More and more polls show that Donald Trump is likely going to win the November election. Kamala Harris has not been able to generate the enthusiasm that the Democrats were gunning for when they summarily disposed of President Biden and elevated Harris to their presidential candidate.
If anything, Harris and her problematic running mate Tim Walz are slowly backsliding. Not only have they failed to outrun Trump among voters, but when even the New York Times/Siena College poll admits that Trump is probably going to win, things have gone from bad to worse for the Democrat candidate.
As if to reinforce Trump’s positive trend, there have been a few notable defections from the Democrat party. On September 5th, Gloria Romero, former majority leader for the Democrats in the California state senate, announced that she was switching parties, becoming a Republican, and endorsing Trump for president. Recently, former Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard did the same.
At the same time, while Trump’s momentum keeps growing, some Republicans have decided to line up behind Kamala Harris. Among them is a group of over 200 Republicans—people who worked for President George W. Bush, the late Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Mitt Romney.
In an open letter obtained by USA Today in late August, this group of former staffers for three of America’s foremost neoconservative politicians “endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president.” Their motives are summarized in the usual anti-Trump talking points, including a hollow reference to “chaotic leadership” and “the dangerous goals of Project 2025.”
The latter is nothing more than a platform for training future presidential staffers in the practice of conservative policy. I challenge each of these 200 individuals to find a single item in Project 2025 that is “dangerous” in any way.
Somehow, it seems as though the neoconservatives within the Republican party are the ones who fear a Trump presidency the most. As if to prove this point, on Sunday, September 8th, former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney announced that she is voting for Kamala Harris. Her dad Dick Cheney, who was vice president under President George W. Bush, has also endorsed Harris.
While their endorsements were hardly surprising—father and daughter Cheney have been among Trump’s most ferocious critics over the past four years—their motivations remain as enigmatic as always. Trump is said to be the most dangerous man in America since 1776; he is portrayed by the Cheneys as a villain who is out to destroy our democracy.
The fact that reality has proven their narrative wrong, especially on the second point, is apparently of no consequence to either of the Cheneys. On the contrary, Liz Cheney is doubling down on her criticism of Trump. When she recently endorsed Kamala Harris, she managed to twist her endorsement into a bizarre political rant. During her interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News, she stated, without flinching:
If you look at Vice President Harris’s speech, for example, at the Democratic convention, it is a speech that Ronald Reagan could have given.
I had to go back a couple of times and make sure that I heard that segment of the interview correctly.
Yes, she actually said that. Liz Cheney, whom I have always known as a thoughtful, intelligent politician, even a potential candidate for president, blatantly stated that President Reagan could have given the very same speech that Kamala Harris gave at the DNC in Chicago back in August.
I could spend a week highlighting the political insanity embedded in Cheney’s statement, but a point-by-point examination of Kamala Harris’s DNC speech back in August would quickly become tedious. Let me therefore go to one of Harris’s key points, which she highlighted by promising to sign “a bill to restore reproductive freedom.”
This term is one of the cover terms that abortionists use when advocating for abortions.
So important are abortions to Kamala Harris that she cannot imagine any upper limits on when babies can be killed in utero. As The Daily Signal reported a year ago, she stalwartly “refuses to identify a single restriction on abortions” that she could get behind.
This means, plain and simple, that Kamala Harris leaves the door wide open for abortions of babies up to the moment of birth. And this is a position that Liz Cheney says President Ronald Reagan would have shared.
In 1983, while serving as America’s 40th president, Reagan penned an essay called Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation:
Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide.
I hereby invite Liz Cheney to explain how a staunch pro-life advocate like President Reagan could have given the unlimited abortions promise that Kamala Harris delivered in her DNC speech.
Harris also repeated her promise to create an “opportunity economy,” which she purposely tries to leave as undefined as possible. However, upon closer look, the term is really just an umbrella for traditional Democrat policies for economic redistribution.
Could Liz Cheney please give us one example of when Ronald Reagan proposed taking more money from the rich and giving more money to the less affluent?
If I were to make an educated guess, Cheney is not interested in the economic policies of either Kamala Harris or Ronald Reagan. Her focus is on foreign policy and a broader realm of national security. Here, she heavily criticizes Trump for two things:
- He does not automatically want to commit American military resources to new wars, but prefers instead to take a strong but America-focused approach to the deployment of our nation’s young to any war theater; and
- He is unpatriotic for pointing to problems in America.
This means that Liz Cheney does not share Trump’s view on the criticism he brings up against the Biden-Harris administration. When Trump points to the many serious problems that have followed in the footsteps of the current president’s open-border policy, Cheney seems to not believe that those problems exist. When Trump points to the deterioration of law and order in many big cities, invaded by illegal immigrants, Cheney appears to believe that it is to America’s benefit to keep quiet about those problems.
When Trump criticizes the Biden-Harris administration for having made America a laughing stock after the disastrous withdrawal of troops and military equipment from Afghanistan, Cheney apparently believes that the withdrawal somehow strengthened our reputation in the world. No—wait: she actually did not want us to withdraw at all. She wanted the American military to continue to do whatever its purposeless presence in Afghanistan was doing.
And yet, somehow, she manages to blame Trump for Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal.
With her vocal endorsement of Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney has stopped making political sense. So has her father, who has also endorsed Kamala Harris. Vice President Dick Cheney is an honorable man who served his country well as vice president under President George W. Bush. I have always respected the man for what he did to help America bounce back from the 9/11 attacks.
The fact that he now prefers a radical Democrat in the White House does not change my image of him as a great statesman. But his endorsement of Harris does not work the other way either: while Dick Cheney is going to vote for a socialist, I am still planning on voting for Donald Trump.
I am not surprised by the fact that so many neocons line up against Trump. He is, after all, their very opposite: he redefines national security so that it focuses on keeping the United States safe from all threats, including those that come with unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. But what does surprise me a little bit is that former President George W. Bush—under whom Dick Cheney serves as vice president—has kept his mouth shut this time.
Unlike in 2020, he has chosen this time around to endorse neither Harris nor Trump. In American policy parlance, that means he quietly backs Trump, and that the entire Bush clan is likely rooting for Trump’s victory.
As one conspicuous indication of where the Bush clan stands, when Trump was on trial in New York earlier in the summer, George W. Bush’s brother Jeb, the former governor of Florida, came out in Trump’s defense.
There is still a possibility that Kamala Harris will win in November. If that happens, the question will be what cabinet position Cheney will get. Attorney General is a good guess; if she could choose herself, Cheney might go straight for the Secretary of Defense job. But given the way the winds of opinion are blowing, the bigger question is what Liz Cheney will do if Trump wins. After all, her January 6 committee to investigate an alleged insurrection at the U.S. Capitol turned out to be little more than a machine for the benefit of Ms. Cheney’s future political career.
Is Cheney fearing any personal backlash from an incoming Trump administration?
Kamala Harris Is No Ronald Reagan
Kamala Harris and Ronald Reagan
Photo: Montage of photos by Lawrence Jackson, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (Harris) and Pete Souza, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons (Reagan)
More and more polls show that Donald Trump is likely going to win the November election. Kamala Harris has not been able to generate the enthusiasm that the Democrats were gunning for when they summarily disposed of President Biden and elevated Harris to their presidential candidate.
If anything, Harris and her problematic running mate Tim Walz are slowly backsliding. Not only have they failed to outrun Trump among voters, but when even the New York Times/Siena College poll admits that Trump is probably going to win, things have gone from bad to worse for the Democrat candidate.
As if to reinforce Trump’s positive trend, there have been a few notable defections from the Democrat party. On September 5th, Gloria Romero, former majority leader for the Democrats in the California state senate, announced that she was switching parties, becoming a Republican, and endorsing Trump for president. Recently, former Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard did the same.
At the same time, while Trump’s momentum keeps growing, some Republicans have decided to line up behind Kamala Harris. Among them is a group of over 200 Republicans—people who worked for President George W. Bush, the late Sen. John McCain, and Sen. Mitt Romney.
In an open letter obtained by USA Today in late August, this group of former staffers for three of America’s foremost neoconservative politicians “endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president.” Their motives are summarized in the usual anti-Trump talking points, including a hollow reference to “chaotic leadership” and “the dangerous goals of Project 2025.”
The latter is nothing more than a platform for training future presidential staffers in the practice of conservative policy. I challenge each of these 200 individuals to find a single item in Project 2025 that is “dangerous” in any way.
Somehow, it seems as though the neoconservatives within the Republican party are the ones who fear a Trump presidency the most. As if to prove this point, on Sunday, September 8th, former Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney announced that she is voting for Kamala Harris. Her dad Dick Cheney, who was vice president under President George W. Bush, has also endorsed Harris.
While their endorsements were hardly surprising—father and daughter Cheney have been among Trump’s most ferocious critics over the past four years—their motivations remain as enigmatic as always. Trump is said to be the most dangerous man in America since 1776; he is portrayed by the Cheneys as a villain who is out to destroy our democracy.
The fact that reality has proven their narrative wrong, especially on the second point, is apparently of no consequence to either of the Cheneys. On the contrary, Liz Cheney is doubling down on her criticism of Trump. When she recently endorsed Kamala Harris, she managed to twist her endorsement into a bizarre political rant. During her interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News, she stated, without flinching:
I had to go back a couple of times and make sure that I heard that segment of the interview correctly.
Yes, she actually said that. Liz Cheney, whom I have always known as a thoughtful, intelligent politician, even a potential candidate for president, blatantly stated that President Reagan could have given the very same speech that Kamala Harris gave at the DNC in Chicago back in August.
I could spend a week highlighting the political insanity embedded in Cheney’s statement, but a point-by-point examination of Kamala Harris’s DNC speech back in August would quickly become tedious. Let me therefore go to one of Harris’s key points, which she highlighted by promising to sign “a bill to restore reproductive freedom.”
This term is one of the cover terms that abortionists use when advocating for abortions.
So important are abortions to Kamala Harris that she cannot imagine any upper limits on when babies can be killed in utero. As The Daily Signal reported a year ago, she stalwartly “refuses to identify a single restriction on abortions” that she could get behind.
This means, plain and simple, that Kamala Harris leaves the door wide open for abortions of babies up to the moment of birth. And this is a position that Liz Cheney says President Ronald Reagan would have shared.
In 1983, while serving as America’s 40th president, Reagan penned an essay called Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation:
I hereby invite Liz Cheney to explain how a staunch pro-life advocate like President Reagan could have given the unlimited abortions promise that Kamala Harris delivered in her DNC speech.
Harris also repeated her promise to create an “opportunity economy,” which she purposely tries to leave as undefined as possible. However, upon closer look, the term is really just an umbrella for traditional Democrat policies for economic redistribution.
Could Liz Cheney please give us one example of when Ronald Reagan proposed taking more money from the rich and giving more money to the less affluent?
If I were to make an educated guess, Cheney is not interested in the economic policies of either Kamala Harris or Ronald Reagan. Her focus is on foreign policy and a broader realm of national security. Here, she heavily criticizes Trump for two things:
This means that Liz Cheney does not share Trump’s view on the criticism he brings up against the Biden-Harris administration. When Trump points to the many serious problems that have followed in the footsteps of the current president’s open-border policy, Cheney seems to not believe that those problems exist. When Trump points to the deterioration of law and order in many big cities, invaded by illegal immigrants, Cheney appears to believe that it is to America’s benefit to keep quiet about those problems.
When Trump criticizes the Biden-Harris administration for having made America a laughing stock after the disastrous withdrawal of troops and military equipment from Afghanistan, Cheney apparently believes that the withdrawal somehow strengthened our reputation in the world. No—wait: she actually did not want us to withdraw at all. She wanted the American military to continue to do whatever its purposeless presence in Afghanistan was doing.
And yet, somehow, she manages to blame Trump for Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal.
With her vocal endorsement of Kamala Harris, Liz Cheney has stopped making political sense. So has her father, who has also endorsed Kamala Harris. Vice President Dick Cheney is an honorable man who served his country well as vice president under President George W. Bush. I have always respected the man for what he did to help America bounce back from the 9/11 attacks.
The fact that he now prefers a radical Democrat in the White House does not change my image of him as a great statesman. But his endorsement of Harris does not work the other way either: while Dick Cheney is going to vote for a socialist, I am still planning on voting for Donald Trump.
I am not surprised by the fact that so many neocons line up against Trump. He is, after all, their very opposite: he redefines national security so that it focuses on keeping the United States safe from all threats, including those that come with unlimited, uncontrolled immigration. But what does surprise me a little bit is that former President George W. Bush—under whom Dick Cheney serves as vice president—has kept his mouth shut this time.
Unlike in 2020, he has chosen this time around to endorse neither Harris nor Trump. In American policy parlance, that means he quietly backs Trump, and that the entire Bush clan is likely rooting for Trump’s victory.
As one conspicuous indication of where the Bush clan stands, when Trump was on trial in New York earlier in the summer, George W. Bush’s brother Jeb, the former governor of Florida, came out in Trump’s defense.
There is still a possibility that Kamala Harris will win in November. If that happens, the question will be what cabinet position Cheney will get. Attorney General is a good guess; if she could choose herself, Cheney might go straight for the Secretary of Defense job. But given the way the winds of opinion are blowing, the bigger question is what Liz Cheney will do if Trump wins. After all, her January 6 committee to investigate an alleged insurrection at the U.S. Capitol turned out to be little more than a machine for the benefit of Ms. Cheney’s future political career.
Is Cheney fearing any personal backlash from an incoming Trump administration?
READ NEXT
Mazan Affair: A Trial of Moral Misery
Milei Disrupts the Cosy Consensus at the G20
The Albanian Conservative Institute: An Intellectual Beacon for Albania’s Center-Right