A message for Arizonans from Senator Kyrsten Sinema pic.twitter.com/1XWFSWgGdh
— Kyrsten Sinema (@SenatorSinema) March 5, 2024
Having watched this a number of times, my brain has settled on translating the change of tenses as: "I was trying to solve problems by embracing working across the aisle, but we weren't having that, were we? So you lost out. Audi 5000, you guys."
I've tried to grasp what makes an intelligent person who presented as a left-leaning politician decide to explore the middle and it always came up as a fashion statement--which isn't to minimize what she tried to do, it's just to say that when McCain did it, it was because he "remembered when". Now, I just got done posting that we could use folks willing to be bipartisan and bemoaned that guys like Jim Lankford weren't getting credit--from Republicans for doing just that. And I'm not saying bipartisanship is wrong--it's just that it can't exist for its own sake. Shafting voting bills or minimum wage raises--things dear to the Democratic base, is just masochism.
What darlings would the GOP get asked to surrender? (Not the carried interest deduction. But what?)
The valley that exists--the great disruption in our bipartisanship, has to do to a large extent with distrust. I think it was Grover Norquist who defined bipartisanship as "date rape"--meaning one side had the upper hand and the other had to comply by force. Graceful acquiescence to the needs of the present moment just isn't the current ethos. It's sad. It's true though. We just don't think doing business with the other side doesn't involve, to be extremely blunt--getting fucked.
Trying to explore that middle ground cost Sinema a lot. I think a lot of us cynics could have told her what would have happened for free. And I wish her well in her future endeavors. And I wish Ruben Gallego VERY WELL in his. Please start contributing to this good man's campaign.
2 comments:
It’s not “exploring the middle ground” that banjaxed Sinema. It’s because there IS no GQP “middle ground” anymore. It’s wingnuts all the way down. The only way she could get “cooperation” was by abandoning any pretense of liberal - liberal? Hell, non-plutocratic theocracy - policy. They played her for a fool as far as they could, then ignored her when her usefulness as a tool wore out. That’s not even “date rape”, just rape, period.
If she was a trifle less greedy I’d have some sympathy for her stupidity in not seeing that. But it looks like her entire purpose was pure greed, so GTFO…
Agree with FDChief. Although I don't think they played Sinema for a fool. She was a willing tool, well aware of the game she played and it always seemed like it was the payoff for her that mattered.
Post a Comment