Connect with us

Congress

Mourning Dick Cheney — and the US House

Published

3 months ago

on

It was just another Thursday in Washington.

Donald Trump was threatening to execute congressional Democrats, House members were mounting gangland-style political reprisals on one another and the following people sat next to each in the same pew at Washington’s National Cathedral to remember the life of Dick Cheney: Anthony Fauci, Rachel Maddow, Ken Mehlman and James Carville.

The former vice-president, who died earlier this month after modern medicine and a new heart let him see his grandkids become adults, would have been appalled at Trump’s conduct, amused by his coalition of the willing (mourners) and depressed by what has become of the House, where he represented Wyoming for a decade.

Cheney’s service was fittingly held the first full week his beloved House was back in session after a 54-day absence following the government shutdown. The dispiriting part is that after they reopened the government, lawmakers quickly turned on one another. Resolutions of disapproval and even expulsion were teed up, with the usual tribal, red-vs.-blue targeting of the other party — but also intra-party warfare between rival factions.

It was enough to make the bipartisan vote on the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files look like a historic triumph of Article I power and legislative branch independence.

Now a decade into the Trump era, it’s easy to focus on his aberrant and indefensible behavior. In fact, we should — it’s important to not be inured to how he acts. Calling a female reporter “piggy,” treating visiting autocrats like they’re former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and saying of the Federal Reserve chair: “I’d love to fire his ass.” Which was all before he went on social media to say “Hang Them” of those Democratic lawmakers who recorded a video urging military service members to refuse illegal orders.

And that was all just this week.

Yet what’s disheartening about the breakdown of the House is it illustrates that the political rot runs deeper than just one man. Yes, Trump sets the example and has modeled the worst behavior. But we know who he is. This year makes clear, however, that the institutional decay in Washington may outlast his presidency.

Republicans have full control of the government, yet there have been more resolutions of disapproval or censure (three) voted on individual lawmakers than there have been votes on major bills (one). It has gotten so bad that a bipartisan duo is introducing legislation to raise the vote threshold to censure a member, to “raise the level of sanity in the House.”

Yes, the lack of legislative activity is in part because House members wrapped many of their priorities in legislation formerly known as the “one big, beautiful bill.”

But would any student of Congress really say this has been a productive year for the House? And could anyone tell you what their legislative priorities for the rest of this session have been since the BBB was signed in July?

And then there’s that pesky Article I language, the power distributed to Congress by the Constitution. There’s not a single member of Congress who could argue with a straight face, at least in private, that they’re acting the part of a co-equal branch.

Arriving for Cheney’s service, I encountered a former Republican congressional and White House aide, a conservative, dejected by Congress’s abdication of its authority. Had I seen, he asked, the clip of House Speaker Mike Johnson earlier this month in which the speaker says he’s “cheering for the president” to win the Supreme Court case challenging Trump’s power to levy tariffs without congressional approval? “I say that as a jealous guardian of the legislative branch of government,” Johnson added, irony unintended.

Not far away was John Thune, the Senate GOP Leader and a House member himself at the turn of the century. “It’s a different era,” Thune said.

“It’s a different era,” he said again, and without taking pleasure in the observation as he surveyed a sanctuary full of old guard Republicans and the Democrats doing their duty, whether out of obligation or respect for the Cheney family’s opposition to Trump after January 6.

The audience reflected the end of Cheney’s career, and the eulogists spoke of Cheney the father, grandfather, boss and heart patient more than they did the controversial vice-president, 30-something presidential chief of staff or Desert Storm-era defense secretary.

But there were reminders of the post that Cheney cherished so much, serving as Wyoming’s sole House member between 1979 and 1989.

There were a handful of his colleagues from that era, including the few still left in Congress such as Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyerm, as well as those who also ascended to higher office, like Al Gore and Dan Quayle.

And the man who, had he won, would have been Cheney’s classmate in the House class of ’78 couldn’t help but stand in the pulpit and recall his own defeat that year.

“The Republican wave didn’t reach West Texas that year,” said George W. Bush, recounting his only loss while generously noting that Cheney was undefeated.

More telling, though, were the descriptions of Cheney’s mind and curiosity. Nobody dared say it outright in such a solemn setting, but I couldn’t help but think of what has been lost in today’s House. There’s not many Dick Cheneys walking through that door (at Cannon) and the few who are soon look to run for the Senate, governor or walk away entirely.

Liz Cheney, his eldest daughter and the former congresswoman, recalled her father as a college dropout, working on power lines in Wyoming by day but reading Churchill’s history of World War in a sleeping bag at night. She and her sister, Mary, would grudgingly go along with him as young girls as he took them to museums and battlefields, reading every word on every plaque to their consternation.

And then in the winter of his life, as Liz recalled, she and her father went back to some of those same historic sites. And even as he declined, he would still come armed with that day’s newspapers, the latest issue of The Economist and a book.

He was, Bush noted, “a serious man.”

If only the same could be said for so many in today’s House.

This isn’t to bask in blind nostalgia — those beneath the gravestones at Section 60 in Arlington and even more Iraqis should have their say in any full appraisal of Cheney’s career.

Yet nobody would argue that the current Congress and particularly this House are worthy of a great country.

There are still members who would’ve flourished in Cheney’s day, but even they are sober about the state of the institution.

“This is one of those eras in which you read Kipling’s classic poem, ‘If—’ over and over and then get up and go to work every day,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the House Appropriations Chair, told me. “The aim isn’t to rebuild Rome in a day. It is just to make things a bit better every day.”

Liz Cheney can’t because, unlike most all of her former GOP colleagues, she couldn’t and wouldn’t get over what Trump did on January 6 — and her state rejected her because of it three years ago.

I thought Thursday about that 2022 primary and recalled what stood out to me about an interview I conducted with Liz shortly before her inevitable defeat that summer.

She inveighed against Trump and the danger he posed, but she said something more about her party and the institution in which she then served.

“What the country needs are serious people who are willing to engage in debates about policy,” Cheney told me then, wishing Americans would “vote for the serious candidate.”

Then she went further.

“I would much rather serve with Mikie Sherrill and Chrissy Houlahan and Elissa Slotkin than Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert,” she said, adding of her then-House Democratic colleagues with national security backgrounds: “They love this country, they do their homework and they’re people who are trying to do the right thing for the country.”

Cheney’s father had just recorded an ad for her, calling Trump “a coward,” and she was thrilled to have him by her side in her final House campaign.

“I talk to him every day,” she said. “He’s just a source of tremendous wisdom across the board, he’s such a student of American history.”

I reminded her that he co-wrote a book with his wife, Lynne, on House greats — Kings of Blue Light News – and she laughed for one of the few times that day. “Well, my mother wrote that — a sore subject,” she joked.

Would you have stayed in the House had your dad not so revered the body? I asked.

She dodged the question but turned more serious, explaining she was “so glad” she stayed — even though her career was nearly over.

“Having the opportunity to help make sure that we protect any future January 6ths, it’s the right thing to be doing,” Cheney said.

Her father also left the House without becoming one of those Kings of Blue Light News.

Had he not been appointed Defense Secretary under George H.W. Bush, the taciturn Wyomingite may well have become speaker. Cheney was House Minority Whip when he left Congress in 1989, the back-up plan for Bush after John Tower’s Pentagon nomination was rejected by the Senate.

He was a man of the House and relished that his daughter, Liz, followed him there and was even happier when she declined to run for the Senate in 2020. She seemed in that moment poised to eventually claim the post that eluded her father once he left Congress.

But five years later Liz Cheney was out of Congress, honoring her father’s fidelity to the Constitution over party and then, in a moment that spoke louder than words, stopping on her way down the aisle as his funeral ended to hug Pelosi.

It was a poignant moment, the two mothers of five and daughters of House members who rose to the leadership as political opposites but bonded when duty called.

Former Rep. Richard B. Cheney (R-Wyo.) would’ve liked it.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Capitol agenda: Nervous GOP waits for Trump’s Texas pick

Published

3 hours ago

on

March 5, 2026

By

Senate Republicans are holding their breath ahead of President Donald Trump’s critical choice in Texas: an establishment GOP candidate vs. a MAGA firebrand.

The president announced Wednesday his incoming endorsement in the Texas GOP Senate runoff between Sen. John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Senate leaders have urged the president to throw his support behind Cornyn to avoid a grueling 12-week showdown that could burn $100 million or more in GOP donor money.

There’s hope from some of Cornyn’s allies, who believe things are aligning in the incumbent’s favor, as he appears on track to win a plurality in Tuesday’s voting.

A swift endorsement would also let Senate Republicans pivot their resources toward holding onto seats that Democrats are targeting. That could now include Montana, after GOP Sen. Steve Daines announced Wednesday night that he would not seek reelection.

“I hope it’s going to be soon,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Wednesday about an official Trump nod, hours after making his latest plea on Cornyn’s behalf to the president.

He’s not alone. Multiple other Republicans have pressed the president to back Cornyn ever since he advanced to the primary runoff Tuesday, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations.

They warned Trump that if scandal-plagued Paxton becomes the nominee, it could cost Republicans a seat they have held since 1961. There’s even more GOP anxiety now that state Rep. James Talarico secured the Democratic nomination — a candidate many believe could give Democrats their best chance at flipping the seat.

“There’s nothing more powerful than President Trump’s endorsement,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) said in an interview for Blue Light News’s “The Conversation” Wednesday. Britt said Cornyn is “without a doubt the candidate to win in November.”

However, anxious Republicans are acutely aware that the president has always been fond of Paxton, a MAGA firebrand who eagerly joined Trump’s effort to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 win.

“We need to hold that seat which means we need to nominate someone who is going to win in November,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso told Blue Light News. “The person that will win in November is John Cornyn.”

What else we’re watching: 

— War powers resolution vote: House Republican leaders are confident a bipartisan Iran war powers resolution will fail Thursday, after the Senate on Wednesday rejected an attempt to rein in Trump’s authority to pursue the war. GOP Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio are bound to break ranks with their party to support the effort. But a small group of Democrats are expected to oppose the resolution.

— Kids online safety markup: The House Energy and Commerce Committee will debate Thursday over the latest GOP proposal to set national standards for kids’ online safety as Democrats warn it weakens state protections. Expect a partisan clash over how far Congress should go in regulating tech companies and preempting state laws.

Jordain Carney, Alex Gangitano, Liz Crampton, Calen Razor, Ruth Reader, Alfred Ng and Gabby Miller contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

Tony Gonzales admits sexual relationship with former staff member who killed herself

Published

15 hours ago

on

March 5, 2026

By

Texas Rep. Tony Gonzales has admitted for the first time that he had a sexual relationship with his former staff member who killed herself last year.

Gonzales, who faces a May runoff in the Republican primary to hold his seat, insisted in a radio interview that he is not responsible for her death.

“I made a mistake, and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions,” Gonzales told radio host Joe Pagliarulo.

Gonzales, who is married, made the comments hours after congressional investigators recommended the House Ethics committee probe the lawmaker for the relationship, which would be a violation of House rules. The Texas lawmaker said he plans to cooperate with the committee’s investigation.

The acknowledgment comes a day after Gonzales was forced into a runoff election in his west Texas congressional seat against Brandon Herrera, a media personality who owns a gun business and calls himself “the AK Guy.”

Several of his Republican colleagues have called for Gonzales to step down after new details about the relationship came to light in the weeks before Tuesday’s election. Gonzales had previously denied the affair and refused to resign.

Gonzales is alleged to have tried to coerce Regina Santos-Aviles into sending explicit photos, according to text messages published by the San Antonio Express-News and other publications. Blue Light News has not independently reviewed the messages.

An attorney for Gonzales declined to comment.

In the interview, Gonzales spoke about Santos-Aviles’ time working in his office before her death, which he said came as “a shock to everyone.” She died by suicide after setting herself on fire at her home in 2025 – about a year after the exchange of messages with the lawmaker.

“Some of the reports are saying that she was not thriving at work. It’s exact opposite. She was thriving at work,” he said.

Gonzales said that Santos-Aviles’ suicide had “absolutely nothing to do with” their relationship.

Continue Reading

Congress

‘We’re in it’: Democrats won’t rule out giving Trump more money for Middle East war

Published

16 hours ago

on

March 5, 2026

By

Some Democrats aren’t ruling out voting for a multibillion-dollar military infusion, setting up a potential internal clash in the weeks ahead for a party whose political base is aghast at President Donald Trump’s aggression against Iran.

The Trump administration’s top defense and intelligence officials told lawmakers this week that the Pentagon could soon send an emergency supplemental funding request to Capitol Hill. They didn’t offer a timeline or dollar value, but the White House is reportedly mulling a $50 billion ask.

That’s a massive sum on top of the more than $990 billion Congress has shelled out for defense capabilities in recent months between the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill” and the latest government funding package.

To pass any new military funding measure through the Senate, the support of at least seven Democrats will be needed to overcome the filibuster. It’s far from certain the votes are there.

“Good luck. What Democrat is going to vote to fund an illegal war?” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Wednesday. “I don’t think — with the exception of one Democrat — there will be any votes for it.”

He appeared to be referring to Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, who was the only Democrat to oppose a separate Iran war powers resolution and has routinely broken with his colleagues on government funding votes.

Democrats also want to stay disciplined around their campaign message heading into the midterms, arguing that Trump has abandoned his central campaign promises to keep the country out of prolonged wars and bring down costs for Americans.

“I mean, you lie to us, don’t consult us and then expect us to send more taxpayer money to a war that we shouldn’t have started with no plan and no answers,” said Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.), a combat veteran of the Iraq War, in an interview. He called reports of the $50 billion request “outrageous.”

But this is not the universal position inside the party. Several Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee aren’t ruling out supporting more Pentagon funding. That includes the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, as well as Sens. Gary Peters of Michigan, Tim Kaine of Virginia and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.

A White House emergency funding request could force Democrats to choose between rebuffing the president and turning their backs on legislation the administration deems necessary for replenishing key defensive munition stocks designed to keep U.S. troops and civilians safe.

There’s awareness among many Democrats that Trump has thrust the country into a conflict, and now Congress has no choice but to help keep things on track.

“I need to know the goals and the plan. … I don’t rule anything out,” said Slotkin. “I mean, we’re in it.”

Lawmakers in both parties are also concerned that the bombing campaign and effort to defend U.S. personnel in the Middle East could quickly deplete stockpiles of precision-guided missiles and air defense interceptors that are critical for national security priorities elsewhere around the globe. The Pentagon and defense industry have struggled to speed up production of the expensive munitions, which are in high demand in the Middle East, Ukraine and in the Pacific.

“We have to look at what they need,” said Reed, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Some of it might be to fill in critical issues and other theaters of war they’ve taken things from.”

There’s a possibility a spending package for the Iran conflict could be tied to other priorities, which could make it more palatable to some Democrats. Lawmakers were talking Wednesday about attaching Ukraine aid. Others are eyeing relief for farmers — a key priority for Republicans in agriculture-heavy states — as well as wildfire disaster aid Democrats have long sought.

“I think it comes down to, you’re going to have to have a number of things in there to get a critical mass,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said Wednesday.

That doesn’t mean all Democrats are prepared to give Trump a blank check for military action in Iran. Many who left the door open to voting for a supplemental funding package said the administration would first have to provide Congress with more information about the offensive. That includes the rationale for striking Iran, a commitment to avoid putting boots on the ground and a plan for ending the conflict.

“Clearly, there’s going to be a cost to this war that we haven’t budgeted for. So there is going to be a need for funding, and we need some answers before we provide it,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the top Democrat on the appropriations panel overseeing Pentagon spending, is also keeping open the option of supporting an emergency military funding package but said like Shaheen that administration officials need to testify publicly about “the failures in planning” in the conflict so far.

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska cautioned Wednesday that Democrats could decide to take a stand on funding — a vote where they have real leverage. That is in contrast to the doomed efforts on Blue Light News this week to put guardrails on the president’s ability to take unilateral military action, which Trump would certainly veto in any case.

“There’s a lot of people who have said, ‘Well, if you want to express your position on the war, the way to do it is … through appropriations,” she said in an interview. “We get that. So the administration should not be taking anything for granted.”

Across the Capitol, California Rep. Pete Aguilar, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and a member of the Defense appropriations funding panel, told reporters Wednesday that he’s “incredibly skeptical” of any emergency military funding request from Trump — but also that he has “a duty and a responsibility to help protect this country.”

At the same time, said Aguilar, “It’s going to be pretty hard to move me off of a ‘no.’”

Mia McCarthy, Jordain Carney, Connor O’Brien and Calen Razor contributed to this report. 

Continue Reading

Trending