When Republican members of the House of Representatives gather Wednesday to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from the third-highest post in the GOP Conference, they will be reacting to public statements from the two women and the outcry that followed — and not taking into account any hard data.
Cheney has been a vocal defender of the 2020 election results and highly critical of Donald Trump's role in instigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. The anti-Cheney forces who have coalesced around Rep. Elise Stefanik argue that the Wyoming lawmaker and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney is out of step with conservative ideology and therefore not fit to lead Republican messaging efforts during the midterm election cycle.
But the data says otherwise.
CQ Roll Call, which has been tracking voting data for decades, provided its latest numbers on Cheney and Stefanik. From 2017 to 2020, Cheney's party unity score (the percentage of votes cast in line with a majority of her party, against a majority of the Democratic Party) ranged from 92 to 96. Stefanik hit a high of 88 in 2017 and a low of 68 in 2019.
CQ Roll Call also measures presidential support (how often a member of Congress votes in line with the president's position). Cheney's scores during the four years of Trump's presidency were 94, 96, 97 and 87. Stefanik scored 86, 93, 61 and 83.
With Joe Biden in the White House, Cheney continues to demonstrate more party loyalty when voting. According to CQ Roll Call, Cheney has voted in line with Biden 4 percent of the time, while Stefanik has done so on 26 percent of the votes. The team at FiveThirtyEight offers a similar statistic. They found that Cheney has yet to side with Biden on any votes, while Stefanik has voted in line with the president 19 percent of the time. ("Voting in line with the president" is a subjective data point that requires a determination of the president's position.)
So really this is a story of rhetoric, and how Stefanik's use of political language has evolved since she was elected in 2014. Stefanik, like Cheney, was an "establishment" Republican, having worked in George W. Bush's administration and for the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan campaign in 2012.
In fact, she began her congressional service as a moderate Republican, opposing some of Donald Trump's core positions, joining the center-leaning collection of House Republicans known as the Tuesday Group, and advocating for more women in politics.
But as Cheney stood up for Democratic norms and defended the results of the 2020 election, Stefanik sided with Trump and opposed congressional certification on Jan. 6, the day of the insurrection at the Capitol.
Here are some of Cheney's statements about Trump:
"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution." (public statement, Jan. 12)
"While embracing or ignoring Trump's statements might seem attractive to some for fundraising and political purposes, that approach will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country. Trump has never expressed remorse or regret for the attack of Jan. 6 and now suggests that our elections, and our legal and constitutional system, cannot be trusted to do the will of the people. This is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against Communist China and its claims that democracy is a failed system. (Washington Post opinion piece, May 5)
Stefanik, on the other hand, has continued to endorse debunked conspiracies about election fraud and complained about "cancel culture."
But now Republicans are about to cancel one of their most loyal conservatives.
Go deeper into the Stefanik-Cheney fight that is dividing Republicans:
How Liz Cheney lost Republican support ahead of Stefanik vote this week (Fox News)
Cheney's getting dumped because of the GOP's elections push (The Washington Post)
The 'Handmaiden of Trump': How Elise Stefanik Went From Moderate to MAGA (Time)
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."