Senator Kyrsten Sinema is on the hot seat today after she published an op-ed in Monday’s Washington Post defending the filibuster and opposing any radical changes to the practice.
“It’s no secret that I oppose eliminating the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I held the same view during three terms in the U.S. House, and said the same after I was elected to the Senate in 2018,” Sinema wrote. “If anyone expected me to reverse my position because my party now controls the Senate, they should know that my approach to legislating in Congress is the same whether in the minority or majority.”
“I will not support an action that damages our democracy because someone else did so previously or might do so in the future. I do not accept a new standard by which important legislation can only pass on party-line votes,” she added.
That’s exactly how it should be. Democrats opposing the filibuster now didn’t mind using it when they were in the minority. Now, of course, it’s a racist holdover from the Jim Crow era.
Recommended: When It Comes to Forcing His Agenda Down Americans’ Throats, Biden Says the Quiet Part Out Loud
But the radicals went on the attack. She doesn’t understand what the filibuster is, says Jonathan Chait. “Factually untrue,” he called her argument.
Others didn’t even both critiquing her op-ed.
Kyrsten Sinema is a disgrace and a huge disappointment.https://t.co/qcxYAwf8yj
— MeidasTouch.com (@MeidasTouch) June 22, 2021
MSNBC nutcase Joy Reid asks, “Arizona, you up?”
I think she realizes that. She mentions "her party" going into the minority multiple times in this op-ed, and not in a way that says "I'd really hate that…" Arizona, you up? https://t.co/RjmZG26fGx
— Joy-Ann (Pro-Democracy) Reid 😷 (@JoyAnnReid) June 22, 2021
Ezra Klein is slightly less unhinged but still dishonest.
Senator Sinema's op-ed defending the filibuster is frustrating, but I want to take one argument from it seriously, because it's shared by many of her colleagues: The idea that ending the filibuster will mean ricochet legislating. https://t.co/czwRgVngGb pic.twitter.com/Pb7TtI8LQD
— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) June 22, 2021
How can an argument be “fairly delusional”?
Read this poorly argued, fairly delusional op-ed and then ask yourself what you’d do if you were Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer to convince her she’s wrong.
— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) June 22, 2021
Recommended VIP: Kyrsten Sinema Reveals Her Do-or-Die Stance on the Filibuster
Sinema is joined in opposition to ending the filibuster by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., effectively ending Democrats’ hopes of eliminating what’s become a decades-old tradition in Congress’ upper chamber.
Despite their consistent stance, the pressure campaign on them to change their minds hasn’t wavered, and liberal media frustration is evident.
The radicals are blowing hot air. If it were only Manchin and Sinema, they may have been able to pressure them to compromise. But there are several other senators who are happy that Manchin and Sinema are attracting all the heat, even though they oppose repealing the filibuster rule, as well.
Several other Democrats have indicated in interviews that they are reluctant to kill the filibuster or that they prefer to make “reforms” — Washington-speak for maintaining a supermajority to pass bills, even if changed a bit from the current filibuster rules.
It’s a harsh reality for progressives — both inside the Senate and outside — who had hoped their party might be provoked into nuking the filibuster and approving legislation with a simple majority.
According to NRO, “Senator Kelly of Arizona, Senator Hassan of New Hampshire, and Senator Hickenlooper of Colorado” are also opposed to ending the filibuster. “In addition, both Senator Feinstein of California and Senator Leahy of Vermont have stayed notably quiet.”
It’s no accident that two of the longest-serving senators — Leahy and Feinstein — would oppose changing the rules. Democrat or Republican, Right or Left, there was a certain respect for the rules and traditions of the Senate when those two first entered the upper chamber in the 1980s. Then, they were under the tutelage of one of the Senate’s giants, Robert Byrd. Byrd worshipped the Senate and its history and that love and devotion apparently rubbed off on some of the old-timers.
The filibuster makes it harder to pass a law. That’s a good thing, no matter which party is in power. It’s supposed to be hard to change the law in the Senate, which was created as a brake on the passions of the people that had been let loose in the House.
Not “democracy.” A “republic,” please.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member