[nathanbedford]

I did not support Hatch who was promising to repent and be conservative. However, the basis for supporting Cheney was not that she was manifestly more conservative than Enzi, but that she would at least shake things up. She would exploit a safe Senate seat against the status quo-at least that was her promise. Whether we accept her promise on face value or not, no such promise or realistic hope was forthcoming from Enzi.

Those of us who support reformation of the Republican Party need bomb throwers. We need Newt Gingrichs not Mike Enzis.

[tennmountainman]

Agree.
But her entry probably scared other real conservatives from entering
the primary and her quitting has ensured Enzi will survive.

[ansel12]

Read post 6, she was too liberal, she is a Romney like fake, she did not mean well for the right.

[entropy12]

My thoughts about Liz Cheney parallel yours. We definitely need people unafraid to attack likes of Barack Hussein and PIAPS.

[GeronL]

We already have bomb-throwers in the GOP, did you not notice them throwing bombs at Cruz, Lee and the TEA Party?

If you want to “shake things up”, how about you import that crazy socialist from Seattle since you want a female carpetbagger.

[9YearLurker]

Liz Cheney was as GOPe as they come in her positions. By comparison, Enzi is a conservative stalwart. Amnesty is a good example of this.

That so many Freepers got taken in by her ‘shake things up’ message is unfortunate. She should have run in VA where her politics are a fit and she could have added to the cause in Congress. Now she would have much less chance of succeeding there.

That’s a shame, but her failure in WY is a good thing for tea party insurgents, because she would have been just one more example of an Establishment player who slipped in mouthing the tea party line. It is a good thing IMO that that didn’t happen. “Shaking things up” by trying to bigfoot over a good footsoldier as a (figuratively) former general’s daughter is not the shaking up we need.