Matt Gaetz Campaigns In Wyoming to Oust Liz Cheney From Republican Leadership


Posted originally on the conservative tree house on January 25, 2021 by Sundance

Representative Matt Gaetz (MAGA-FL) is heading to Wyoming to assist the state effort to rebuke Liz Cheney for her insufferable position to impeach President Trump.

Ms Cheney voted against the overwhelming voice of the Wyoming people and is now facing the backlash she deserves.

Of course the ever snarky DeceptiCon Cheney fires back with insults instead of actual policy or justification telling Gaetz he “can leave his beauty bag at home. In Wyoming, the men don’t wear make-up.”

WASHINGTON DC – As another Senate impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump looms on the horizon, House Republicans stepped up their pressure campaign against GOP Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney to resign from her leadership post.

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz plans to rally with local Republicans in Cheyenne on Thursday to urge the Wyoming Republican congresswoman to step down as a result of her voting in favor of Trump’s second impeachment and accusing him of “betrayal” to the office of the presidency.

In a tweet promoting the event, Gaetz said, “I do not want her job. I unequivocally am not seeking a position in House Leadership. I also know Wyoming can do better.”

A Cheney spokesperson shot back at Gaetz, telling the Washington Examiner, “Rep. Gaetz can leave his beauty bag at home. In Wyoming, the men don’t wear make-up.”

Cheney, who is already facing a primary challenger, was excoriated by the Wyoming Republican Party, noting Trump was denied due process by the representative and that the state voted for the reelection of Trump by a margin of 70% to 30%. (read more)

The un-discussed aspect is the unity pact between both wings of the UniParty bird.  The GOPe wants elimination of “Trump” supporters in exactly the same way the GOP wanted, and orchestrated, the elimination of the Tea Party.

If America-First or “MAGA” ideology is the Republican brand, that means the elimination (ie. lots of republicans being primaried) of tenured GOPe politicians.  As an outcome, “Trumpism” is a risk to their structural power.  The charge against the Tea Party was led by senate republicans.  The same charge against Trump was led by Senate Republicans.

When the Tea Party rose to power and primaried a host of GOP politicians, it was the Republican party that attacked the conservative base and attempted to destroy the rebellion.  McCain called us “hobbits” and McConnell called us “jihadists.”  The threat from the Tea Party was felt amid the GOP.  The GOP was *not* going to adjust.

Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama destroyed the center of their political party called the Blue Dog coalition, represented by Bart Stupak.  The Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 because Democrats forced them into radical left-wing agenda items.

A new party, ie. ‘THE’ new party, would not be a carve out of around 80%+ within the Republican club.  A new party would be a coalition party of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  Need proof of the scale, look at the 2020 election for Trump.  That’s the (fill__blank) party.

A new party would be a SECOND party to the UniParty occupants currently pushing more big government in Washington DC.  The fact that we have decades worth of evidence (Patriot Act, Wall Street Lobbyists, K-St. etc.), and specifically the past ten years (omnibus spending bills, limitless debt ceiling, massive wasted stimulus, political bailouts, QE1/QE2, Obamacare, college tuition takeover etc.) shows that both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same big government bird.

The fear of “splitting the GOP” is the weaponized talking point of the GOP leadership who use that fear as a weapon to remain in power.  In my opinion many of those who listen to that threat are suffering from battered conservative syndrome.

There is nothing conservative about expanding government, spending into oblivion, allowing open borders and simultaneously removing liberty and freedom.   What exactly is being “conserved”? CTH has been making this argument for years.

This example from 2015 rings just as true today:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.