The Republican party leaders in Nebraska and Wyoming seem to have taken the same response when it comes to disciplining their own congressional office holders.The Republican party in Wyoming lead the way in censoring Congresswoman Liz Cheney for voting yes on the impeachment of former President Trump and Nebraskan’s Republican parties followed by censoring Sen. Ben Sasse. Both representatives explained their vote as a matter of conscience.
How sad that both put their conscience above their beloved party. How could each be so self-centered as to commit such a horrible, despicable act? Granted, both had been loyal to their party almost to the point of voting with their party around 90% of the time. What right does any party member have to deviate or disagree with their state’s party?
How ironic that voters often profess that they want a strong-willed candidate who follows their conscience whatever the party. Yet, when that occurs, they question their representatives integrity.
In reality, there can be a split between a party’s leadership and those who associate with that party. For example, you have local/county parties and a statewide party. In each case, there are officers who direct the party’s actions. Yet, in reality, they may not necessarily reflect the thinking of large numbers in their county or state who might well disagree with their own party’s leadership.
This reality seems to be appearing in Wyoming, one of the most Republican states in the country.
Despite the state’s Republican party’s central committee censor of Cheney, the general attitude of Wyoming’s people accepted her explanation, and,in fact, expressed their admiration for her courage. Truly, for both Cheney and Sasse, it did take courage to cast their vote, knowing what would follow. The Casper Star-Tribune has been filled with letters to the editor from Republicans and Democrats expressing their support for Cheney. In reality, here is a case of the party’s leadership failing to recognize and accept those in their own party who have been faithful, but also have a right, at times, to vote their conscience.
Interestingly, Utah’s state Republican party took the right response when each of their senators, Matt Romney and Mike Lee, voted differently on impeachment. They accepted there could be a difference in the vote, and stated it was actually in the best interest of their party to accept both of their senator’s vote. Their leadership interpreted this as an example for their state party to be open and tolerate differences of thought within the party, realizing that such really strengthens their party.
Hence, they are logical and practical.