I spoke to Senator Sinema on the phone last week, and I was the worst conversation I've ever had with an elected official. I went in thinking she was just a contrarian who likes being the center of attention. But it's worse than that: she actually believes she is protecting democracy by preserving the filibuster. (She also launched into a full lecture on the history of the filibuster, and when I said that everyone on the call was familiar with the history and did not think it supported its continuation, she replied, "Well, sorry if this is boring to you.")
I don't really doubt that Manchin will get where he needs to be on this, but I have no idea how we move her at this point.
I do wish journalists asked questions that were more pointed, and more specifically held her to account. So many of the questions seem designed to grab a rage-inducing headline rather than nail her down on the specific ramifications of her position. Rather than "Will you vote to kill the filibuster?", I'd rather see something like:
"You're here today with John Cornyn, who propogated The Big Lie of election fraud, a lie so preposterous that it got Trump banned from even Facebook. Members of his party have pretended that the 2020 election was not secure, as a cover for advancing voter suppression laws. What specific evidence do you have that ten Republican senators will reverse course and ensure the right to vote for all eligible Americans?"
"What about working with supporters of The Big Lie makes it more important than the passage of a bill you co-sponsored?"
"Can you point me to the specific place in the Constitution that the founders wrote in the filibuster?"
"Our republic barely survived the Articles of Confederation, a key feature of which was a super-majority requirement. By my reading, there is no super-majority requirement in the Constitution, which--if I may--suggests the founders saw the dangers of it. Since the filibuster as it exists today essentially requires a super-majority on most legislation, why do you view it as more conducive to democracy than the founders did? What are your other favorite features of the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution writers left out?"
Confession: I, too, saw the clip yesterday with Cornyn, and was irate.
Originally I was hopeful that once Manchin came around with some type of work-around, surely Sinema would too. Now I'm worried that she might delight in being the sole disrupter. I wish we could trade in Sinema for Murkowski. At least she has some principles.
Excellent column with one minor point: the United States Supreme Court held a while back that state recall laws generally cannot apply to federal officials . . . so, yeah, the way to hold Senator Sinema accountable for her votes in '24 will be a Democratic primary.
Showing my work: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). The first case dealt with term limits, not recalls specifically, but these type of state laws generally are considered similar.
Off topic but something that bothers me. There is frequent talk re: rising violence and it's causes. I am no expert in this area, but it seems common sense that once the pandemic frees everyone up, there will be more interactions resulting in violence because there are more interactions PERIOD.... I never hear this mentioned as a possible factor but surely it is a contributing factor?
Maybe. Sometimes I think that the continued violence and being on the streets is bc people are finding a "higher cause" that lets them congregate and connect. Maybe once pandemic seems "over" (?) people will find healthier ways to connect, not that I am against protesting but the violence yes. I live in Oregon. Our beloved Portland is such a mess.
Then again, after I watched The Underground Railroad I wondered if there is ever going to be a reason for people to not be angry. What a tragic, brutal history we have at work. The anger makes sense to me
It’s a hopeless feeling, watching democracy erode after all that work in 2020 because Kyrsten Sinema is intent on constructing a stupid self-image. I’m not sure anyone can pierce through her arrogance. She’s more obsessed with the idea of being an "Arizona maverick” than the substance of the given situation. I wish she could see the difference between a dramatic No vote on ripping healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans vs. a theatrical No vote on raising the minimum wage to livable standards. But she only sees the performative gesture of each act.
Joe Manchin is delusional with respect to his hope for bipartisanship. (Either that or he’s just BSing us to escape taking action.) But at least his stance, out of touch or disingenuous as it is, is grounded in logic. I also appreciate that he’s the only Dem who could win WV, so we give him a bit more latitude on political grounds. But at some point placing your own career above doing the right thing for the country you serve is inexcusable. We’re at that point. Still, at least his resistance to abolishing the minority-rule loophole can be explained in some form. The same cannot be said for Sinema, who is a colossal disappointment (I'd prefer 2020-21 Jeff Flake.)
As Michelle Goldberg wrote today, Sinema “seems above all dedicated to a view of herself as a quirky maverick, and delights in trolling the Democrats who elected her.”
Dan, I’m legit worried that Sinema and/or Manchin might change parties like Arlen Specter did. I can see them blaming the AOC and Bernie wing of the Democratic Party as being too far left, so they they leave and give McConnell a majority.
I'm as confused as ever about Sinema after this piece.
The nub of this is that Sinema is, if she wishes to be taken as a good faith actor, entitled to support the filibuster as a protection against many things during those times when Republicans control everything. But she is not doing this and there is no obvious reason why.
Mark Kelly will face the voters earlier and in a mid-term election - so we have to assume that she's not doing this because polling tells her she has to. Manchin has to be seen to be different from the party in order to survive. Absolutely not the case in Arizona.
Lieberman was a man who had become radically more conservative over the years and had his head turned by a GOP friend. Again, no explanation for Sinema's actions.
So what we are seeing appears to be both bad faith arguments and bad personal politics.
Having gone from being a Green to a liberal Democrat to a relatively-conservative Democrat is she just addicted to change?
I really like your formulation here. When we speak about this with our social media and personal networks, I think we should turn this around like you do. Should there be a minority veto in the Senate? I have read conspiracy theories about Sinema's funding and ties to the GOP, and I'm not sure what's going on there and why she's hanging out with Cornyn the way she is.
I spoke to Senator Sinema on the phone last week, and I was the worst conversation I've ever had with an elected official. I went in thinking she was just a contrarian who likes being the center of attention. But it's worse than that: she actually believes she is protecting democracy by preserving the filibuster. (She also launched into a full lecture on the history of the filibuster, and when I said that everyone on the call was familiar with the history and did not think it supported its continuation, she replied, "Well, sorry if this is boring to you.")
I don't really doubt that Manchin will get where he needs to be on this, but I have no idea how we move her at this point.
Update: Um. I now do doubt that Manchin will get where he needs to be on this.
It does seem that she has dug so deep in her support of this that she can't easily turn around and change that position.
I do wish journalists asked questions that were more pointed, and more specifically held her to account. So many of the questions seem designed to grab a rage-inducing headline rather than nail her down on the specific ramifications of her position. Rather than "Will you vote to kill the filibuster?", I'd rather see something like:
"You're here today with John Cornyn, who propogated The Big Lie of election fraud, a lie so preposterous that it got Trump banned from even Facebook. Members of his party have pretended that the 2020 election was not secure, as a cover for advancing voter suppression laws. What specific evidence do you have that ten Republican senators will reverse course and ensure the right to vote for all eligible Americans?"
"What about working with supporters of The Big Lie makes it more important than the passage of a bill you co-sponsored?"
"Can you point me to the specific place in the Constitution that the founders wrote in the filibuster?"
"Our republic barely survived the Articles of Confederation, a key feature of which was a super-majority requirement. By my reading, there is no super-majority requirement in the Constitution, which--if I may--suggests the founders saw the dangers of it. Since the filibuster as it exists today essentially requires a super-majority on most legislation, why do you view it as more conducive to democracy than the founders did? What are your other favorite features of the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution writers left out?"
Confession: I, too, saw the clip yesterday with Cornyn, and was irate.
Hmmm. Is Jamison Foser a subcriber?
https://twitter.com/jamisonfoser/status/1400914332246966272
I'm just kidding. (Though, if he's not a subscriber, he should be.) His questions and line of attack are better than mine.
EW. Joe Lieberman.
LOL - my sentiments exactly! I kept asking myself during 2008 WFT happened to you Joe ?
yes, a bad, bad memory.
Originally I was hopeful that once Manchin came around with some type of work-around, surely Sinema would too. Now I'm worried that she might delight in being the sole disrupter. I wish we could trade in Sinema for Murkowski. At least she has some principles.
Excellent column with one minor point: the United States Supreme Court held a while back that state recall laws generally cannot apply to federal officials . . . so, yeah, the way to hold Senator Sinema accountable for her votes in '24 will be a Democratic primary.
Showing my work: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995); Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001). The first case dealt with term limits, not recalls specifically, but these type of state laws generally are considered similar.
Do you think Manchin is begging R's to save the filibuster by asking for another vote on January 6 commission?
Off topic but something that bothers me. There is frequent talk re: rising violence and it's causes. I am no expert in this area, but it seems common sense that once the pandemic frees everyone up, there will be more interactions resulting in violence because there are more interactions PERIOD.... I never hear this mentioned as a possible factor but surely it is a contributing factor?
Maybe. Sometimes I think that the continued violence and being on the streets is bc people are finding a "higher cause" that lets them congregate and connect. Maybe once pandemic seems "over" (?) people will find healthier ways to connect, not that I am against protesting but the violence yes. I live in Oregon. Our beloved Portland is such a mess.
Then again, after I watched The Underground Railroad I wondered if there is ever going to be a reason for people to not be angry. What a tragic, brutal history we have at work. The anger makes sense to me
Thanks for articulating this crisis so well.
It’s a hopeless feeling, watching democracy erode after all that work in 2020 because Kyrsten Sinema is intent on constructing a stupid self-image. I’m not sure anyone can pierce through her arrogance. She’s more obsessed with the idea of being an "Arizona maverick” than the substance of the given situation. I wish she could see the difference between a dramatic No vote on ripping healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans vs. a theatrical No vote on raising the minimum wage to livable standards. But she only sees the performative gesture of each act.
Joe Manchin is delusional with respect to his hope for bipartisanship. (Either that or he’s just BSing us to escape taking action.) But at least his stance, out of touch or disingenuous as it is, is grounded in logic. I also appreciate that he’s the only Dem who could win WV, so we give him a bit more latitude on political grounds. But at some point placing your own career above doing the right thing for the country you serve is inexcusable. We’re at that point. Still, at least his resistance to abolishing the minority-rule loophole can be explained in some form. The same cannot be said for Sinema, who is a colossal disappointment (I'd prefer 2020-21 Jeff Flake.)
As Michelle Goldberg wrote today, Sinema “seems above all dedicated to a view of herself as a quirky maverick, and delights in trolling the Democrats who elected her.”
Dan, I’m legit worried that Sinema and/or Manchin might change parties like Arlen Specter did. I can see them blaming the AOC and Bernie wing of the Democratic Party as being too far left, so they they leave and give McConnell a majority.
Do you think that’s a realistic possibility?
Not Manchin, but I can see Sinema doing it.
I'm as confused as ever about Sinema after this piece.
The nub of this is that Sinema is, if she wishes to be taken as a good faith actor, entitled to support the filibuster as a protection against many things during those times when Republicans control everything. But she is not doing this and there is no obvious reason why.
Mark Kelly will face the voters earlier and in a mid-term election - so we have to assume that she's not doing this because polling tells her she has to. Manchin has to be seen to be different from the party in order to survive. Absolutely not the case in Arizona.
Lieberman was a man who had become radically more conservative over the years and had his head turned by a GOP friend. Again, no explanation for Sinema's actions.
So what we are seeing appears to be both bad faith arguments and bad personal politics.
Having gone from being a Green to a liberal Democrat to a relatively-conservative Democrat is she just addicted to change?
I think she is addicted to ATTENTION, like the former guy.
I really like your formulation here. When we speak about this with our social media and personal networks, I think we should turn this around like you do. Should there be a minority veto in the Senate? I have read conspiracy theories about Sinema's funding and ties to the GOP, and I'm not sure what's going on there and why she's hanging out with Cornyn the way she is.
I agree; messaging, messaging, messaging.