We can only respect Cheney for her patriotism, desire to find the truth about Jan 6, and unwillingness to toady to Trump, but let's not forget that . . . she . . . voted with Trump 93% of the time.
As did many genuinely-conservative, genuine Republicans. It's important to recall that Trump rarely knew or cared what legislation was proposed in his name as long as he could claim credit for it. He was more oblivious to policy than any president in current memory. He simply was used by various factions in the Republican Party which stroked his fragile ego to get what they wanted, just as he was used by various foreign governments which flattered him to get what
they wanted. (And, in the case of Russia, which tried to assist his campaigns for president.)
She did but she has a backbone and someone far worse could replace her.
Perfect is the enemy of good in this case.
Not only that: every democracy needs a conservative party (or parties) as a counterweight to its liberal party (or parties)—its "progressive" parties, as they now prefer to style themselves—because in the long run, legislation advanced by liberal politicians tends to be more attractive to a democratic country's population than the status quo ante. (That's why liberals think of themselves as "progressives." Their ideas are intended to "make progress.")
The long-term trend may not be a bad thing, depending on your point-of-view. In the United States, Social Security old-age and disability benefits, civil rights and voting rights legislation, Medicare and Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act all eventually achieved widespread popular support.
But every one of those legislative efforts benefited from the pushback from genuine conservatives who were concerned about their costs and implementation—and who used both their arguments and their political leverage to produce workable administrative arrangements.
