>>
In your reply directed at me your specific objections to Liz Cheney was that she supported homosexual marriage. You should not be surprised that I responded to that. <<
Once again, I actually mentioned LYNN Cheney (the mom) is liberal on gay marriage, that is a different person than Liz Cheney (the daughter). You are welcome to respond to comment and make your argument that a Republican selling their soul on gay marriage is not a big issue (I strongly disagree, and so do most conservatives: see Rob Portman for proof), but I'd hardly call one sentence about Liz Cheney's mom proof of "a fixation about homosexual marriage" and a judgment on the candidate that is "worse than myopic".
>> I don't buy how to respond to unsupported allegations. If you have evidence that in fact she is hypocritical <<
NVDave, Impy, and Fieldmarshaldj have already given you numerous examples, but I'll add my two cents.
First off, her supporters are being hypocritical when they routinely blast Enzi for not being "outspoken enough", or not being a "fighter", yet they give Liz Cheney a pass whenever she has never spoken about or fought for a conservative issue prior to her Senate race. A prominent example being that Liz Cheney has never once taken a pro-life position prior to being a Senate race, but now suddenly she's "strongly pro-life". Why the double standard for Liz Cheney? Certainly she's been in the public spotlight for many years.
Secondly, her supporters are also being hypocritical because many of them are always on anti-17th amendment threads lecturing the rest of us about how Senators should represent state interests first and foremost, not national interests, and in order to "Save our Republic", we need to get back to that mentality. Yet on Liz Cheney threads, they admit they don't give a hoot what the local issues are in Wyoming, or the fact Liz Cheney hasn't been there since she was 12, lives on the east coast, and knows nothing about the culture and policies of Wyoming. They don't care because they want a celebrity Senator with star power that will get national attention, even if the people of Wyoming get short changed in the process and Liz Cheney is only in Wyoming for photo-ops. Sorry, that's hypocritical. Either you believe U.S. Senators should primarily represent state interests or you don't -- they can't have it both ways.
Third, in their desperation to find flaws in Enzi's record, they criticize him for voting for the Patriotic Act and other hardline military measures, while ignoring the fact Liz Cheney is MORE of an interventionist than him, and cheered on the neo-con stuff every step of the way when she was in the Bush administration. Again -- Liz Cheney is basically lecturing to Mike Enzi. "Do as I say, not as I do"
Fourth, and this reflects the candidate herself (not her supporters), Liz Cheney accuses Enzi of only taking conservative positions because he has a primary challenge (not true -- his voting record has been solidly conservative for years). Yet Liz Cheney has "adjusted" her positions on numerous issues solely because she is now a Senate candidate in Wyoming. A clear example, as I mentioned to you earlier, is her flip-flop on intervention in Syria. Sure, you can argue many of us had a genuine "change of heart" over Iraq and regime change, but Liz Cheney was STILL cheerleading for overthrowing Assad in 2013, and ONLY changed her position overnight when the polls showed that position was politically toxic in Wyoming.
Fifth, I'm going to go back to the homosexual marriage thing (gasp!) because she's being a hypocrite here, too. She now claims she doesn't support it, after championing it for years. Yet there is no doubt she attended her sister's gay wedding and gave it her blessing. Damn right that's hypocritical. I don't want to hear the "what did you expect her to do -- it was her OWN sister, she HAD to!" excuse. Many people, including many conservative politicians, have relatives who engage in behavior that they don't approve in, and none of us decide we have to cheer them on and celebrate it so we won't hurt their feelings.
Sixth, Liz Cheney runs around Wyoming on a platform about how we need to elect her because Republicans should be "opposing Obama at every turn", yet in recent years, she's appeared on liberal news stations like MSNBC and praised Obama on certain major policy issues, including offering bipartisan support for his activism for "gay rights!" (yes, again with the gay thing... but it covers much more than just gay marriage). Sorry, that's hypocritical. It's ironic her supporters falsely accuse Enzi of doing thing, since I've never seen Enzi come on TV and praise some scheme Obama has.
>> has supported liberal clauses other than homosexuality bring it on and if it holds water I might well change my position. Meanwhile, I await facts. <<
Again, as others have pointed out to you, one of the most important issues on the table right now is amnesty for illegal aliens (I suppose you'll tell us "that ship has already sailed" since the Senate passed an amnesty bill, right?). We know where Mike Enzi is on this issue, and he's one of the very few Senators who have been rock solid against rewarding illegals, and voting to secure the borders instead of just offering lip service about it. Even most of the otherwise reliable conservatives in the Senate -- like Jeff Flake and Orrin Hatch -- are too wedding to the Washington establishment and willing to sell out on this issue. That includes Liz. Liz Cheney was all for a "path to citizenship" (the official Bush administration policy) as a loyal Bush administration official in the mid 2000s. Now she speaks in vague generalities about the issue and won't commit to a specific plan about immigration. Do you really want to throw out one of our few totally dependable allies on this issue, with someone whose position is "?" at best?
Likewise, there is little doubt Mike Enzi has ALWAYS been a reliable champion for the rights of the unborn and fighting the culture of death in America. Again, contrast that to Liz Cheney who is "strongly pro-life" as a month ago, and never once supported pro-lifers at ANY previous time in her life, (although she certainly was "outspoken" on other issues like foreign policy). At best, even if she keeps her campaign promise, Liz Cheney would not be as forceful on social issues as Enzi is. (again, that makes her a hypocrite on the "he's not a fighter" campaign theme)
I just fail to see what you'd accomplish by wasting numerous conservative money and resources to purge a rock solid conservative and replace him with a pampered politician's kid from the east coast who is ideologically to the left of him. How does that move the Senate to the right? Because it scares other Republicans? It seems we tried your theory a few years ago when Michael Steel was run out of town on a rail, and replaced with Reince Prebius, who is worse. Did that improve things over at the RNC?
