We're Replacing Liz Cheney With a Pro-Abort, Anti-Border Wall, Pro-Transgender, Anti-Religious Freedom Republican and We're Supposed to Be Happy?

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

It appears that Vichy Republican Liz Cheney’s tenure as chairwoman of the House Republican Conference is about to come to an ignominious end with her being defenestrated by her colleagues. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has made it clear that he’s had enough of her self-important and self-righteous grandstanding and will not whip votes to support her like he did earlier in the year. For background, read Liz Cheney’s Response to Kevin McCarthy Shows Exactly Why the GOP Needs to Cut Her From Leadership, Kevin McCarthy Has a Hot Mic Moment, Speaks Absolute Truth About Liz Cheney, and Liz Cheney Does Liz Cheney Things Again, and Her Colleagues Are Just About Done.

My personal view is that Cheney being stripped of a leadership position is months overdue. Her clownish behavior is fanning an internal conflict in the GOP rather than concentrating on taking back the House next year. I also believe that Cheney’s entitled behavior that treats her House seat as though it was some sort of patrimony rather than a public trust is out of step with the new GOP. That said, I’m more than a little unsure as to why Elise Stefanik is the solution.

When you dig deeper into her voting record, it raises some questions that should be discussed in the House GOP Conference meeting before Stefanik is elected by acclamation.

For instance, she voted against President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. I suspect the reason was the limiting of the State and Local Tax deduction that places like New York had used to build a massive public workforce while making the rest of us pay for it, but still it was a vote against President Trump on his signature legislation and a vote for the Blue State plutocracy.

While voting to keep the progeny of New York politicians fully employed, she co-sponsored the amnesty-lite USA Act (this was one of those “let’s pass an amnesty bill today in return for really, really tough border security in the future” bills). Lest you think this was some humanitarian act and not acting like a Chamber of Commerce open-borders sock puppet, look at the rest of her record. She voted against funding the border wall; she voted to end Trump’s emergency declaration that served as a justification to divert federal funds to the construction of the border wall. She also voted to override President Trump’s funding of the wall.

While voting against tax cuts and weakening immigration controls, she also opposed the Trump administration’s fight against Obamacare. She voted to continue to permit the military to accept transsexual recruits in the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act…a bill that also embedded Critical Race Theory into the military via the creation of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity offices in the Pentagon and subordinate headquarters. When President Trump vetoed the bill, she voted with the Democrats to override the veto.

She voted for the so-called Equality Act that strips churches and religious groups of the ability to refuse to hire people living a lifestyle that conflicts with their beliefs. She voted against her own caucus to support a DC abortion law that, in the words of Heritage’s Ryan Anderson:

“could force employers in the nation’s capital to cover elective, surgical abortions in their health plans and require pro-life organizations to hire individuals who advocate for abortion.”

Lest you think this is an anomaly, it isn’t. In 2015, she cast the same vote on the same issue.

I think it is safe to say that Stefanik’s popularity and profile are due solely to her high profile fights with fat George Conway, formerly one of the main grifters with the North American Man-Boy Lincoln Association, and Adam “Pencil Neck” Schiff, and her defense of President Trump during the bizarre January “impeachment” debacle.

While Cheney needed to go for a host of reasons, I’m just not sure we are improving our lot by rushing to anoint Stefanik as GOP Conference chairwoman.

Texas Republican Chip Roy (a big friend and fan of RedState) has the same view.

Roy said he wants to party to deal with the issue regarding the former president and how it collectively wishes to move forward.  Once that it [sic] done, then it should talk about who should be in the position to represent the conference.

“And I have a feeling right now there’s an effort to coalesce behind an individual or individuals who may not reflect the conservative values.”

The congressman did not immediately identify who he was referring to until Riccardi asked him if he was referring to New York Rep. Elise Stefanik.

Roy confirmed that, saying, “[Stefanik] voted against funding the [border] wall, she actually voted to condemn President Trump for the Affordable Care Act litigation strategy last year.  These are all things that I think indicate someone who is not in step with the general views of the Republican conference.”

When asked, the Hays County Republican said he had a few names in mind for people he would like to be considered for the role, but those people have not publicly expressed interest in it yet.

Oddly enough, this seems to be coming down to a vote on President Trump. From a policy standpoint, Stefanik is not a better choice than Cheney. Cheney’s infatuation with wars of convenience and her loathing of the GOP base is offset by Stefanik’s support of open borders, abortion, and the mainstreaming of transgenderism into American culture. Cheney rightfully sees President Trump as a threat to her wing of the party. Stefanik has come to embrace President Trump while opposing him on many issues of significant importance to his base. (See Elise Stefanik Lands a Solid Right on Nancy Pelosi in War of Words on GOP Leadership Battle.)

All things considered, I’m not sure that elevating Stefanik to a leadership position is good for conservatives of any stripe. What really makes me queasy is that Kevin McCarthy supports her. What makes me wonder what’s happening is that the left is working overtime (where do you think I got this research?) to sandbag Stefanik, even though her voting record indicates they should be happy. So, who are they trying to convince that she’s someone they don’t like? Them? Or us? And when I see this kind of crap:

I get that sinking feeling that we’re about to be rolled.

I’m a big believer in redemption, and I would happily kill the fatted calf to welcome a prodigal child home, but nothing about this leaves me feeling all that good about what we’re about to do in the House.