Replies

OK, I believe I’ve spelled this out for you before. I’ll spell it out for you again.

Such a person (a bomb-thrower, as you term them) will not get elected in Wyoming. It isn’t going to happen, thanks for playing. That’s not what people elect in politicians at a local, state or federal level around here. It just isn’t going to happen at any level.

If Lizzy had been positioning herself as a bomb-thrower, she would have lost. Sure, that stuff sells well on Hannity’s program to the audience of people who are as dim as Hannity, it might sell in Texas, but it doesn’t sell here in Wyoming. Ted Cruz probably couldn’t win an election here in Wyoming unless he’s running against a red-diaper baby from NYC.

This is the state that likes quiet competence, not braggarts and blowhards. Enzi has been serving at various levels of political office for a long time in the state, and has been mayor of Gillette, which means he knows the coal issues, knows the CEO’s of the huge mines out there in Campbell County on a first-name basis.

Lizzy running around Wyoming claiming she was “concerned” about Obama’s war on coal was amusing. This is a woman who has probably never seen the inside of a coal mine and had obviously been fed a number of position papers from some DC think-tank on the issue. That coal severance tax revenue is a Big Friggin’ Deal to this state, and people in the state aren’t about to put a rank amateur into the US Senate who knows only what some bunch of dim-bulb academics from a DC think tank have told her about Powder River Basin coal.

Lizzy’s mission was thus: Get elected to a safe GOP seat to secure another seat in the US Senate for the Israel lobby. That’s it. That’s what she loved to flap her soup-cooler about: Foreign policy. Wanna know what voters in Wyoming don’t give a ripe fig about any more? Foreign policy, especially in the Ivy League disaster zone popularly known as “The Middle East.”

Dave, I know we have had an exchange on this before and I take quite seriously every fact that you outline in your reply concerning the unfitness of Liz Cheney to represent the peculiar interests of Wyoming. I do not for one second fault the people of Wyoming for voting their interests, when those interests are conservative interests and do not conflict with the national good.

In our previous exchange I outline my thinking about Senatorial offices in America today. In short, Chuck Schumer does as much harm to the people of Wyoming as he does to the people of New York. In other words, the federal government intrudes on every area of everyone's life and a senator is not limited in the scope of the good or the harm that he can do to the state which he "represents."

By way of coincidence, Mark Levin was on C-SPAN last night speaking about the need to restore the election of senators to the state legislatures so that the balance of power in the federal system could be restored to the states. While senators are only notionally representatives of their state, at least as far as the application of their power rather than the source of their powers is concerned, every American should be acutely interested in every Senate race.

Therefore, my observations concerning Liz Cheney have a selfish perspective, just as those who vote their own mining interests in Wyoming have a selfish perspective, I want a conservative movement to stop what is happening in America and to America. I think you've probably seen my other posts on this thread to that effect (see reply #63).

If you take a look at jjsheridan5's post (# 107) you will see him express the opinion that Liz Cheney has lost out in Wyoming for reasons that do not apply to the southern states, presumably South Carolina and Tennessee etc. This may surprise you, but I hope that is the case because I do not want to see come to pass what I expressed in my first reply in this thread that her defeat presages a series of failures by the tea party to reform the establishment of the Republican Party. I would much prefer that the reasons for Lynn Cheney's defeat are peculiar to Wyoming and to her and her husband personally, rather than representative of the national sentiment.

I certainly hope that we don't hear from voters in Tennessee and South Carolina about how their peculiar interests mean that they should return Alexander and Graham to the United States Senate. Similarly, I hope we do not learn that Cheney's failures come from a national mood sustaining the establishment and further that they do not come from a failure to raise money on the national level which has been denied her and diverted to Senator Enzi by Karl Rove.

By way of addendum to my last to you and as a submission for the record: I am very much in your camp concerning any neocon tendencies by any United States senator. That skepticism about Cheney is certainly warranted considering her father's history.

I have posts going back perhaps 10 years to the effect that the United States should disengage its foreign policy from Israel. I do not understand why we think it in our national interest to align ourselves with a few million Israelis against hundreds of millions of Arabs with so much oil.

To avoid the charge of anti-Semitism and indifference to the fate of our ally, I suggested that we offer citizenship to every Israeli who wants it but that we do not commit ourselves to war on Israel's terms. Having said that, I note that at present our interests seem to be congruent with Israel's in stopping Iran from getting the bomb but that is now a moot issue because if the Israelis don't stop Iran, Obama certainly will not.

Israel is on its own concerning the bomb now.