Jul
07
2013

The NYT concerns-troll over a possible Liz Cheney run in Wyoming.

I’m not going to bother to quote it: the short version is, apparently the Old Gray Lady is worried about what will happen to the poor Wyoming GOP if Liz Cheney decides to face off with Michael Enzi in a primary next year.  Let me tell you what will happen: Cheney will win, or Enzi will win, or maybe a third person will win the primary.  Whoever does win will then run in a state that is reliably conservative, reliably Republican, and who will have a Democratic opponent that can and will be accurately described as a puppet for the liberal Democratic establishment.

I have no real beef with Mike Enzi: we disagree on Internet taxation, but there are good arguments on both sides of that issue.  I will be happy to see him win reelection. But the party is healthier when there are real primaries*.

(Via Hot Air Headlines)

Moe Lane

*Now, if somebody involved in all of this wants my advice**… perhaps Enzi should retire, and perhaps Rep. Cynthia Lummis should run for his seat, and perhaps Cheney could run for Lummis‘ seat.  Mind you, I don’t live in Wyoming, so everybody involved can be more than free to ignore me.

**Doubtful, but you never know.

7 Comments

  • midwestconservative says:

    I do hope she runs. I’m hoping Enzi retires. But Liz Cheney would be an excellent addition to the Senate. Though I can’t know for sure, I’d like to think she’d align herself with the “fight club” Cruz/Lee/Paul. She’d be a neoconservative counterbalance to Rand’s libertarianism.
    But even if she accomplished nothing in the Senate, it’d be awesome to see all the Liberal Heads exploding knowing full well that another Cheney is in Congress. run Liz run.

  • midwestconservative says:

    IF Cheney runs against Enzi, Liz needs to let him go negative first. Run nothing but positive ads until after he starts attacking her. And then calmly and politely point out his faults.
    It its her vs. Lummis, let her have it.

  • BigGator5 says:

    I will never tell someone that they shouldn’t run. That’s a big personal decision, whether local or national. I should know.

  • bobby b says:

    I liked your advice, especially how you start Ms. Cheney out in an altogether better place for her to start plus how you leave everyone knowing they’re supported and worthy. Like we don’t always have to kill one to bring a new one aboard.

    It’s like you’re a guy on the internet, but on Valium.

    • acat says:

      Did you just call Moe Lane “Decaf” ?
      .
      Y’know, I think they used to say that about Mike Pence, back when he was a radio guy ..
      .
      Mew

      • midwestconservative says:

        I don’t follow, what exactly is that supposed to mean?

        • bobby b says:

          I meant that he analyzed a set of facts, applied his knowledge base and his sense of judgment to those facts, and arrived at and articulated rational and pleasing conclusions and pronouncements concerning the relevant subjects.

          But he forgot the net-obligatory ranting about “those OTHER people in that horrid group over there who are just like me but who are inhuman haters and pedos and mattress-tag removers, without wit or principle or worth” – you know, the irrational and self-destructive Internet Two-Step where we try to sink all of the seats on our lifeboat but our own.

          I mean, he didn’t even TRY to impugn anyone’s Rino-like mother or claim that every time we allow some fringy and all-or-nothing social conservative to speak, three hundred babies die, or . . .

          It was just so . . . so . . . . uninternetlike.

          (Sorry. I need to stop reading about Florida criminal trials after dinner. Too much of an adrenalcynistic rush, which is sort of like experiencing an overwhelming and empowering burst of apathy.)

          In contrast to such downer readings, Mr. Lane’s comment appeared like one of those rare and precious shining-city-on-a-hill moments of clean and honest debate. Like our society today, but on Valium.

          (Lots of Valium.)

          So, it was a purely appreciative comment. No snark, no secondary entendres.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com