Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Liz Cheney for … GOP nominee

Opinion

Liz Cheney
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights.

In early 2020, if anyone was willing to bet that the conservative icon and anti-abortion, gun-toting zealot Liz Cheney, who sported an almost unbroken record of voting with Donald Trump and a history of calling Barack Obama “the most radical man who’s inhabited the Oval Office,” would be turned out of her own office by a former Never Trumper who had praised Cheney as a “proven, courageous, constitutional conservative,” they could have gotten very nice odds.

And lost.

Harriet Hageman succeeded in what only two years ago would have seemed laughable. But by making a single course correction — she, like many other Republicans including Rep. Elise Stefanik, changed from Trump hater to Trump groveler. Cheney, of course, sealed her doom by going in exactly the opposite direction, fueled by her determination to resurrect Republicans as an actual political party. Even more bizarre than her loss in the primary is that her approval rating among Democrats is now higher than among Republicans. While there has been no shortage of near insanity in the American political scene, Cheney’s whipsaw certainly ranks near the top.


Forsaken by her home state and the many voters who once revered her, Cheney must now decide how to continue her crusade to purge the party of Donald Trump and what, if anything, he stands for, an aim she announced bluntly in what passed for her concession speech. There has been widespread speculation that she will mount a run for the 2024 presidential nomination ... as a Republican. Although she is aware that she is facing a climb more arduous than Gannett Peak, the highest mountain in Wyoming, Cheney’s goal would likely be more to impact the process than to actually win the nomination.

Every American should root for her to run.

There has been a good deal of talk, hardly idle, about the United States abandoning even the pretext of democracy and descending into autocracy. Fortunately, although the pressure has been immense, autocracy has not yet taken root in the nation as a whole.

But in the Republican Party, it has.

Turning a blind eye to history, morality and the Constitution, Republicans have decided that to hold on to power for its own sake — they don’t seem to have a legislative agenda worth discussing — they will forgo even the veneer of truthfulness, honor and patriotism to embrace a man for whom democracy is a foolish affectation of the weak. If Christopher Marlowe were still around, he would cast Kevin McCarthy as Faust.

Although Republicans have yet to be successful in remaking the United States in Donald Trump’s image, they also seem loath to attempt to gain power by persuading a majority of Americans of the merit of their ideas. In the first place, they no longer have any ideas, and in the second, they are doing all they can to prevent the majority from expressing itself. The irony is that during the four months of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, the delegates feared despotism more than any other calamity that might befall the new nation and created a system that they thought would discourage it. Instead, by building minority rule into both the legislative and executive, and providing insufficient checks on the judiciary, they enabled it.

To be sure, a Republican takeover of the government is hardly assured. There have been signs that, despite Trump’s unquestioned influence in the primaries, many of those he has backed, such as Senate candidates Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, Herschel Walker in Georgia, Blake Masters in Arizona, and even J. D. Vance in ordinarily Republican Ohio, might face a difficult road in the general election. If all or most of them lose — a genuine possibility — Democrats will increase their control of the Senate to a Manchin- and Sinema-proof majority. Trump’s endorsement may also backfire in key gubernatorial races, such as those in Arizona, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In House races as well, gerrymandered though they may be, Trump might turn out to be as much unwanted baggage as first-class ticket.

Still, without a plausible Republican alternative, even if Trump himself is rejected, Trumpism may well survive in the person of smarter, smoother, more acceptable amoral pretenders, such as Ron DeSantis. The Florida governor, while certainly conservative, doesn’t seem to have real core beliefs that guide him other than his own determination to inherit Trump’s gold toilets. Trump thus may turn out to have been a perverse Daniel Boone, blazing a trail for other, less obvious, would-be dictators to follow.

This is where Liz Cheney comes in. Whatever one may think of her policies and her beliefs, at least she has some. If she runs, while she may not get many votes, she will have a chance to share the stage during the debates that will sprout like mushrooms during the primary season. (Republican leaders are already considering how to keep her from participating in debates, but if she gets enough signatures to appear on the ballot, it will be difficult for them to win the inevitable court challenge.) Once on stage, she will forcefully air all the hypocrisies that the other candidates will desperately attempt to ignore.

All of this theater might not garner her all that much support — although perhaps there are a greater number of principled Republicans than many pollsters think — but exposing the duplicity and venal self-interest of the other candidates could well impact that share of the electorate that is still truly independent.

Another lesson Republicans have learned from Trump is that there is nothing worse than losing — not cheating, not lying, not stealing, not prostituting one’s values. If independents appear as if they will reject Republicans’ power grab and vote for Democrats, the prospect of defeat may nudge Republicans toward the center. Or, if they persist regardless, push them out the door.

Either way, the nation will be better off.


Read More

Marco Rubio: 2028 Presidential Contender?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrives to testify during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on January 28, 2026 in Washington, DC. This is the first time Rubio has testified before Congress since the Trump administration attacked Venezuela and seized President Nicolas Maduro, bringing him to the United States to stand trial.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Marco Rubio: 2028 Presidential Contender?

Marco Rubio’s Senate testimony this week showcased a disciplined, media‑savvy operator — but does that make him a viable 2028 presidential contender? The short answer: maybe, if Republicans prioritize steadiness and foreign‑policy credibility; unlikely, if the party seeks a fresh face untainted by the Trump administration’s controversies.

"There is no war against Venezuela, and we did not occupy a country. There are no U.S. troops on the ground," Rubio said, portraying the mission as a narrowly focused law‑enforcement operation, not a military intervention.

Keep ReadingShow less
The map of the U.S. broken into pieces.

In Donald Trump's interview with Reuters on Jan. 24, he portrayed himself as an "I don't care" president, an attitude that is not compatible with leadership in a constitutional democracy.

Getty Images

Donald Trump’s “I Don’t Care” Philosophy Undermines Democracy

On January 14, President Trump sat down for a thirty-minute interview with Reuters, the latest in a series of interviews with major news outlets. The interview covered a wide range of subjects, from Ukraine and Iran to inflation at home and dissent within his own party.

As is often the case with the president, he didn’t hold back. He offered many opinions without substantiating any of them and, talking about the 2026 congressional elections, said, “When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Deadly Shooting in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans

A portrait of Renee Good is placed at a memorial near the site where she was killed a week ago, on January 14, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Good was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement agent during an incident in south Minneapolis on January 7.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The Deadly Shooting in Minneapolis and How It Impacts the Rights of All Americans

Thomas Paine famously wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls," when writing about the American Revolution. One could say that every week of Donald Trump's second administration has been such a time for much of the country.

One of the most important questions of the moment is: Was the ICE agent who shot Renee Good guilty of excessive use of force or murder, or was he acting in self-defense because Good was attempting to run him over, as claimed by the Trump administration? Local police and other Minneapolis authorities dispute the government's version of the events.

Keep ReadingShow less
Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Retaliatory prosecutions and political score-settling mark a grave threat to the rule of law, constitutional rights, and democratic accountability.

Getty Images, sommart

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing it with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less