Cheney thinks that questioning the election arises from a mindless, dangerous loyalty. It is great and fine that she is a conservative. But when she voted for his policies, didn’t she note how often they devolved power and now, she gives comfort to those who would nationalize elections, police, and lives? If he affected the Georgia senate race, is she healing the party or leading thoughtful discussions on the election given that the Democrat’s bill is now facing them? It is bad enough Democrats want to get in our heads to make our eyes and hearts and minds conform. But that leadership in Congress does is irritating – and apparently that is how Congress sees it. Thank God.
Sure Biden (or at least the Obama/Biden/Socialist swamp) is president. Still as Byron York put it, the election remains quite “fishy” and little that has been discovered (Hunter Biden’s follies and laptop, militarization of the capitol, nationalization of voting) has diminished that smell. The Democrats want me to say 2 + 2 = 5; I sure as hell don’t need a Republican demanding the same.
She doesn’t need to think it is fishy to at least acknowledge a sentient person might, even with no prodding from Trump. Her position is what 50% of the nation apparently believes – and that 50% has most of the channels and most of the pop culture and most of the ink and apparently most of big business. To agree with them is not cowardly – it is not the way I look at it or January 6, but I can see that some might. But she seems to have accepted a perspective like Pelosi’s: Orange Man Bad. Why else the all caps? (Was Hillary’s contention that the election was stolen only worth initial caps – or was it a reasonable response?) Declaring doubts as verboten breeds resistance and paranoia. It is neither brave nor mature nor, well, American.
There’s been talk here of Civil War. Wasn’t one contributing factor the rigid cultural Mason/Dixon divide? The South stopped books and plays, newspapers and journals. This was not true in the fertile days of the founding, but the South remained feudal and slavery was only a part of it. (As Villani points out in his thoughtful post, a smaller part than is often thought of today.) The north was open – it was building schools and factories, bustling and productive. We now have a red/blue line and much is verboten in the blue world. Randi Weingarten sees her role as binding the minds of students to reach some tortured dogma/aesthetic, smothering another useful analogy. But traditionally the Cheneys didn’t have Weingarten’s perspective – is that what old line conservatism, like the old line churches, have come to?