After her clueless appearance at the Moscow Mitch McConnell Center on Monday, filibuster-obsessed, "relentlessly ignorant" conservaDem Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (BothSides - AZ) was skewered in a satirical, deep fake video featuring the Malignant Loser (with his hands all over her as she spoke). Good job and timely (h/t to Crooks and Liars).
(Originally posted on the Twitter account of Paul Lahticks, his account has been suspended for a "terms of service violation". Twitter: where satire goes to die).
Lawrence O'Donnell, a former Senate staffer, discusses a portion of self-aggrandizing twit Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's speech yesterday at Sen. Mitch "Grim Reaper" McConnell's taxpayer subsidized "Center" at the University of Louisville.
Is there any reason to highlight these poll numbers, other than that they are funny? Yes! In January, my colleague Christina Cauterucci tried to figure out what exactly Sinema was trying to, like, do. What’s the game plan? She seems set up for failure in any 2024 primary. Her willingness to tank major parts of the Democratic agenda is so established now that even her role in helping the recent Inflation Reduction Act pass did not make a majority of her Democratic constituents like her. And while Arizona Republicans briefly warmed to Sinema when she skipped the Jan. 6 Commission vote, it’s not like they would ever vote for her in a Republican primary—not as long as the GOP can scrape up at least one Nathan Arizona–type blowhard with a MAGA hat and a pulse.
Cauterucci, in January, highlighted a rumor that Sinema was attempting to set herself up for a run for president in 2024 as a straight-down-the-middle candidate. If this happens, these poll numbers suggest that she may, indeed, be the one candidate who can truly unite America.
She might be a good fit in Andrew Yang's equally pernicious and substance-free "Forward Party." Or maybe McConnell will put her in charge of the "McConnell Center," since she shares his "values."
"Ms. Sinema shouldn’t sink this bill, most of whose contents she has
indicated in the past that she supports. And she shouldn’t sink it
because she opposes closing the carried interest loophole. That
provision unambiguously aids those who need help most, at the expense
only of those who need it not at all." -- Washington Post editorial board urging Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema to vote with all other Senate Democrats to pass the "Inflation Reduction Act," which would make historic climate change mitigation investments and reforms to prescription drug pricing. Majority Leader Schumer is vowing to put the bill to a vote this week, so Sinema has to decide which side she's on (again).
"Amidst all the disappointment and tribulation of recent days please join
me in taking a moment to step back, in a posture of mindful gratitude,
to contemplate the fact that Kyrsten Sinema’s career in electoral
politics is already over. Yes, the damage she’s already done will be
difficult to remedy. She still has three solid years to do yet more
damage. And she probably will. But none of that damage, none of the
hijinks and characteristic game-playing to come, will or can change her
electoral fate. In political terms, she’s already dead senator walking.
And the most perplexing but paradoxically delightful part of it is that
she doesn’t even seem to realize it yet. [snip]
"... Sinema has done immense damage without any clear or meaningful
justification or benign intent. Her antics have created a situation
where it will be quite difficult for any Democrat to hold that
seat in 2024. But Sinema herself is done. She’s boxed herself without
even quite seeming to know it, high on her own supply of McCainite
fantasies and lobbyist fluffing. There’s a classic New Yorker cartoon in
which a guy has jumped off a skyscraper and half way down a guy in an
office he’s flying by asks him, “How’s it going?” To which he jauntily
replies, “So far so good!” That captures the reality of Sinema’s
political present and future. That’s accountability. And in that I take
some solace and more than a little joy. " -- Josh Marshall, TPM today. Good read. (We might quibble with Marshall's attribution of the "so far so good" line, having seen Steve McQueen tell the same joke in The Magnificent Seven (1960).)
“History will remember Senator Sinema
unkindly. While Sen. Sinema remains stubborn in her 'optimism,' Black
and Brown Americans are losing their right to vote.
“She’s siding with the legacy of Bull Connor and George Wallace instead
of the legacy of my father and all those who fought to make real our
democracy.” -- Martin Luther King III, today on back- stabbing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's refusal to change the Senate filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. Shortly after Sinema's betrayal, fellow back- stabber Sen. Joe Manchin announced he also would not vote "to weaken or eliminate the filibuster." Their rationales are so preposterous that a question remains, "Who bought them off?"
The response from the President and the Democratic Party should be commensurate with the gravity of their betrayal of our democracy. Especially on the eve of the Martin Luther King holiday, anything less is unacceptable.
"Members of Congress have begun to say explicitly in the last couple days
what I think has been clear for weeks and months. Kyrsten Sinema’s
multiple trips to the White House yesterday just confirm it. She’s not
negotiating about any of this in good faith. Joe Manchin is a huge
obstacle for Democrats pushing their agenda. But the Manchin problem is
still very different from the Sinema problem. [snip]
"It is perverse and bizarre since the Democrats, though tenuously, now
have unified control of the government rather than being a beleaguered
opposition with no holds on any levers of power. How we’ve gotten to the
point that they cannot collectively control the outcome … well, that’s
crazy. But that’s where we are. Largely because of Kyrsten Sinema. But
look at what we’re talking about here. Is the reward for her betrayal
having the party she is betraying pass her infrastructure bill? That’s
too crazy to allow to happen. It is a basic element of life for
individuals that we must strive to confront with dignity things we
cannot control. It shapes who we are. And something similar applies to
political coalitions and parties." -- Josh Marshall, TPM, arguing that if Democrats can't get the Build Back Better reconciliation bill, they need to scuttle Sinema's bipartisan infrastructure bill. Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but given the unreliable flake they're dealing with, don't make any bets.
What can you say about someone as obstinately immune to history, logic and reality as Kyrsten Sinema:
My
support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the
importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our
democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the
country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.
To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act
(voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would
ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that
legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide
voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections,
over the objections of the minority?
"We can't pass legislation because it might someday be repealed, so why bother?!" OMFG.
Her op/ ed was published today, one day after meeting with President Biden at the White House. For now, we don't know if any light penetrated the void as a result.
The idea, espoused by [Sen. Joe] Manchin, that hyperpartisan gamesmanship is a result of eliminating the filibuster is upside-down. Hyperpartisan gamesmanship preceded former Senate Democratic Leader Reid’s elimination of the filibuster in 2013 for lower court and executive branch nominees in the form of the abuse of the filibuster.
The filibuster does not just impede bipartisan compromise. It also feeds partisanship by allowing lawmakers to signal support for legislation even if they don’t actually want to work to pass it. This is true for partisan bills, which senators can voice support for to please issue-based voters, while avoiding having to reveal how they would really vote on the matter since most bills that can’t get to 60 votes will never make it to the Senate floor.
As seen with the infrastructure negotiations, the credible threat of passing Democrats’ priorities without Republican input through reconciliation ― a process that allows some bills to pass with only 50 votes ― is encouraging some negotiation and compromise.
Read that highlighted sentence above again and you'll recognize Sinema as one of those lawmakers.
On the page following Sinema's poorly argued essay, the editorial board of the Washington Post says of the debate that Republicans are likely to squelch today on voting rights legislation, including Sen. Manchin's For the People Act compromise:
Mr.
Manchin’s reforms deserve a full hearing and an up-or-down vote. If his
proposal does not get its due, Democrats should consider reforming the
filibuster. There is no shortage of ideas about how to adjust the
procedural maneuver without abolishing it, such as demanding that
minority senators show up to sustain their filibusters; requiring
three-fifths of present and voting senators to end a filibuster, rather
than three-fifths of all senators; or reducing the number of votes
needed to overcome filibusters. These are just a few possibilities.
If
Republicans will not permit a vote on even the most obvious of
pro-voting reforms, something needs to change. Senators should be
cautious in reshaping the chamber’s rules — but not to a fault.
She's out of touch with her own party and Arizona voters on the issue of filibuster reform, so it begs the question, is Sinema that dense, or has someone or something gotten to her?
Here's an ad running in Arizona now:
So, why are you doing the Republicans' dirty work, Sen. Sinema?
It just seems like we are still witnessing a huge game of asymmetric
warfare here where there is a 60 vote supermajority requirement in the
Senate to pass any legislation protecting voting rights, but in the
states Republicans are unilaterally making it harder to vote with a
simple majority on party-line votes.
