Thread by @bernybelvedere

It’s important to point out here that “stabbed them in the back again and again” refers to Cheney publicly dissenting from Trump’s unhinged insistence that Biden stole the election.

https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/1389673445919805441

Similarly, when Dan recommends that Cheney "move off this topic," it's critical to recognize that "this topic" refers to Cheney publicly denouncing the insurrection-fomenting misinformation that Biden fraudulently hacked our electoral system.

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1389590730545537029?s=20

I appreciate that Dan called Cheney's position "admirable"—I genuinely do.

But the rest of the thread provides a conception of leadership that is seriously backwards, and adopting it would reduce, rather than enhance, the effectiveness of Cheney's "admirable stance."

Dan distinguishes between executives (the president, governors, etc.) and heads of legislative caucuses like Cheney. He says only the former should "stand alone against the tide when they are right"—in other words, heads of legislative caucuses shouldn't do this. I disagree.

If you're in a leadership position—executive *or* head of a legislative caucus—you are ipso facto in a party-shaping role, and it would represent an abdication of responsibility to abandon the party to positions and choices that you see as morally and politically disastrous.

The "move off from this topic" framing is also curious. It's not as if Cheney is artificially steering interviewers to this topic like some crusader. It's not like she's being asked about taxes and she's responding, "And let me tell you another fucking thing about the Big Lie."

She's continuing to harp on this because Donald Cheeto Chode Trump is now attempting to conceptually reengineer "The Big Lie" so that it now applies to Biden hacking American democracy. And she doesn't want her party to go down this road anymore.