Political commentators everywhere are asking the question “What is Kyrsten Sinema’s game?” Some add verbiage for effect, such as The Orlando Weekly’s Jeffrey Billman wondering “What the hell is Kyrsten Sinema’s game?” This was in response to Sinema’s reasoning (such as it is) that she was “protecting democracy” by voting against setting aside the filibuster to pass the For the People voting rights bill.
Now, first of all, doing away with the filibuster—the most effective use of in the past was against civil and voting rights legislation—was just an exercise in politics. It had no chance of being approved, and everyone knew that. The vote was a referendum on where you stood on the voting rights bill. If there were 10 Republicans who supported the bill, we wouldn’t be seeing this pointless charade. But of course there isn’t, because they’d be accused of supporting “voter fraud,” and many states where Republicans dominate the legislatures, voter suppression laws are being passed—and make no mistake: laws that restrict access to registration, voting times and locations have nothing to do with preventing voter “fraud,” but to suppress the voting rights of those that Republicans fear.
So of course Sinema’s—and Joe Manchin’s—claim that they are “protecting” democracy is an unmistakable fraud. She and Manchin could have justified voting for removing the filibuster not for its own sake, but as a “statement” in support of voting rights which they felt was under threat by Republicans. Instead, they chose to de facto side with Republicans on the voting bill, however else these frauds choose to define their actions. To his “credit” Manchin quickly left the Senate chamber after his vote. What did Sinema do? She stood around shaking hands with Republican senators, including Louisiana’s John Kennedy, who voted to overturn the election on January 6.
So what is Sinema’s “game” in all this? She only tells us what she is “against,” not what she is “for.” Everything she is against is to satisfy a right-wing and corporate constituency. Sinema started out as a member of the Arizona Green Party, which most people would call a “radical left” party. Back then, she wouldn’t even acknowledge the existence of a member of the Republican Party. Have times changed? No. The Republican Party has itself if anything become more radicalized, and Sinema’s embrace of Republican “principles” can only be seen as a purely cynical effort to achieve personal power.
Of course Sinema may not be playing the “game” right, probably because she isn’t as smart as she thinks she is. Perhaps she believes that being a “conservative” Democrat—rather than, say, a “moderate” Republican—is the best way of advancing her personal power agenda. But unless something changes radically about Sinema, she is unlikely to win another Democratic Senate primary, and red Republicans are not going to vote for a turncoat Democrat. She knows this, right? She can’t be that stupid, right? It is speculated that if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022, she will caucus with Republicans, which of course means the end of her career as a Democratic senator for certain. Maybe she thinks that she has a corporate job in her future. Or does this megalomaniacal fool have something else in mind?
On her twitter page, Amy Siskind, the president of women’s advocacy organization The New Agenda, has this to say:
Sinema believes she will be running for President in 2024 I am told. This self-styled bipartisanship she believes she speaks for, will be her brand to run as the candidate in the middle. Not far-left of far-right. She has convinced herself this is her calling and she has it.
And you can see why having alienated so many close to her, & believing she is smarter than everyone else in DC and beyond, and with the corporate donors feeding this too while she tows their line, this misguided fantasy can be her view. This I am told is what is happening.
Siskind also asserts that Sinema believes she will “win” if it is “choice” between her and a “MAGA” candidate.
There are those who believe that Joe Biden has to go in 2024 and should be “primaried” if he chooses to hang around. Regardless if he thinks he can actually win reelection, Biden ought to know his time is done; he looks and talks old and frail and voters are going to take that into consideration. I don’t see Kamala Harris as a viable candidate either, with her deep underwater ratings. But Sinema believing she has a “chance” when no one trusts her in the Democratic Party, and she is just seen as a fool and a “tool” by Republicans, is only proof that some people are “superstars” only in their warped alternate universes.
No comments:
Post a Comment