Will Mike Pence be regarded as a historical hero in the future?

[Ricardian1485]

Mike Pence can pretend that he made a heroic sacrifice, but in reality he's an opportunistic cockroach. He was at Trump's beck and call for four years, his only purpose was to serve as a token evangelical, giving imprimatur to a man who's political beliefs were in direct opposition to what the Republican party supposedly stood for. He only disobeyed the Suzerain when he tried to make Pence the prime mover in an ill conceived coup.

Pence didn't immediately refuse to carry out the coup either, he asked for advice first, and looked into the constitutionality of it. This implies that if it was constitutional he would have gladly subverted the will of the American people to keep the isolationist pig emperor on high.

Refusing to overturn the election was a pragmatic choice that had the added benefit of allowing Pence to paint himself as a White Knight, who's "principles" and "values" stood above party loyalty. When in reality the only reason that he didn't was that at best the coup would result in countrywide riots, and at worst federal prison and treason convictions. 

Despite acknowledging that Trump attempted to overthrow our democracy, Pence has stated that he will still support the orange gorilla in 2024 if he wins the nomination even if he's convicted in a court of law for trying to overthrow our democracy. That alone should prove that he doesn't actually care about this country or the principles that supposedly guide him. People looking for the hero of the 20s will probably pass over Pence when they see that after he refused to steal the election, he still supported the guy who ordered him to.

[Ricardian1485]

Pence didn't immediately refuse to carry out the coup either, he asked for advice first, and looked into the constitutionality of it. This implies that if it was constitutional he would have gladly subverted the will of the American people to keep the isolationist pig emperor on high.

That's not a valid inference. If you were Pence and you yourself thought it was wrong to do what Trump asked, it would have been much smarter to ask for legal advice rather than simply to directly tell Trump "no." The reason for that is that having got legal advice, he could have hoped to be able to say "sorry Trump, but I can't do it," thereby shifting the blame for that from himself to the lawyers, which a rational person in his situation would have hoped would be less alienating to Trump. And he would have hoped that by not alienating Trump as much, he could put himself in a better position in the future with Trump and with the Republican base. It didn't turn out that way of course, but it would have been rational for him to have hoped that it would at that point.

But there is actually some evidence that Mike Pence's investigation into the constitutionality of Trump's orders was rooted in a desire to actually carry them out rather than a desire to validate his refusal.

I have seen this excerpt from "Peril" by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa floating around

“Over and over, Pence asked if there was anything he could do.

“‘Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,’ Quayle told him.

“Pence pressed again.

“‘You don’t know the position I’m in,’ he said, according to the authors.

“‘I do know the position you’re in,’ Quayle responded. ‘I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That’s all you do. You have no power.’”

If Mike Pence was only looking for legal justification to refuse, then he i dont see why he would keep pressing Dan Quayle on the issue after he explained that it was entirely unconstitutional.