Senator Sinema Speaks Her Piece

 

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. 

What's Up with Senator Sinema?

 

Look, like David S. Pumpkins, she's her own thing, okay? She seems to have come up with an elegant solution to being primaried when Democrats just aren't that into her and feels she achieves some kind of bipartisan cred thing that, frankly, I don't understand. 

And I won't. So, since it doesn't change the composition of the Senate, I frankly don't give a damn. If she can make it work and somehow not screw with the Democratic party agenda, that would be great. 

It feels like she could have been more of a team-player to start with, but it's totally her call what she does now, so I don't have one mean thing to say. 

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.

Speaking of A Hostile Work Environment....

 

Activists with Sunrise Movement confronted Joe Manchin this morning outside of his yacht on his way to the Capitol, in protest of his opposition to the Build Back Better social spending bill.

They followed him to his car, and then surrounded his car too. Some images: pic.twitter.com/IvDuEyXu0H

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) November 4, 2021

Just recently, Sen. Manchin referred to his relationship with his colleagues on the Hill as a "hostile work environment" due to all of the partisanship. I seem to recall back in January there was a situation where the work environment was really hostile, and extremely partisan, and well, Manchin's reaction to that was "Why can't we all just get along?" or similar. 

So while I think he's completely wrong, I guess I'd give him points for consistency? As in "consistently wrong about what to do about all this". He's been complaining about how he really wants to see his party come down and do more negotiating (they have come down--they have negotiated!) and wants to see the impact of legislation on the debt and inflation and all this.... 

But when I see him and Sen. Sinema huddled with Mitch McConnell, the partisan motherfucker who denied President Obama a SCOTUS appointment and for a whole year and started ramming through Trump's pick in weeks, well....I think back to times when things were so much more bipartisan. (If there were such times, they were not ever in my lifetime, and I was born in Nixon's first term.) 

Anyway, I have been at times critical of the tactics of the Sunrise Movement because I think they might not be especially persuasive in their tactics and I sometimes question who and how they confront--because generally Democrats are trying to do something about the environment, but it's the GOP that really obstructs meaningful structural change. And as you can see in the above confrontation.... 

Joe Manchin has a really, really nice car.

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. 

Take the Uzi from the Babies

 

"I write to inform you that I will not provide such assistance again if your all-Democrat government drifts into another avoidable crisis," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a letter to President Biden. https://t.co/gqHCTeHiGq

— CNN (@CNN) October 9, 2021

While I don't think Democrats should need to be reminded that this is what the Republican Party is now, a shameless band of terrorists who definitely would throw the country into economic turmoil for petty political reasons, McConnell is doing just that. The entire tone is ridiculous. Of course we're going to hit the debt ceiling again and it will need to be raised again. It isn't something the Democrats did, it's the nature of paying for government to continue. McConnell is taking a page from the Trump book and acting as if the mildest criticism of his tactics is a deep and terrible breach of some imaginary comity that--

Holy fricking Jiminy Crickets, he has done as much as anyone else to erode. I don't know know what Manchin and Sinema need or what sweet nothings are being drizzled into their shell-like aural protuberances, but enough is enough. This is a threat: give up on your whole Democratic agenda or we sink the country. 

You can't negotiate with these folks. You shouldn't. There's no political upside. It leaves you nothing to run on. Take the UZI from the babies. McConnell as good as said "Don't trust us."  So don't. 

Kill the filibuster. Deliver the goods. And let McConnell know it was his own fault that it had to be this way. 

What Rhymes With "Ineffective Stunt"?

 

We all take ourselves to the porcelain refuge at one time or another, that watery bastion of comfort, release and repose. Sometimes we go for all the obvious mechanics of our digestive requirements, and at other times it is simply a place of solitude, a place to check one's clothing seams and makeup, or maybe even to escape protestors. 

I'm sympathetic to the idea that one should feel secure in the loo. I am also, however, not feeling charitable to someone who has set out to leave her principles in such doubt that we don't even know why she isn't sticking with what she told us were her principles, but is instead of doing her constituents' business, going to fundraisers and not even answering questions about what she does stand for. 

The activist who cornered Sinema in the ladies' room is an undocumented immigrant young person whose grandparents were deported. Our screwed up immigration and naturalization policies keep families separated for reasons that are needlessly stupid and cruel. We should do better in this country, but aren't. Sinema knows the terrain, but isn't showing follow-through on the mission: taking care of residents of Arizona who need their citizenship status fixed. It's a part of the Democratic agenda, but she's being capricious about that right now.

And she's shown disrespect to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which to me is very concerning. Senator Sanders points out that rather than thinking of Pelosi delaying a vote on legislation as being what Sinema called an "ineffective stunt", it was a procedural move based on the votes--totally within her prerogative. It's not about Kyrsten Sinema's preferences as a first-term senator, but all of Pelosi's understanding of how Congress works. And in the meanwhile, the legislation in question is unquestionably about benefiting her constituents (not ahem! the donors).

Now, you might look at the title of my blogpost, and assume I'm implying something not at all feminist. My goodness people, don't you know me yet? It rhymes with "sometimes you bunt". What matters is getting on base. But Sinema is being very off-base right now. 

We are not retiring shit without a run in this inning. That's how this game is played. I don't know what game Sinema is playing but she isn't playing it in the bathroom. 

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.

A Bit Too Sinematic

 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. 

Uncool

Did Sinema really have vote against a $15 minimum wage for 24 million people like this? pic.twitter.com/Jv0UXLKLHI

— Sawyer Hackett (@SawyerHackett) March 5, 2021

This woman is out of her damn mind if she thinks this is how you bring your unserious ass to the US Senate and pretend you scored points making not one thing better for anyone. I guessed that she was disingenuous in her response regarding the filibuster, but now I flat-out think she's a fake. It wouldn't cost her damn thing politically to do what's right. She isn't keeping her liberal support stunting like this for what? Five confused McCain Republicans? And even if this thing was a hard decision, she could have done the world a favor and acted like it instead of coming out like an overgrown high school child. 

She can just decide not to run again and spare someone the expense of primarying her if this is how little she thinks about doing it right, because that was disappointing.

UPDATE:  Criticizing her about this is apparently supposed to be sexist: 

Sinema’s office responded to a question about the gesture by making the absurd claim that the inquiry is sexist. “Commentary about a female senator’s body language, clothing, or physical demeanor does not belong in a serious media outlet,” Hannah Hurley, a spokesperson for Sinema, told HuffPost.

No. It would be sexist to have two different standards, and I honestly think pulling out sexism on this particular gesture is a shame and a distraction from what makes it bad. It's bad because it looked like she was happy to vote against a pay raise that would lift millions of people, many of them women and working families, out of poverty. I support women, but I don't support foolishness from women because I don't support foolishness from anyone, and especially not regarding things that matter. 

Raising the minimum wage--now that would support women, because they would be better able to support themselves with the money they make. That's good old fashioned "feminism goals", not this "breaking the internet" and "yas queen"-ing people for their style over their substance.

UPDATE: Just to add, she's one of eight Democrats who voted against increasing the minimum wage, and of course, it could be part of a separate bill, but like, why? It's overdue to be increased, it would significantly improve the finances of people working right now, it gets money circulating, and it actually cuts government spending in some respects because people need less aid, because they get money from work. Maybe tying it to COVID relief is problematic, but income inequality is responsible for the impact COVID-19 has had and this remediates that.  I don't see why this one has to be hard.