Kyrsten Sinema, the Dems' Mitt Romney

[Jeff Lebowski]

So, Sinema is an interesting person. I briefly lived in her district when she first ran for Congress in the mid-2000s. She ran as a bisexual, ex-Mormon, radical leftist. And shockingly, she won. I hardly recognize the politician she's become. It's not that I don't like where she landed. And a politician's gonna politick, I just find it surprising.

Maybe I shouldn't, though. In that same time period, I've probably shifted as much to the left as she has to the right.

Did she really run as a "radical leftist"? Or did she campaign as more of a centrist? I have a hard time believing the former.

This is from 2017, during the senate run:

Kyrsten Sinema entering the fray for U.S. Senate pretty much guarantees that the race will be one of the biggest political stories in Arizona, indeed the country.

And Republicans instantly got the race off on the wrong foot.

Republican campaign operatives, and the Jeff Flake campaign itself, revived the charge that Sinema is a liberal radical. Former Green Party candidate. Ralph Nader supporter. Self-proclaimed “Prada Socialist.”

This isn’t exactly unfair. Sinema does have a radical background. She did all those things.

However, she now has a 10-year record as an elected official, six as a state legislator and four as a member of Congress. She has recast herself as a Democratic centrist, and has the voting record to back that up.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...one/728717001/

[USUC]

Because they believe that once they remove it, the Dems can force through their entire agenda. And once that agenda is put into place, the American public will be so enamored with everything that they were able to do, that they don't have to worry about ever losing the majority.

And I'm being serious.

Kevin Williamson from National Review often says that congressuonal Dems act as if they will never lose power and the GOP acts as if they will never again gain power.

The short sighted nature of the Dems here is crazy. They really dont see how this could come back to bite them in the ass? I heard an argument that it won't backfire because the GOP never wants to change things, they just want things to stay the same. As if the GOP wouldn't immediately begin dismantling the regulatory state once in power.

[Green Monstah]

Did she really run as a "radical leftist"? Or did she campaign as more of a centrist? I have a hard time believing the former.

This is from 2017, during the senate run:



https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...one/728717001/

My memory is failing me a bit. I just looked at her election record and realized I lived in her district when she ran for the State House in 2005, not Congress. I was straight outta Provo at that point, but I remember thinking that she took the far-left position on all the hot-button issues. She didn't run for Congress until 2013, and because I moved from AZ in 2006, I really didn't follow her again until she was in Congress.

[SeattleUte]

Sinema never ran as a radical.

[Omaha 680]

God bless Sinema.

And Manchin and Mitt Romney. There are a few sane politicians left out there.

[Green Monstah]

Sinema never ran as a radical.

I’m impressed that you followed her ascent in The AZ state legislature sufficient to make that assessment.

[BlueK]

Soon enough it will come back to bite her anyway. With the Supreme Court now having all but reversed Roe v Wade, the next time the GOP has the majority they will run to change the filibuster rules so they can pass national anti-abortion legislation. They will just say it's THAT important to justify it.

Then if anyone complains GOP leaders will just say it's the dems' fault anyway just for having talked about changing the rules before. Personally, I 'm inclined to trust the Constitution the way the Fouders wrote it and am not as scared of the idea of letting the legislature legislate. The way the filibuster is currently applied is a grand tradition that dates back all of about 20 years. Either way, it's not the end of the world.

[BigFatMeanie]

Soon enough it will come back to bite her anyway. With the Supreme Court now having all but reversed Roe v Wade, the next time the GOP has the majority they will run to change the filibuster rules so they can pass national anti-abortion legislation. They will just say it's THAT important to justify it.

Then if anyone complains GOP leaders will just say it's the dems' fault anyway just for having talked about changing the rules before. Personally, I 'm inclined to trust the Constitution the way the Fouders wrote it and am not as scared of the idea of letting the legislature legislate. The way the filibuster is currently applied is a grand tradition that dates back all of about 20 years. Either way, it's not the end of the world.

Interesting. I wasn't aware the Supreme Court had "all but reversed Roe v Wade". Did I miss a ruling?

[BlueK]

Interesting. I wasn't aware the Supreme Court had "all but reversed Roe v Wade". Did I miss a ruling?

Apparently. They've allowed the new Texas law to stand and will probably do the same for Mississippi

[BigFatMeanie]

Apparently. They've allowed the new Texas law to stand and will probably do the same for Mississippi

Are you talking about the December 10 decision? I'm not a lawyer, so I may be misunderstanding something, but I believe the case was remanded back to district court and still allows abortion providers to continue their lawsuit against the law, but it does limit which Texas government officials can be sued.

[BlueK]

Are you talking about the December 10 decision? I'm not a lawyer, so I may be misunderstanding something, but I believe the case was remanded back to district court and still allows abortion providers to continue their lawsuit against the law, but it does limit which Texas government officials can be sued.

that law would have been completely struck down and tossed out before the last three Trump appointees. My point is that a GOP senate and House have no reason now not to pass something national that mimics the Texas law and it would have a much better than decent chance of being upheld.

They know it would get a veto, but it then becomes a 2024 campaign issue to get their base fired up. Of course they will remove the filibuster to do this if they get the Senate in 2022.

[beefytee]

It's interesting that you bring up abortion. I think that is the one topic that could galvanize the dems in future elections should Roe v Wade be overturned. The republicans would take a serious risk banning all or most abortions considering the nation as a whole support abortion about 60-40.
I'm against getting rid of the filibuster but at least election reform is something that the public in general supports.

[USUC]

that law would have been completely struck down and tossed out before the last three Trump appointees. My point is that a GOP senate and House have no reason now not to pass something national that mimics the Texas law and it would have a much better than decent chance of being upheld.

They know it would get a veto, but it then becomes a 2024 campaign issue to get their base fired up. Of course they will remove the filibuster to do this if they get the Senate in 2022.

Remember when Trump openly advocated for the GOP to get rid of the filibuster and the GOP controlled congress didn't? I'm not buying this argument that the GOP would do it if they were in the same position. But even if they would, it's not a good argument. It's circular and provides a false sense of moral justification to do anything you want done. It's dangerous.

In terms of abortion, I'm not sure it will be as catastrophic for the GOP as many think. This obviously won't affect blue states in terms of actual abortion laws. And a good portion of the population of red states are comfortable with at least some restrictions. The extent to which the GOP over reaches is still yet to be seen (in addition to Roe actually being destroyed).

[Bo Diddley]

Perhaps this is simply shifting power back to the states to govern themselves. I'm not opposed to that.

[old_gregg]

we’ll get to how serious the gop is about restraint when california bans guns with the same enforcement mechanism as the tx law.