the Iraq war. She denied Bush-era torture.” So, the left’s newfound love for Liz Cheney is, well, complicated. Note also that Cheney’s replacement has a more moderate voting record, a change that, in normal times, would please the average liberal.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/on-a-party-line-vote-house-democrats-reject-sanctions-on-overseas-hamas-supporters/?utm_

Another sterling moment in American legislative history: “Democrats blocked a bid to bring the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act up for consideration in a 217-209 vote along party lines. The bill, introduced by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., would impose sanctions on foreign entities known to have provided financial assistance to Hamas, among other measures.” The same bill passed the House unanimously in 2019, but was not taken up for a vote in the Senate. The U.S. currently has sanctions against Hamas itself and some limits on business dealings with the Palestinian Authority.

Still, there’s some evidence that Democrats who took this stance, opposing sanctions against Hamas supporters, are simply listening to their base. A new Trafalgar Group survey indicates that 38.5 percent of self-identified Democrats blame Israel for the current violence, 15.5 percent blame Hamas, about 6 percent each blame Iran and the Palestinian Authority, and 34.4 percent aren’t sure.

Meanwhile, 12.5 percent of self-identified Republicans blame Israel for the current violence, 42.5 percent blame Hamas, 14.6 percent blame Iran, 10.5 percent blame the Palestinian Authority, and 19.8 percent aren’t sure.

The Mast proposal forced Democrats’ hand. They could either take this action, and offer the potential of a genuine financial squeeze on Hamas, boxing in the Biden administration. Or the Democrats could look soft against a group launching rockets into civilian areas. (Maybe those Democrats saw an old photo of a Hamas rally and thought it was just Robert Byrd and Ralph Northam.)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/the-democrats-have-a-kamala-harris-problem/

It seems indisputable that the Democratic Party has a real interest in Harris being more popular than she is.

A mericans have never much liked Kamala Harris. Despite being theoretically well-placed to dominate the 2020 Democratic primary, she dropped out of the race in December of 2019 with just 3 percent support nationally and about 7 percent support in her home state of California. Now holding the vice presidency, Harris remains impressively unbeloved. Per a recent YouGov poll, her net approval rating is ten points underwater among all voters and 25 points underwater among independents, 44 percent of whom say they have a “very unfavorable” opinion. For a vice president to engender such feelings — especially at this stage in the cycle — is unusual, to say the least.

Still, that Harris is unpopular should come as no great surprise, given that she somehow manages to combine into a single package a transparent insincerity, an unvarnished authoritarianism, and a tendency toward precisely the sort of self-satisfied progressivism that helped the Republicans to limit their losses at the last general election. If her apologists wish to, they can pretend that the reaction Harris yields is “gendered” or “systemic” or “inequitable” or whatever other bastardized academic term is fashionable this week, and they should feel free to knock themselves out doing so. Deep down, though, they must know that America isn’t the problem here. The problem is that Harris is a phony. It remains the case that, throughout her entire public career, almost nobody has looked at Kamala Harris and thought, “Yes, she’s the person we need to lead us.” Sure, she’s won a couple of elections. But even in deep blue California, she has struggled. Her 2010 victory in the attorney general’s race was decided by just 74,000 votes out of more than 9.6 million cast, and ended up being so close that it took three weeks before the result was finally clear. There is a reason that, having been picked as Biden’s running mate, Harris was quickly shoved offstage.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/05/republican-royalty-has-been-dethroned-don-feder/

“Republican royalists are vestiges of a bygone era, living in exile, warmed by memories of a time when they were relevant. They need to be reminded of the adage – “Lead, follow or get out of the way.” Since they can’t lead and refuse to follow, that would leave exiting, stage left.”

The last few weeks have not been a happy time for the royalty which once ruled the Republican Party.

Liz Cheney lost her leadership role in the House Republican Conference. Mitt Romney was not met with overwhelming acclaim at the Utah Republican Convention. And former President George W. Bush did an interview which again demonstrated his irrelevance to both his party and the country.

The GOP’s royal families – the Bushes, Romneys and Cheneys — view the party as their patrimony. Romney is the son of a governor who ran for president in 1964.

Founded by Senator Prescott Bush, the Bush dynasty has included congressmen, governors and two presidents. Liz Cheney is the daughter of a vice president.

The Republican royalty despise Donald Trump. He may have Mar-a-Lago, but he’s not a member of their country club.

They feel that they and those like them should rule the realm. Trump has succeeded in touching the hearts of Middle Americans in ways they never could. Try to imagine Mitt Happens packing in 50,000 at a rally, or Bikers for Romney. Okay, you can stop laughing now.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/crenshaw-says-gop-cant-excommunicate-president-trump/

Representative Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas) appeared to caution against attempts to push former president Trump out of a position of influence within the GOP, in comments on MSNBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday.

Host Chuck Todd asked whether Crenshaw believed Trump was a “legitimate leader of the Republican party.”

“Hold on, I believe that you’re not going to excommunicate a former president, right?” Crenshaw responded. “I refuse to go into this sort of black and white thinking about, it’s either totally one thing or totally the other. These are complex human relationships that involve millions of people.”

Crenshaw also commented on the House GOP’s decision to oust Representative Liz Cheney (R., Wyo.) as GOP Conference Chair, by a voice vote on Wednesday. Cheney and colleague Adam Kinzinger (R., Il.) have continued to criticize Trump over his allegations that Democrats “stole” the election, and for his apparent refusal to help quell rioting at the Capitol on January 6.

“I refuse to allow this drama to engulf us. That’s what [Minority Leader] Kevin McCarthy was saying, and I fully agree with that,” Crenshaw said. “Look, I say this to Liz, and I say this to Adam: You’re not going to get the colleagues who believe in that stuff to apologize to you, to agree with you.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/meet-the-100-republicans-threatening-to-form-a-third-party/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=first

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported, “over 100 Republicans, including former officials, threaten to split from the G.O.P.

We can now see the list of 100 Republicans who “believe in pushing for the Republican Party to rededicate itself to founding ideals—or else hasten the creation of an alternative.” The list includes some well-known names like Anthony Scaramucci, Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh and Evan McMullin, and quite a few names that will not ring bells to most of the public. Connie Morella last served in Congress in 2003, and served as an ambassador until 2007. Arne Carlson was governor of Minnesota back in the 1990s. Christopher Bayley was the King County, Washington prosecuting attorney from 1971 to 1979.

It is far from clear that a warning from, say, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld that he’s thinking of leaving the GOP will sway the thinking of other Republicans; the man was the Libertarian Party nominee for vice president in 2016. In other words, the last time Weld left the GOP, the party thrived without him.

I asked Wednesday what form this group would take, as “successfully building a lasting and significant third party will require a gargantuan commitment of resources and a sustained Herculean effort.”

As of now, it appears this group is truly starting from scratch, with an open letter and a request for e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and zip codes.

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/05/06/the_dc_statehood_proposal_could_give_a_handful_of_people_three_electoral_votes_775920.html

Proponents of District of Columbia statehood believe this is their moment. The House of Representatives has approved H.R. 51, and the Senate might bypass the filibuster to send the proposal to President Joe Biden for his signature. But election questions plague the bill.

H.R. 51 would turn most of the District of Columbia into a state called “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth” (after Frederick Douglass). A remaining federal enclave consisting principally of the White House, the Capitol, and federal buildings around the Mall would become the seat of government called “Capital.”

While nearly everyone in the current District of Columbia would be moved to the new state, the new Capital would still have about 30 to 50 people living in it. And under the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, those few dozen people would have three electoral votes in presidential elections. Though the District of Columbia did not have representation in Congress, the amendment gave D.C. residents electoral votes equal to the smallest state in the country. States such as Vermont and Wyoming have three electoral votes; so does D.C.

If Douglass Commonwealth becomes a state, it gets two senators, at least one member of the House, and an equivalent number of electoral votes. But the remaining Capital residents are also entitled to three electoral votes in every presidential election. Critics of the Electoral College complain about the imbalance between small and large states, but this would be the most lopsided of all — Capital would have about 1/20,000th the population of Vermont. A sitting president’s family could change their voter registrations to Capital and have nearly unilateral control over three electoral votes.

It’s a problem for statehood proponents, but H.R. 51 calls for an expedited repeal of the Twenty-third Amendment. There’s no guarantee that two-thirds of each house of Congress, plus legislatures in 38 states, would vote for repeal. The Constitution has been amended once in the last fifty years, and a handful of resistant states or members of Congress could block repeal.