Boy, am I seeing a lot of overheated and misguided commentary about the Liz Cheney vote. Here's what the vote does and does not mean. 1/
The vote was not at all a referendum on Trump or Trumpism within the House GOP. Trump already won those votes overwhelmingly when only 10 House members voted to impeach him. 2/
It was won before that when virtually all House Republicans, including Cheney, endorsed and voted for Trump in 2020. The overwhelming majority of the House caucus voted both a) not to impeach Trump and b) not to remove Cheney from leadership for disagreeing, 3/
The cynical explanation is that one of those votes was public and the other was private. This presumes, however, that there is some inconsistency between voting against impeaching Trump and voting not to punish someone who disagrees. 4/
I realize the Trump era has warped almost everyone's perspective, but allow me to state an obvious fact: there is no such inconsistency. Liz Cheney is an elected representative and it used to be a thing that elected representatives were allowed to vote their own opinions. 5/
That's a concept that might be loathsome to people who want a dictator, or people who view Congress as an annoying impediment to whatever Trump wants to do, but it isn't for, you know, members of Congress. Or people who believe in our constitutional government. 6/
That is all the more true when the vote in question had nothing at all to do with any policy whatsoever. Cheney did not vote to abolish private property, or to cede all of Wyoming to Canada, or any such thing. 7/
The vote was not a referendum on Trump or Trumpism, it was a referendum on the right of elected representatives to vote in a way that Donald Trump doesn't want them to. Voting against it was not a vote in favor of Trump or Trumpism, it was a vote in favor of a cult. 8/
If people want to primary Cheney back in her home state over her vote, they should go right ahead (more on that in a second). But removing her from leadership because of her vote about a person - not a policy - would have set a dangerous precedent. 9/
Since Trump took office, Liz Cheney has been easily one of the most reliable 15 or 20 House votes in favor of Trump's agenda. She did not even vote to terminate Trump's national emergency declaration that diverted funding to the border wall.... 10/
Which was a clear encroachment on Congressional prerogatives. Insofar as anyone supports Trump because of any particular policy he has espoused or fought for, Liz Cheney ought to be one of their favorite members of Congress. 11/
Insofar as anyone supports Trump because they think he is the Risen Savior returned to earth and should be above criticism for either his personal or professional behavior, then Liz Cheney has badly let those people down. We will see how the people of Wyoming feel in 2 years. 12/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I gotta say: when the Jacob Blake story broke, I did not believe there might be a possible circumstance where a person being shot in the back seven times would be justified. After a full recounting of the facts in the case, it seems Blake worked really hard at it. 1/
By his own admission, he was armed with a knife. He struggled with a police officer while holding that same knife, and refused orders to drop the knife even while being held at gunpoint. 2/
But it doesn't even stop there. Police were summoned into contact with Blake by an ex who had an order of protection against him due to a sexual assault and had reported to police that he was back (obviously in violation of that order) and had stolen her rental car & keys. 3/
Two things are both true at once. The first is that anyone who used violence or threat of violence in an attempt to overturn the election results yesterday engaged in a form of domestic terrorism and should have the book thrown at them. 1/
The second is that BLM protesters this summer stormed government buildings, forcibly occupied them, burned and damaged them, assaulted police officers, and literally took command of entire areas of major American cities. 2/
The media immediately and correctly leapt to call the first group terrorists, insurrectionists, a mob, and rioters. They called the second group "mostly peaceful protesters." 3/
Ho boy do I have words to say about these remarks from Birx
Let me start by saying that no one should be harassing or threatening public officials' families. To the extent that people may have broken the law in doing so, I hope law enforcement gets involved and holds the people responsible accountable. 2/
Part two, and separate from that, STFU. I mean this with all the respect I can muster, which at the moment is zero. Does this woman not understand that there are MILLIONS of families who have been going through this same exact stuff because SHE TOLD THEM TO?? 3/
Watching Cuomo's reaction to the Supreme Court ruling and it just amazes me how blind he is to his own biases. I'm not really a religious person and haven't attended a worship service of any kind in years. 1/
But it is patently obvious to me, because I'm not an idiot, that exercises of religious freedom are being discriminated against in New York (and many other places) relative to secular activities. 2/
If there's a public health related reason for a certain number of people not to be in a certain kind of space, then it doesn't matter the reason people might get together in those spaces. 3/
Just stop, dude. You had your chance to evenly enforce these rules and the whole country watched you not do it. No one is going to abide by this. You blew it.
Measures like this only work in the setting of overwhelming public compliance. America (thankfully) does not have enough law enforcement to force public compliance with an edict like this, so its efficacy depends on public faith in its elected officials.
When they see these measures being enforced against some populations but not others, a large enough percentage of the population to wreck the whole plan sees that (justifiably!) as an indictment of the honesty of politicians and the media.