AZ Senator Kyrsten Sinema has offered her thoughts regarding the reason she opposes changing the filibuster rules, and the reason is--"it protects the democracy of our nation", and I don't know about that. Passing an act to ensure the voting rights of all the people eligible would protect our democracy. Relying on members of a party who have explicitly given up on the idea that that's a good thing seems badly mistaken.
It's too easy to focus on Sinema because of her earlier, progressive-alienating antics regarding the minimum wage. She isn't alone in being a Democratic Senator who is leery of abandoning the filibuster rule, she's just very visible (and she tries to be, and I guess that's part of the pile-on, too). But there's this dodgy history. So I don't want to pile on, but I do want to make a little suggestion:
Sometimes you have to understand what your voters put you were you are for. I think we've got a cycle where people are pretty pissed off that something isn't working in our politics, and you don't want to be the person who looks like they aren't working. So not showing up to vote for the January 6 investigation was pretty bad, because Arizona is one of the states that was and is very much challenged by GOP electoral fuckery, and it would be very meaningful to Arizona Democrats to know they had someone who would fight for them, instead of pussyfooting about. This state is changing and Republicans there are not happy--but it's still happening.
Here's where I'm cutting slack, though--I don't know, besides Sinema and Manchin, who else might be on the fence about breaking the filibuster, I have worries about Feinstein, because I don't know where her head is. Angus King has been reluctant. There could be others--so just putting the whole weight on Sinema and Manchin doesn't feel right, and there is the blowback--if something gets f'd up enough, and somehow GOP gains seats, a Republican-lead Senate in a filibusterless world is gonna ssuuuuuuuuccccckkkkk.
So, while Sinema seems kind of capricious, and yeah, I think I'm puzzled by her particular stance, Manchin's reasons are also kind of self-serving (but what if it were possible to try to generate more WV Democratic/progressive interest by bucking moderation for a bit--I did see Sanders signs down in WV during the 2016 primary and I think younger voters might be up for that), yet I don't know what other, deeper opposition exists, or what other political heads are trying to game out.
It would be great if we could just run down a wishlist of liberal policies at the moment and get'em done, but it's always going to be a fight. This is why every election counts. But damn it--the voting rights one just feels crucial for the elections to come! And I still don't get why Sinema voted against the minimum wage thing and her absence from the vote on the insurrection investigation still sort of feels off. AZ GOP is ridiculous, but that's actually all the more reason to go about the job of US Senator for AZ very seriously.
3 comments:
GREAT headline, Vixen!!!
Yeah, I don't grok Sinema.
Despite all of his political prowess, I think Manchin's not too bright.
But she's got a history as a social worker.
And she was a state legislator.
So she ain't stupid.
But then why does she make an appearance with a known low-watt bulb like Cronyn?!?
"Ah don' git it!!!!"
"...a Republican-lead Senate in a filibusterless world is gonna ssuuuuuuuuccccckkkkk."
Every other point you make is pretty much inarguable, and you make them quite cogently. But while this point is understandable, it is simply and demonstrably wrong.
Conventional Rs like the filibuster because they mostly don't want Congress to do anything. Whatever federal legislative agenda they have, they would much prefer that their Federalist Society junta that controls SCOTUS gets done, because they do not want members of their Congressional caucuses to take the heat for getting rid of popular federal govt programs.
Even these conventional Rs, though, were completely willing to get rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments. Of course they were. We don't have to imagine that suck, we've lived it.
A future R trifecta that was post-conventional, was Trumpist, overtly fascist, or whatever label you want to put on it, might indeed have a legislative agenda they want to get past the Senate. While it sure would be unsuck if we had the filibuster in that world in which Ds had lost the Senate majority but still had >40, there is 0% chance that the Rs in that scenario would allow the filibuster to survive in any form that would allow the Ds to block anything they want to do.
There is no scenario in which our side needs the filibuster, and it will still be available to us.
I have to ask, does a pro-filibuster position really resonate with your average Jane and Joe voter of either party? Maybe it does but if you did a Jimmy Kimmel-style ask- the-person-on-the-street thing I'd bet that very few could tell you what the filibuster is, much less what their State's senators position on it might be.
Post a Comment