Why the Wyoming Senate race is like nothing you’ve seen before

washingtonpost.com ^ | 10/7/13 | Sean Sullivan

[freedomfiter2]

The problem is that globalism is a star issue for the big government statists.

[DanZ]

“I have supported Lynn Cheney in this race not out of overwhelming passion but out of the principle that we ought to summarily execute a few examples to encourage the others. “

I heartily concur. Lynn Cheney would be better than the current do nothing Senator

[Vigilanteman]

Just wait until your first winter there . . .

[Paladin2]

Enzi went with Cruz.

Could easily be because he is up for reelection.

He deserves support for that vote, even if he hates the TEA Party.

[Paladin2]

Chenney "lives" in the 'rat Teton, WY county.

How much time and interest Enzi has in Wyo. after his retirement seems open......

[fieldmarshaldj]

We’ve never seen a carpetbagging liberal run for a Senate seat before ? Whut ?

[Impy]

It’s no conundrum.

Princess Lizzie is CLEARLY worse. I mean come on, pro-queer neocon, establishment, FROM NORTHERN VIRGINIA NOT WYOMING, what more is there to say? Compared to her deficits, Enzi’s support for Internet sales taxes is nothing.

Replacing an incumbent for the hell of it is not something I’m generally opposed to, but the replacement must be BETTER or at least no worse. Lizze would be a loud leader for the GOP establishment, a Lady MacBeth for John McCain.

[BillyBoy]

>> Princess Lizzie is CLEARLY worse. I mean come on, pro-queer neocon, establishment, FROM NORTHERN VIRGINIA NOT WYOMING, what more is there to say? <<

Speaking of neo-con, another issue that's gotten little coverage outside of Wyoming is her flip-flop on Syria. For years, she was all for intervening in Syria militarily, then Obama wanted to do so and Liz read the polls and discovered Wyoming voters were overwhelming against it. The next morning, she announced she was "strongly against" war with Syria. Yep, real "principled" there, Liz.

>> Replacing an incumbent for the hell of it is not something I’m generally opposed to, but the replacement must be BETTER or at least no worse. <<

I'm inclined to support Pat Roberts in Kansas over his primary challenger (Barack Obama's third cousin twice removed or however they're distantly related) for the same reason. I'd have to look over both their records and platforms more closely to say for certain, but it seems to me that Pat Roberts has been of the more solid guys in the Senate, and a reliable supporter of Ted Cruz. Yes there are tons of incumbents who stayed too long and should retire, but the primary challenger needs to make an effort beyond a reasonable doubt why he'd be an improvement. Replacing the incumbent with someone LESS conservative is unacceptable.

Purge liberals and elect more conservatives should be Politics 101 on how to move the Senate in a more conservative direction. But some freepers have it backwards and use all kinds of excuses (we should only run conservatives in "red states", so-and-so liberal douche is the best we can get, so-and-so solid conservative is not a "fighter", etc.)

Personally I'm not surprised we keep snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, when some conservatives are out helping re-nominate/re-elect the likes of Joe LIEberman, Lisa Murkowski, and Arlen Specter, but are hellbent on removing Senators who do what we want 96% of the time, like Mike Enzi and Jon Kyl.

Unfortunately, we rarely see this kind of stupidity from the left. They don't focus their efforts on purging low-key socialists in RAT states like Barbara Mikulski or Tom Carper, nor would they be caught dead helping to nominate a conservative RAT, or elect a conservative Republican in a GOP friendly state, because so-and-so is "the best we're gonna get in a state like North Dakota". They just continually elect and re-elect pinko commies in all 50 states, and don't apologize for it.

[BillyBoy]

>> “I have supported Lynn Cheney in this race not out of overwhelming passion but out of the principle that we ought to summarily execute a few examples to encourage the others. <<

>> I heartily concur. Lynn Cheney would be better than the current do nothing Senator <<

Dick Cheney's 72 year old wife Lynn isn't running for the Senate, but perhaps she's the "somebody" that the Enzi bashers on this thread are thinking of -- since numerous Enzi critics on FR they keep insisting they're "not for Liz Cheney" but that "somebody" MUST take out Enzi. Should we draft mommie dearest to run against her daughter? She could be the "more conservative" choice!

On the second though, Lynn Cheney supports gay marriage too. Oh well, better luck finding that "somebody" next time!

[nathanbedford]

Liz, Lynn, what is in a name?

If your objection to Liz Cheney, or to her mother for that matter, is that they "support" homosexual marriage, ( because an accident of genes has given them a homosexual sister and daughter), to the exclusion of other issues, I think your approach is worse than myopic.

In an age when 70 % of the parents of African-American babies are not marrying and whites are not marrying at a breathtaking rate in an effort to catch up, when no-fault divorce is an option virtually everywhere, your fixation about homosexual marriage is to strain in a gnat and swallow a camel. That train has left the station.

Most Americans, including myself, are a lot less interested with what adults do voluntarily and in private and a lot more concerned with hypocritical, posturing senators selling us out in Washington.

They (the Libs abetted or at least passively condoned by Rinos) are tearing the Constitution to shreds, they are bankrupting America, they are spying on every one of us, they are using the government against us, and you want us to fixate on two sodomites: who can legally practice their perversion in private; make contracts to vest virtually every feature of marriage in their relationship; get married in many states which recognizes homosexual marriage; and who are winning the public relations battle anyway-can solemnize their relationship, and all at the expense of every other conservative value.

That fixation is about as fruitless as picking on a confusion of names.

[NVDave]

No, it doesn’t.

Enzi will likely continue to live in Gillette or the Gillette area. He has indicated no plans when asked here in Wyoming of moving anywhere.

[NVDave]

Well, quite a bit, actually. If someone doesn’t know which one of the Cheneys is actually running for the office, it’s a tip-off that they really don’t know jack about this race.

As to the rest of your justification: My position has been clear from the start of this farce: Cheney is yet another war slut neocon. When interviewed here in Wyoming, she takes every opportunity to turn the conversation to foreign policy, which is what she wants to harp on.

Wyoming voters, for the most part, don’t want to discuss this. We want to discuss things like land management issues with the BLM and USFS, oil/gas/coal leases, coal mining regs, air quality regs that will impact coal sales, alternative energy scams that are cluttering our skies with stupid bird cuisinarts, economic and trade policies.

When she gets into these discussions, it is pretty easy to see that she doesn’t understand these issues in great depth. She recites some canned answers or sound bites, but she can’t really get into a real analysis of the issues with someone asking a detailed question of these issues.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Then oppose her for other reasons, namely that she’s a carpetbagger and establishment hack.

[NVDave]

Those percentage scores are tallied on votes that those organizations think are important.

For example, Heritage has a bunch of inside-baseball issues on senate rule votes in their list.

[NVDave]

Democrats do wield power in this state. They’re a minority party, but in the past, the state has voted for Democrats.

For example, our previous governor was Dave Freudenthal. He was a very well liked governor, pro-gun, pro-hunting, was willing to take on the Feds (USFS and USFWS) over the rampant re-introduction of wolves into Wyoming when all the Republicans were being pussies, was highly effective in getting things done, was much more open about his policies and thoughts on various issues of the day (would get on the local radio station for a solid hour every month) and fiscally very prudent.

Compared to the current GOP governor (Meade), Freudenthal was more competent, IMO, and more open about what he was doing and why he was doing it.

So, the idea that the DNC couldn’t make inroads here is a false one. All they need is a clear-thinking, level-headed person who doesn’t come from Teton County (ie, where Lizzy has planted herself) and they can run a competitive race.

[Impy]

I'm inclined to support Pat Roberts in Kansas over his primary challenger (Barack Obama's third cousin twice removed or however they're distantly related) for the same reason.

Now there's a weird occurrence. Guy uses a distant relation to Emperor Zero as a claim to fame with which to launch a Senate bid.

[nathanbedford]

Well, quite a bit, actually. If someone doesn’t know which one of the Cheneys is actually running for the office, it’s a tip-off that they really don’t know jack about this race.

Come on.

Your criticisms of Liz Cheney about other issues rather than a confusion of similar names are points well taken. That, however, is not the objection to Liz Cheney which was raised, she was dismissed because she was "supporting" homosexual marriage and that objection was addressed.

As to the issues which you list "like land management issues with the BLM and USFS, oil/gas/coal leases, coal mining regs, air quality regs that will impact coal sales, alternative energy scams that are cluttering our skies with stupid bird cuisinarts, economic and trade policies", these are matters of perennial concern in Wyoming as I know as a former property owner in that state.

But I am also aware that there is a saying out there that goes like this, definition of a developer: someone who wants to build a cabin in the woods; definition of an environmentalist: someone who built his cabin last year. And that brings up the tension between state and federal which really means the tension between rural and city, between West and East, between residents and tourists and, ultimately, between the teeming masses and rugged individualism.

Those same conservatives in Wyoming who object to federal intrusion into their state do not connect that intrusion with an inevitability that arises out of exploding population in the United States. Population of America has more than doubled in my lifetime. The teeming regions of the East are not going to be denied access to the wilderness of the West, or, under another administration, to its minerals, which are rendered so accessible with modern technology.

As a conservative, I support Wyoming in its battle against the feds. But as a non-resident of Wyoming, my interests in its Senatorial race lie elsewhere. Today every Senator, and to a lesser extent every congressman, is a national politician. Just as Wyoming is fighting federalism for its very existence, so the rest of the nation is being transformed as the original constitutional federal system has been virtually swept away. That means that a senator from Wyoming affects me just as much, or nearly as much, as a senator from my home state because most of the stuff that comes out of Washington is national in application.

Under these circumstances, carpetbagger criticisms have become archaic and irrelevant. They are probably still more relevant in Wyoming then they were in New York when Hillary Clinton unpacked her carpetbag there but as far as I'm concerned a vote in the Senate when cast by a Rino is a vote against me, regardless of its state of origin.

As someone who is no longer a property owner in Wyoming, my perspective is as I have described. If Liz Cheney cannot hold her own in debates concerning Wyoming issues, the voters will decide. My objection, and my interests in this race, are that on the national scene we are played by Rino Republicans in the Senate and elsewhere and if we can put the fear of God in the rest of these senators, as we have done in Utah and Texas, for example, we just might encourage the rest.

[NVDave]

We actually do connect these issues to the explosion in population in the US.

The problem is, the national GOP leadership is hell-bent on making illegal aliens legit.

Mike Enzi has consistently voted against this policy. Liz Cheney is playing a cagey game on this issue. My suspicion is that she’s allied with the likes of Bill Kristol, and therefore pro-immigration. The neo-cons are, have been and will continue to be pro-immigration, because they’re convinced (through the use of drugs or being dropped on their heads as children) that Mexicans are somehow congenitally conservative - all evidence to the contrary.

Mike Enzi has a solid track record on the current (and past) immigration issues: He refused to be sucked into the “let’s vote to bring in millions of Mexican illegals because we hope they vote GOP” nonsense.

Lizzie Cheney? Yea, she’s very hard to pin down on this issue. Again, she talks in these broad, fuzzy generalities. But a person is known by the company they keep, and the people orbiting Cheney are pro-amnesty.

[NVDave]

And, on the “they’re known by the company they keep” issue:

How is it that anyone can do a thorough background analysis of Cheney and her husband and come to the the conclusion that she will be anything BUT a RINO?

This is what I really fail to understand. Where do people get the idea that Liz Cheney is a “conservative?” From what action, issue or group of associates does anyone have ANY evidence to support this assertion?

That is what annoys me most about Cheney supporters. They think that Enzi isn’t bold enough. They think that Enzi isn’t “conservative enough.”

Oooookay. Compared to a handful of other people in the Senate, that might be true. On the average, Enzi is pretty conservative - more than average for the GOP caucus in the US Senate. He’s not a guy who likes getting on camera that much. He’s not a bomb-thrower. He’s not about to get on Hannity or Limbaugh’s show and start riling up the masses for or against anything. It just isn’t his style.

But the important question here in an election year is this: If we replace an incumbent, are we going to be making the US Senate more conservative? If that answer isn’t “yes,” then I don’t care how much time a candidate spends throwing themselves in front of a TV camera or making attention-grabbing pontifications. I want to see conservative votes and conservative legislation.

I utterly fail to see any evidence of “true” conservative epistemology in Liz Cheney. By looking at the people who she associates with, the actions and affiliations of her husband, her financial backers, the positions she’s taken in the “Keep America Safe” group that’s gone mostly dark since she started this idea of running for Senate here in Wyoming... she shows no more conservative ideals than some of the more infamous RINOs in the Senate now.

[NVDave]

Let’s have a little look at Phillip Perry, Cheney’s husband.

First, let’s have a little spin backwards in time:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16318-2005Mar31.html

Money quote:

“In Bush’s first term in office, Perry was general counsel to the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he helped draft the 2002 legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security.”

Right there, that’s a complete disqualification for any GOP candidate IMO - to have been involved even at arm’s length with the creation of the DHS is a fundamental disqualification.

Go do digging on Phillip Perry. You’ll find out who and what Cheney is, because she found this clown interesting enough to bear him five children. I want no candidate who has someone like Perry for a spouse in office. Every time we have a “power couple” like this in DC, with one in the senate and the other one pulling levers at a law or think-tank in DC, we common people get shafted.