I don’t see how she has any political future, except as an outside observer looking in.
However, I think it good speculation that wanting to support his daughter was a factor in the endorsement. Unfortunately, lack of that family factor makes it less likely GW Bush will follow this path.
You mean the loser aristocrat cosplayers who got their asses handed to them by Grant, Sherman, and co?
You’re about two decades out of date on your talking points.
For all his faults, Dick Cheney didn’t try to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. Trump has, and a big part of why calling that out doesn’t seem to stick is “boy who cried wolf” effect from decades of exactly this kinds of hysteria about Republicans who were “wrong within normal parameters”.
One of these things is not like the others. ‘Hates and distrusts Putin’ is probably the most based thing about Cheney.
I think a lot of modern Republicans would sooner vote for Stalin, too. But since he’s not available, they’ll settle for Trump.
I think it is more rejecting Trump and MAGA is publicly supporting his daughter.
Assuming he has any normal human emotions at all, he must be beyond outraged that a party he used to have so much contol over turned on and savaged his child.
The Neocons were in full anti-Trump mode way back in 2016. When Trump won, many, like Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham, weaseled their way back into Trump’s good graces, and the rest just faded into the shadows until Trump provided them cover to oppose him again after Jan. 6. The cowardly Neocons only stick their heads out when it’s safe to do so. Dick Cheney can stick his head out now because he is too old to care about the consequences.
The only novelty in Cheney’s announcement is his choice to choose “the lesser of two evils” which is an escalation from the earlier strategy of endorsing one of their own (like Evan McMullin) as a third party spoiler.
Four years of shooting war resulting in ~1 million dead outweighs one violent mob, even if that mob was at the capitol.
Relevant thread, for anyone who missed it and might be interested:
Christopher Moore’s take:
I actually think this is a substantive difference, the same way that not having Bernie Bros on the far left is working to Harris’ advantage. The lack of a third party “protest” vote means that those sick of Trump, who don’t ordinarily vote Democrat, are more likely to actually select Harris’ name. Cheney certainly pushes the reluctant Republicans in that direction.
I’m a Republican for Harris. But that’s because I’m a social progressive and constitutionalist (the Constitution should rule this country not the Bible). When you have convinced someone like Dick Cheney to vote for the other party, you done messed up big time.
Eh, this rehabilitation of the Bush admin is a bad thing. W as a terrible president compared to others that were wrong within normal parameters. Lying your way into war that cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of other, create the conditions that caused ISIS, allowed Iran to take over the country, etc, was a a historically bad move. Add in various levels of corruption, Katrina, the housing crisis, 9/11 and his administration was just a dumpster fire.
Yeah, he didn’t try to end Democracy, but that doesn’t mean complaints about that admin were crying wolf.
Unless you specifically mean thoughts that he’d cancel elections or some such. In which case, sure, and disregard this rant/sidebar.
We keep seeing people comparing Cheney’s wars to Trump overthrowing democracy.
Make NO mistake that what Cheney did was awful and evil and that whole administration should be reviled.
But, I gotta say Trump literally trying to overthrow democracy in the US and become a dictator is worse to me. And he is trying it again and it is a toss up if he will succeed. Read Project 2025.
Cheney endorsing Harris does not absolve him of his past crimes but I’ll take it. Imagine what evil Trump and MAGA will get up to if they win.
YMMV
That was an intelligence community failure, not deliberate W. lying.
You are, of course, referring to Saddam Hussein.
Hussein had led a secular government, but it was dominated by members of Iraq’s Sunni minority and it brutally repressed opposition. When Saddam was ousted, power went to the majority Shiites, who wanted revenge. There was a growing perception among Sunnis that they were being persecuted and excluded from power by Shiite officials. AQI recruited Sunni fighters to its cause – trying to establish a Sunni Islamist control of the country.
Hmmmm … seems like they are.
And yet Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to CIA director (at the time) George Tenet for a job well done? 
Being part of the leadership that pushed for a war because of ideological beliefs about what direction the US should go in is very different from leading an insurrection to cement personal power.
At the time, I believe, it was reasonable to presume the CIA had done their job correctly. Wasn’t it after W.'s term that everyone realized how much of the intelligence gathers was BS? I’m thinking of Hans Blick’s report to the UN in 2003 basically saying Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMDs.
OR feeling compelled to be the world’s policeman is different than undermining Democracy in the US™ through insurrection including threats to kill political figures in charge of keeping democracy safe.
He lied about yellow cake that Ambassador Wilson disproved and the State department had disproved his aluminum tube = centrifuge lie. He lied.
Yes, the government Bush overthrew without a plan. The Sunnis he banned from government and couldn’t earn a paycheck were radicalized. Then they let Iran come and take over. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Make wrong and irrelevant points and then claim victory. Did you post this in a flight suit?