Well.

Not unexpected. It's good to have one's intuitions confirmed.

Josh Kraushaar
@JoshKraushaar

Questions from town hall with Harris/Cheney in Malvern, PA this afternoon sounds like they're coming from typical partisan Democrats, not from cross-pressured Nikki Haley acolytes.

Josh Kraushaar
@JoshKraushaar

Another example of this: Cheney, who has always been a pro-lifer throughout her political career, said the Dobbs decision went too far during the PA event.

Via Twitchy, the Guardian writes that Cheney is telling people to support Kamala Harris to protect women against anti-abortion laws.

Liz Cheney, a former Republican congresswoman and longtime opponent of abortion rights, on Monday condemned Republican-imposed bans on the procedure and urged conservatives to support Democrat Kamala Harris for US president.

Cheney was speaking during three joint events with the vice-president in three swing states aimed at prising suburban Republican voters away from party nominee Donald Trump. She has become the Democrat's most prominent conservative surrogate and is rumoured to be in contention for a seat in a potential Harris cabinet.

Via SamJ. of Twitchy, Charles Cooke tweeted about what an incredible volte face this is for Cheney, who previously demanded an absolute ban on abortion at the federal level from "the moment of fertilization."

Andrew Egger of cuckblog The Bulwark attempts to femsplain Cheney's incredible flip-flop from 100% absolutist pro-life to claiming we need to roll back state limitations so that women can get "the care they need."

But Cheney didn't say Dobbs went too far. She disapproved of some of the state-level bans which followed. ("Dobbs went too far" is sort of a nonsensical statement--all it did was change the regulatory environment.)

So the claim of the NeverTrump liberals (they're neither conservative nor Republican and it's beyond time they stopped pretending otherwise) is that Cheney doesn't oppose Dobbs itself, but merely abortion limits (limits, not bans) that Dobbs allowed the states to pass.

If she's against the states limiting abortion, then she's actually against Dobbs. If she is demanding that states simply encode the Roe v. Wade regime through their own laws, then what the hell is her objection to Roe v. Wade in the first place? She just wants states to protect abortion instead of the federal government?

I mean, there is an argument about proper constitutional procedure there, but that argument is not about the substance of abortion itself. I guess the NeverTrumpers just want pro-abortion laws but passed by the states.

But Cooke isn't having this lame femsplanation from the very effeminate Egger and very liberal California Democrat Patterico:

But this position doesn't make any sense, either, given that, just a couple of years ago, Cheney co-sponsored a bill that banned abortion nationally from "the moment of fertilization," and did so on the grounds that the Constitution mandated such a rule.

And now she's complaining at Kamala Harris rallies about the less-strict-than-that rules that some states passed after the issue was returned to the states--which she said she wanted but also apparently didn't because she tried to pass a national ban? Come on.

I simply do not understand why she didn't just say "I'm pro-life in the most comprehensive way possible--I think the 14th Amendment mandates a from-conception ban--but I think we need to elect Kamala Harris because Trump is unfit for office." The temptation was too great.

Joe Gabriel Simonson
@SaysSimonson

Cheney saying she thinks Dobbs went too far is like the opposite side of the Trump coin. Trump never really cared about abortion but is pretty honest about it. Cheney, who once told voters fetuses have a constitutional right to life, never cared all along either.

Here's Patterico making the tendentious, ankle-biting point that she doesn't say she thinks Dobbs went too far -- just state laws limiting abortion.

As if there's a difference. Either way, she wants states to stop restricting abortion.

What is "the care they need" she's talking about, Pat? "The care they need" she means is, of course, abortion.

But this very serious True Conservative is telling you she's just as pro-life as she used to pretend to be.

As Cooke points out, Cheney's past position was that all abortions, every single one, should be banned at the federal level from the moment of fertilization. That was the position she used to pretend to hold -- which we now find out was always a lie, because she's now claiming that if any abortion law ever stops women from getting "the care they need," it must be repealed.

Charles, we were not supposed to take seriously any such bills proposed pre-Dobby. Everyone know they were just meaningless attempts to keep pro-life voters donating money and going to the polls. They weren't serious.

Charles C. W. Cooke
@charlescwcooke

Yeah, well I don't think she can say that, either.

Jay Caruso
@JayCaruso
She cannot. Dobbs was already in the appeals court process when this bill was introduced. It was obviously done with the idea that SCOTUS would take the case, which they did three months later.

She proposed banning all abortions while Dobbs was in the appeals process?

Well then I understand the point of her move: As her good neocon friend Lindsey Graham also did, she was attempting to push a policy that she new the public would reject, in order to get Democrats elected and scare the Supreme Court into voting to uphold Roe. She was telling the Court, if you overturn Roe, this is the bill we'll be voting for, so you'd better defend Roe.

By the way: This was billed as a "town hall," but a town hall allows unscripted questions from the audience.

That was not allowed here -- the fake journalist attempting to give a veneer of journalistic credibility to this infomercial admitted that audience members could not ask questions, because the question had been "pre-determined."

So Liz Cheney knew this question was coming -- she was not caught flat-footed and forced to improvise. This is her new, considered take on abortion -- abortions must be allowed so that women can "get the care they need."

PS:

This is now Patterico's tenth straight year of supporting Democrats for president and pushing whatever spin is necessary to claim that the far-left position is the "true conservative" position.

Maybe it's time to stop pretending. After ten years of championing Democrats, you ca no longer claim you're "politically homeless" or whatever bullshit you peddle. You have a political home. It's right in the heart of the ultra-progressive, woke authoritarian Democrat Party.