The successor presidencies of Democrats Barack Obama and Joe Biden decried the power grabs Cheney pursued but mostly pocketed his gains for their own purposes. (In his case for unrestricted bombing in the Caribbean and Pacific, Gaiser cited Obama’s own marginalization of Congress to bomb Libya in 2011.) Trump now walks a red carpet of lawlessness, plutocracy and bloodshed woven by Cheney. An uncharismatic Nixon functionary—someone who might never have risen to power had Texas Senator John Tower not drunk himself out of a Pentagon appointment that instead went to Cheney—decisively shaped the destruction of constitutional governance in twenty-first-century America.
...
Cheney understood the catastrophe of 9/11 as an opportunity to accomplish and cement long-standing objectives. In the early days after the fall of the Soviet Union, Cheney’s Pentagon commissioned a study on the future course of American power from Paul Wolfowitz, an adviser who would later enjoy great influence in the Bush administration. The draft document prioritized the active prevention of a peer competitor to US power from emerging. The objective of US grand strategy would be to preserve military, economic and geopolitical preeminence indefinitely. As he would when he became vice president, Cheney relied on a corps of neoconservative intellectuals he cultivated to supply the pertinent rationales. For Cheney, the virtues of dominance were self-evident. After 9/11, they drove him to favor invading not only Afghanistan, but the unconnected country of Iraq, whose regime was an outlier in the world America bestrode. A document contained in an energy task force Cheney convened before 9/11, and that he went to extraordinary lengths to keep secret, detailed “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.“
...
In the months after 9/11, these Cheneyite lawyers, wielding their boss’ influence, created in the shadows an architecture of repression. Addington wrote a draft directive permitting the National Security Agency, in defiance of the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to establish a warrantless digital dragnet of phone and internet metadata generated by the communications of practically every American. Flanigan, aided by Yoo, wrote the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force that made the world into a battlefield at the direction of the president. They further permitted, encouraged, and protected the CIA in launching a regimen of torture-as-geopolitical-revenge, masquerading as intelligence gathering, as well as a network of secret prisons to detain the agency’s alleged-terrorist captives indefinitely. They declared that battlefield captives could be held as “unlawful enemy combatants,” deserving none of the protections of the Geneva Convention, and corralled them, without charge, into the military base at Guantánamo Bay until an end of hostilities that might never arrive. With the exception of CIA torture and much of the wholesale domestic acquisition of Americans’ metadata, these authorities and practices, in one form or another, persist to this day.
Cheney did all of this because his deepest conviction was that the presidency was an elected monarchy. Misconstruing an argument of Alexander Hamilton’s from Federalist 70, Cheney pursued what became known as the Unitary Executive Theory. It was predicated on the idea of an unencumbered presidency empowered to control every aspect of the executive branch, regardless of any affected office or agency’s intended independence from political decisions. Cheney had understood the post-Watergate reforms from Nixon’s criminal presidency as a congressional usurpation, and he intended to roll them all back. Excluding Congress from wresting any transparency from his secret Energy Task Force was, to Cheney, part of the point. After 9/11, Yoo contended that during wartime – a circumstance conceivably permanent in a War on Terror – presidential authority is all but plenary. He likes his argument a lot less now that Trump uses it to murder fishermen in the Caribbean, but, like his Bush administration colleagues, takes no responsibility for authoring the authoritarian usurpations of power that he now bemoans.

Is it rehabilitating Cheney just to basically say "look at how bad Trump is, even Dick Cheney thinks you should not vote for him and vote for us."?
When you embrace him and his family and platform them on your campaign trail?
Yes.
If you mean embrace as in campaign with him, that never happened. If you mean tout his endorsement as a way of showing just how crazy trump was, yeah that happened.
She did campaign with Liz Cheney which was dumb but it wasn't as a "we agree on everything and have the same platform" it was all about how she disagreed on almost everything except how bad trump is. So they campaigned. It was dumb but to say they agreed is dumb when they literally talked about how they didn't in the handful of campaign stops they did together.
I also don't know what you mean by embracing his platform? Regime change? Didn't embrace. Cutting taxes for the rich? Didn't embrace. Pro corporations and monopolies? Didn't embrace.
The only argument I could see is immigration and that's a dumb campaign decision they made to say she would sign the bipartisan agreement made in the senate that Trump killed so he could campaign on the border. She also talked about pathways to citizenship which trump didn't.
It was insane to campaign with Liz but she didn't embrace her platform at all.
Cope.
Her platform was to have no explicit platform other than "Not Trump". The notable exception was during her commencement speech where the promises were to:
Feel free to point out any that I missed. There's at least one I explicitly didn't mention because of the weaseliness surrounding it.
C, D and arguably A
A
C and D
She did though.
Her platform was a fuck ton of things including but not limited to increasing the minimum wage to at least 15 bucks an hour, codifying abortion, legalizing weed, introducing a wealth tax and a unrealized gains tax and hire corporate tax, going after companies that engaged in greedflation, being anti monopoly by using the FCC to push for less consolidation, put a cap on rent increases, providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, more investment in infrastructure, providing first time home buyers down payment assistance that would have helped millions upon millions of people buy houses, and pushing for lower cost to more medications by leveraging Medicare having the ability to negotiate prices. There's more but that's just off the top of my head.
Did she say those things in her commencement speech? Yup. Arguing for the most lethal military was fucking weird but was likely just her trying to take away that talking point from the right as opposed to anything being mirrored in her actual platform. Still fucking weird though.
The border bill was not a slight variation from what's currently in place unless you consider billions upon billions of dollars making ice the larger than tons of other departments, then yes those billions upon billions were a slight variation. The actual bipartisan bill included far more funding for actually working towards continuing to crack down on drug smuggling by having detection machines at ports, as opposed to just grabbing randoms off the street or at illegal crossings like the BBB.
AI also isn't going anywhere so I don't see why saying she wanted us to lead the field is a bad thing (especially since that would likely come with a lot of regulation under her as opposed to none under Trump and a desire for a full moratorium on passing any AI regulation for 10 year), nor with going to space which likely would have come with actually increasing NASAs budget as opposed to almost eliminating it entirely under Trump. Don't see how either of those are both inherently pro regime change and pro corporations and monopolies.
Almost nothing you've said is talking about embracing Liz Cheney's platform either, Liz is against regulation, Harris was for it. Liz is against higher taxes for the rich and corporations, Harris was for it. Liz is against abortion, Harris was for it, Liz is against the minimum wage increase, Harris was for it. They only seemed to line up on having a strong military and passing a immigration bill that wasn't the best but was also all they could do with Republicans in control of Congress and was a compromise and likely would have been renegotiated if she had come into office with a democratic congress. That's two things of so so many.
Also, to say that Harris was only running on not being Trump is far right propaganda and absolutely BS. She had multiple interviews about her policies, she had a whole policy page on her site, she talked incessantly about policy during the election and what she'd implement, the DNC had a policy platform that she was running on. She had a platform, it was largely positive, to say otherwise is to disregard reality.
Literally yes.
Wouldn't rehabilitating him mean they're saying "actually Dick was a really good guy and did a lot of good"? Or to do what they did with W. by making him much more human by talking about his art and his friendship with Michelle Obama?
Pretending Cheney had anything useful to say was rehabilitating him. It's like quoting Hitler on animal rights.