Well Done, Senator Booker!

 

Senator Cory Booker (D., NJ) has surpassed Strom Thurmond's record, holding the Senate floor for an astonishing 25 hours! (Get yourself a well-deserved rest!) As he closed his speech, during which he spoke to the Trump agenda and the ways that it will hurt working families, he invoked the memory of John Lewis:

"This is a moral moment. It’s not left or right; it’s right or wrong. Let's get in good trouble," Booker said as he concluded his remarks and was met by a standing ovation from Senate colleagues. "I yield the floor."

Democratic lawmakers have been facing pressure from their constituents to respond more forcefully to the Trump administration’s sweeping policy changes, including massive cuts to the federal workforce, ramped-up deportations and sweeping tariffs.

Booker's remarks clearly resonated with many who watched them. A live feed of the speech on the senator's TikTok account had more than 220 million likes by early Tuesday night, before he exceeded 24 hours on the floor, and users were posting fan edits.

This was a demonstration about what our Democratic representation in congress can do even if they do not have the majority in either chamber--they can hold the floor adn speak to the values and concerns of the people they represent. 

That's what we want them to do--represent US. 

Read the Room, Senator

 

Look, this is really just a comment, because I understand some kind of negotiations with Sinema and Manchin are ongoing, and well! They haven't given me any reason to think either of them are budging on the filibuster but if Biden does, I'll wish him all the luck on that. But Sinema's speech today struck me as trying to box herself in against being negotiated on this. Like, it was totally planting a spear and looking to hold on for dear life. 

For what? The dear old filibuster and the specter of bipartisanship that she needs to know is gone. Gone. The House vote was very one-sided--did she not pick up on that? The Republicans giving her kudos on her speech are basically glad the pressure is off of them, because they were never going to do anything on voting in a bipartisan way--and if she had listened to their comments on this, she would know that. 

So who the hell is she listening to? Her donors? I think she has badly misread the room and standing for a principle that isn't worth the opportunity we'd be losing in protecting voting rights. I think privileging her notions of what the Senate should be and isn't right now over other people's voting rights is a bad moral equation, even if she thinks it's a safe political one, and I'd really prefer politicians who, when it came down to it, took the moral choice. 

But she wouldn't be listening to me, either. And I don't think she's has listened to any Arizonans on this, despite saying so in her speech because she doesn't hold townhalls. Doubtless, her staff are getting some calls from folks right now, and I doubt they are all pats on the back for bipartisanship. Yay! Doing nothing in the forlorn hope Republicans will do the right thing! Brilliant!

She should try to get a better read of the room.

The Mean Girl Just Jumps Out

 

So, hat-tip to Gawker for seeing the entire outfit, which reminds me of something I might have worn in high school. This is a US Senator. This is a person who apologized to another US Senator in an airport just recently because her constituents still thought she was someone who cared. And to the person who wanted a minute of her valuable time, she said "Noli me tangere".  Clearly she's wearing the hem of her garment closer to her vest for some reason, but she's a woman of mysteries. Evidently.

This gets us back to the age old question of when is it un-feminist to ream out a woman for stuff like her clothing choices or how she chooses to assert her physical boundaries, and whether we're judging too harshly or by standards we wouldn't hold any man up to, and I'm sorry--what is the male equivalent of this outfit? Jeans and a Senor Frog polo? My question is, would a Hill staffer get away with that getup? And is she possibly dressing for the job she actually wants? (Bartender in a college town gastropub?)

Is this some form of protest over being held responsible for people thinking she should probably act and vote like the person she set herself out to be when she ran for office? Is she checking her phone for job offers that are somehow better than being a US Senator--a person with actual power to effect change if she felt so moved? 

Am I being mean? Because something about her whole deal is just exceptionally vexxing to me, and I am not liking it. 

The Debt Ceiling Has to Go

 

So, did you all just see this giving birth to a prize watermelon effort that was put forward to just get a two-month extension on the debt ceiling, an artificial thing that shouldn't even exist because of course a nation who prides itself in the full faith and credit of its honorable debts pays those shits? 

Well, if you visit this blog, of course you did. And if you are a long time visitor, you know why I'm heated--we are past time to abolish  the stupid debt ceiling vote since it is absolutely a necessity and has become a political football. 

And it stays incredibly stupid after all this time: after some stupidly arbitrary legislative interval, responsible people have to once again explain that this is about paying the bills already due, like deciding whether to make your car payment or put at least the minimum on your credit card bill, like we haven't already been through this bullshit before. And the political grandstanders will act like that's not what it is, but say some dumb shit about how it's about new spending, which is nonsense, because of course there will be new spending. Like in a household, you have a mortgage payment and maybe a car loan, but that doesn't mean you don't still buy groceries or pay to fix the roof leak, right?

Quick Question for Senator Sinema--

 

Activists who helped elect Kyrsten Sinema launch CrowdPAC to fund a primary challenger https://t.co/DPEmIw8ojw

— Salon (@Salon) September 29, 2021

Exactly how much fundraising do you suppose you have to do to hold on to your seat if you somehow have, inexplicably (or at least, inexplicably thus far) done your best to alienate the people who were your base? Because you can not go and get a whole new base, and even if Republicans are looking more favorably on you--look at Arizona Republicans. Look at 'em. They like a Democrat who doesn't function like a Democrat (preferably who doesn't function at all), but they would prefer a Republican who is like them. Which lately...

I mean. Look at them.

Take the Hint, Dems

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that "the era of bipartisanship is over" in remarks earlier today. pic.twitter.com/hC0zBRnLEL

— POLITICO (@politico) June 8, 2021

Mitch McConnell is the guy who said earlier this year his job was to 100% block the Biden agenda. This was the guy who did the same thing to Obama, and denied him a SCOTUS pick. This guy right here, who says in the clip above, that the era of bipartisanship is over, and if you want the time of death--shit, that thing has been buried. He doesn't want to pass any kind of voting rights bill, any more than he wanted to even bring up voting security legisalation before the 2020 election. He doesn't want any kind of infrastructure or jobs bill that will, in his mind, hand President Biden a win.

He doesn't want it. And if the filibuster is at 60 votes, you get less than 10 Republicans for anything. And if the filibuster was set down to 55 votes, you'd be lucky to get 2 or three. That's how he wants it, and he gets it.

That's not to say you won't sometimes pass bills with Republican support or get certain cabinet or judicial appointments filled. It isn't to say some of the more moderate Senate Republicans will always toe McConnell's line--but I don't see how sticking to the ghost of bipartisanship helps.

And here's the thing--McConnell killed it, so you don't even have to feel guilty. Someone gets in your face about whatever happened to bipartisanship--you know who to point to. 

That was how he wanted it. That's how he should get it.

Is That a Promise or a Threat?

Mitch McConnell tantrum vows 'scorched-earth' if Dems bypass filibuster to expand voting rights https://t.co/CYvtU4V1OF

— Raw Story (@RawStory) March 16, 2021

Mitch McConnell says that if Dems don't do what he wants them to do, he's going to do what he was going to do anyway (like always!), and also if they expand voting rights, Republicans will force their most unpopular ideas down people s throats, which will definitely make Republicans more popular with voters.

I just don't think this is the way he's going to convince anyone that ending the filibuster doesn't at least deserve some very serious consideration, and soon. It also sounds like a pretty good reminder that there just isn't a good reason to vote for Republicans--ever.

Democrats: "We want to do stuff for the people back home." Republicans "We are going to throw such a big tantrum up in this MF...."

Grandstand for Brand Rand!

Senator Rand Paul of KY and also a presidential candidate, has expressed an intention to filibuster the bargain struck between House leadership and the White House to raise the debt ceiling, referring to the bill as "a steaming pile of legislation", which must have been the most dire words he could come up with for it. This would not be the first time he has used the filibuster--he did so at the confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director over drones (John Brennan became CIA Director, we still use drones) and over the NSA surveillance program. "Stand with Rand" is a great slogan because of the rhyming.

I get it, but why filibuster this particular deal? Part of me thinks, well, he's in a tough primary and just wants to announce a filibuster before that ratbastard Ted Cruz comes up with it. But it also strikes me as a way to get back to Brand Rand. See, he's trying to take himself seriously in this presidential primary, and that might be part of the problem. If he tries to veer too middle of the road, he loses all his hipster cred. Staying weird and being anti-establishment reinforces Brand Rand.

Whoa! You might be thinking, but how does this help his actual electability?  Well, I dunno. See, he's running for Senate and President. Now, a reasonable person might ask if it shows good "optics" for a candidate for president to show that he doesn't believe in bipartisan compromise, and it might actually be terrible optics to contribute to continued Congressional dysfunction. But as a fundraising gimmick for selling "Stand with Rand" swag? Da bomb.

You know, he gets prickly when people point out that his made-up quotes or plagiarism devalue his ideological output. Deep down, I don't think he wants to be president. He wants to be a blogger and make dope money at it. Pshhh. He is dreaming. I blog 'cause I love, and money don't mean a thing.


(Update: It was 19 minutes.)

Sen. Reid Deploys the Nuclear Option, for All the Right Reasons

This wasn't a casual or an ill-considered decision, and the Republicans who have whined that Democrats will "be sorry" when the shoe is on the other foot can actually just stuff it. The treatment of this particular administration's appointees has been uniquely fraught with holds, and the saddest thing about this has been that this has had little to nothing to do with the fitness of those nominees to take the positions for which they have been selected. It has had everything to do with the challenge by the Republicans in office to the legitimacy of the Chief Executive to even make those appointments, and it has been a travesty, and it is reasonable that the joke ends, now. Democrats have been accepting of Republican appointees--the warning that a future GOP-president-selected SCOTUS bench might be chock full of Scalias and Thomases misses the point entirely: