Sinemanchin & Narrow Democratic Senate Control

[LFC]

I'm staring a new one for what's coming up. A Democratic Congressman from Arizona pulled no punches as he effectively calls her self-centered and useless. And he left the question of him primarying her beautifully dangling in the air with, "That's a 2023 question."

I'm sure Moscow Mitch has already been reaching out to these two with offers to flip-flop. I suspect Sinema, who clearly only cares about her own career, is the most likely. Manchin has the Democratic volunteers and organization sewn up in West Virginia. If he flips he has to start from scratch and he's already in his 70s. Sinema, OTOH, is already disliked by a lot of Arizona Dems. The bulk of volunteers and organization she needs could flip in a moment. She's probably calculating if she can go Republican, become like MTG or Bimboebert, and become the Republican nominee.

[indy]

It's doubly annoying that without Sinema being so problematic the Senate could potentially ignore Manchin if Warnock were to be reelected in GA. But the two of them together is too much to overcome unfortunately.

[LFC]

Oh, Kyrsten (in full due to paywall).

Kyrsten Sinema has been a thorn in the side of Democrats for the last two years. Unlike, co-thorn Joe Manchin, there’s no obvious reason why she insisted on being one. (As Eric Levitz notes, Mark Kelly’s victory is an indictment of Sinema’s politics.) Manchin is from the most pro-Trump state in the country. Sinema’s not.

In recent weeks Rep. Ruben Gallego has been signaling more and more clearly that he may challenge her in a primary in advance of her reelection campaign in 2024. Normally in such circumstances partisans try to find a balance between disciplining or displacing an errant elected official and the chance of losing the seat altogether. But that mistakes the challenge Democrats actually face. Because Sinema is already unelectable.

Let’s start with the fact that 2024 is going to be a very challenging one for the Democrats for holding the Senate. The pick opportunities are challenging at best. Democrats must defend seats in Ohio, Montana and West Virginia. In other words, Democrats can’t afford to lose a seat in Arizona if they have hopes of retaining Senate control.

Normally, this would lead many to say, well, ‘She drives us crazy but we have no choice but to get her reelected.’ The problem is that Sinema is almost certainly unelectable. That is the case even if she doesn’t have to go through a damaging primary battle, which she would be likely to lose. The calculus is simple. Arizona remains at best a purple state where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats. A Democratic candidate requires overwhelming and energized support from Democrats to win. Sinema had that in 2018 when she ran as a very different kind of Democrat as did Mark Kelly in his successive runs in 2020 and 2022. Absent some dramatic turnabout in her political behavior and persona over the next two years that overwhelming and energized support from Democrats is basically impossible for her to achieve. It’s that simple.

Would most Democrats come around to supporting her against a GOP opponent, if those were the options? Sure, probably. But most isn’t enough. In a state like Arizona you really need all of them.

But wouldn’t she make up ground with independents? In a word, no. A poll from September showed her with 37% favorability and 54% unfavorability. But that number understates her peril. Among Democrats it was 37% to 57%. Among Republicans it was 36% to 54%. That Republican number is quite good for a Democrat. But that’s Republicans who love her making trouble for Democrats. She would get exactly 0% of those Republicans to support her in a head to head match up with an actual Republican. This particular poll showed her with slightly higher 41% approval among independents. Most polls over the last two years have actually shown her less popular among independents than among Democrats. Meanwhile Sinema will have to regain, consolidate and energize Democrats who now mostly despise her. That’s not going to happen. In a blue state where there was a surplus of Democratic voters, maybe. But not in Arizona where registered Democrats make up only 31% of voters.

If Democrats had retained the House there was one interesting possibility. The House passes a Roe bill and sends it on to the Senate. Assuming Raphael Warnock wins his Senate seat for a full term, that puts the Democrats at 51 seats, needing only one more vote to pass a Roe bill. If Sinema were to have a change of heart on her filibuster maximalism, she could be that vote. It’s very hard to imagine what Sinema could do to make up for the damage to her standing from the last two years. But casting the vote that allowed Roe to become law nationwide is the one thing that might do the trick. That was always pretty unlikely. But without the House it’s not possible at all.

So what do Democrats do? It’s not clear to me what they can do. There’s a good chance that if Rep. Ruben Gallego challenges Sinema he will beat her. But it’s hard to win a general election after a bruising primary battle. Gallego is also more on the progressive side of the Democratic spectrum. Given that Democrats have only started winning statewide races in Arizona very recently, it’s not clear how viable he would be statewide. To be clear, I am not saying Gallego can’t win a Senate seat in Arizona. I’m not an expert on Arizona politics. Democrats have won senate seats in Arizona in three consecutive elections. But Mark Kelly is probably in the ideological sweet spot for Arizona currently. Fighting to hold on to her seat Sinema would likely spend months bashing Gallego for his progressive positions. Gallego, meanwhile, would likely make the central pillar of his primary challenge that Democrats should have an actual Democrat as their nominee. Both of these dynamics complicate a Gallego general election run. Again for clarity, my point is not that Gallego can’t win a general election in Arizona. I am simply noting that there are no simple or easy ways out of the hole in which Sinema has dug herself and her party.

Democrats must either find a way to get Sinema to do an extreme political makeover in 2023, get her not to run again or find a way that Gallego can hold the seat after a brutal primary. Each are a big challenge.

Little miss maverick-wannabe has pretty much destroyed her political career unless, perhaps, she goes full metal Marjorie Taylor Greene and becomes a raving lunatic Republican, not just a quiet enabler. Even that I doubt would work. She's pretty much made almost everybody dislike her. I suspect she'll get wiped out in 2024 from one side or the other. Then she can prance off into the sunset.

[LFC]

Sinema continues to be an attention whore, still maneuvering for political relevance after her term is up.

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is changing her party affiliation to independent, delivering a jolt to Democrats’ narrow majority and Washington along with it.

In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.

Provided that Sinema sticks to that vow, Democrats will still have a workable Senate majority in the next Congress, though it will not exactly be the neat and tidy 51 seats they assumed. They’re expected to also have the votes to control Senate committees. And Sinema’s move means Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — a pivotal swing vote in the 50-50 chamber the past two years — will hold onto some but not all of his outsized influence in the Democratic caucus.

She's going extra mavericky to try to grasp even a straw on relevance or interest from the voters. I'm sure she knows she has poisoned her career as a Democrat. Her additional problems are that the Republican don't want her, or at least not after 2024, and the polls posted on TRS show she is even unpopular with AZ independents. It's so hard to become president (which she really believes she could do) when less than half of everybody likes you.

[goldenvalley]

Dec 9, 2022 18:03:56 GMT LFC said:

Sinema continues to be an attention whore, still maneuvering for political relevance after her term is up.

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is changing her party affiliation to independent, delivering a jolt to Democrats’ narrow majority and Washington along with it.

In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.

Provided that Sinema sticks to that vow, Democrats will still have a workable Senate majority in the next Congress, though it will not exactly be the neat and tidy 51 seats they assumed. They’re expected to also have the votes to control Senate committees. And Sinema’s move means Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — a pivotal swing vote in the 50-50 chamber the past two years — will hold onto some but not all of his outsized influence in the Democratic caucus.

She's going extra mavericky to try to grasp even a straw on relevance or interest from the voters. I'm sure she knows she has poisoned her career as a Democrat. Her additional problems are that the Republican don't want her, or at least not after 2024, and the polls posted on TRS show she is even unpopular with AZ independents. It's so hard to become president (which she really believes she could do) when less than half of everybody likes you.

She started out in the Green Party...whatever that means.  She's probably looking for a cushy lobbying job after she loses a run for re-election.

I have to wonder if a deal was cut to keep her in the D category until after the 2022 elections.  

[LFC]

TPM has more coverage on Sinema's desperate gambit for attention and a shot at retaining her seat in 2024.

I first heard about Kyrsten Sinema’s party switch this morning and I thought, Holy Crap! I didn’t expect her to join the GOP. This reaction was largely based on my first seeing the Axios headline “Senate Earthquake.” Only it’s not an earthquake and she’s not joining the GOP.

First I saw the key news that she would not caucus with Senate Republicans, and then the real tell — that she will continue to caucus with the Democrats. In other words, she’s going to do the same thing Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine already do with much less drama and preening.

Literally nothing changes. It’s still a 51 to 49 Senate, except the Democrats’ 51 senators are now made up of three nominal independents rather than 2. That ain’t no earthquake.

On 2024...

Far more complicated is the subject we talked about a few weeks ago. What happens in 2024? The first and most obvious thing this does is take a primary challenge off the table if Sinema chooses to run for reelection. (I think that is very much an “if,” which we’ll get to in a moment.) You can’t challenge her in the primary because she’s not running in the primary.

I’ve heard a few people in the Senate say this is a brilliant move because she eliminates the problem of a bitter primary fight with a single stroke. She then dares Democrats to run someone against her. I probably agree that if Sinema wants to run for reelection this is her best move. But that’s only because all her options are terrible.

It is extremely unlikely that Democrats will agree to sit out the race — as they do in Vermont and Maine — to allow her to run against the Republican nominee. Her argument will be: run a nominee and you’re handing the seat to the GOP. Your choice. I don’t think that will cut it as an argument.

Her main problem is that hardly anybody likes her. This is, of course, of her own doing.

So where does that leave things?

One obvious answer is a three-person race that Republicans win because they hold their voters while Democrats split theirs. But I’m not sure it plays out in quite that way. Sinema is very unpopular in Arizona. One recent poll found that only 37% of Arizonans view her favorably. But those numbers obscure a deeper vulnerability. Usually when a Democrat has a 37% favorability or approval number it’s made up of strong support among Democrats and very low or close to non-existent levels of support from Republicans and independents. But in this AARP poll her overall favorable rate of 37% is matched by only 37% of Democrats viewing her favorably. She’s at 36% with Republicans. But Republicans like her for tormenting her own party. None of them will vote for her against an actual Republican. So in practice that terrible 37% number greatly overstates Sinema’s popularity.

This poll shows Sinema with 41% favorability among independents, her notional base. That’s at least a bit better and suggests some possibility of grabbing the center of the electorate. But many polls have shown her even more unpopular among independents than Democrats. Another recent poll showed Sinema with the strongest support from Republicans, at 43%. That’s compared to 28% of Democrats and 35% of independents.

You can look at different polls. But they all amount to the same thing: Sinema has no actual constituency in Arizona. So in a three person race, how much support does she pull? It’s quite likely she comes in third in that race. And once it’s clear she can’t win her support likely drops further.

More on her popularity or, more to the point, lack of it.

An Arizona TPM Reader checks in on Kyrsten Sinema. Along those lines a new poll out today shows her current favorability rating at 18% – 5% among Democrats, 25% among Republicans and independents. She wouldn’t clear 10% in a three person race.

And this didn't take long. He's got two years to crush her as anybody the overwhelming majority of Dems or independents would even consider. He's also clearly out to dry up almost all Democratic contributions she might hope to pull.

Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) put out a statement going after Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ) when the senator announced Friday that she’d left the Democratic party to become an independent. 

“At a time when our nation needs leadership most, Arizona deserves a voice that won’t back down in the face of struggle,” he said. “Unfortunately, Senator Sinema is once again putting her own interests ahead of getting things done for Arizonans.” 

Gallego had leaned in to calls for him to primary Sinema when her term is up in 2024, though he had not officially announced a run. He often heckles Sinema when she stymies the party’s agenda, juxtaposing himself as a reliable Democratic vote. 

Team Gallego has already begun campaigning on her announcement. 

“Is there ANYTHING we can say to convince you to contribute to Ruben Gallego today?” the fundraising push from Ruben Gallego for Arizona said. “How about the fact that Senator Sinema just announced she was leaving the Democratic Party?”

[indy]

Not sure if I buy this analysis. My opinion is that the vast majority of self-proclaimed independents aren't really. They are weak partisans. There is pretty consistent research that bears this out. I do believe these voters can be swayed under certain political conditions (overturning roe v. wade for example might have been sufficient to move a segment of them) but in a 'normal' election they vote as normal partisans. So the question is (to me anyway) are Arizona 'independents' more Republican leaning? I certainly believe that is the case because Trump has caused some to go into hiding. How many I have no idea but if I was laying money down today, I'd say the Republican will win in a three-way race in Arizona.

Note that Senate Democrats already have very strong headwinds going into the next election.

[LFC]

Dec 10, 2022 0:03:36 GMT indy said:

Note that Senate Democrats already have very strong headwinds going into the next election.

We can only hope Republicans continue to field the same quality of candidates.

[indy]

Dec 10, 2022 0:21:51 GMT LFC said:

Dec 10, 2022 0:03:36 GMT indy said:

Note that Senate Democrats already have very strong headwinds going into the next election.

We can only hope Republicans continue to field the same quality of candidates.

It's certainly probable Arizona Republicans will continue with their recent nuttiness and nominate another Kari Lake type but she only lost by 17K votes. Mark Kelly only won by 126K. Sinema is not very popular but it seems pretty possible she could change the outcome for the worse for Democrats when even really bad Republican candidates are losing by super thin margins.

[LFC]

Dec 10, 2022 2:05:49 GMT indy said:

Sinema is not very popular but it seems pretty possible she could change the outcome for the worse for Democrats when even really bad Republican candidates are losing by super thin margins.

Completely true but the Democrats are pretty much now left with no other choice than to run their own candidate. If they tried to support Sinema she would lose. She's simply disliked by way too many people. If they run their own candidate and Sinema decides to be a spoiler they may also lose but it's their best option. Here's Josh Marshall's take (paywalled). Bold is mine.

Let me return again to what I think is the key point with Kyrsten Sinema, something I think most of D.C. press misses. The conventional wisdom here is that Senate Democrats need Sinema’s seat to have any hope of holding the Senate. They have a one-seat majority and three Democrats are up for reelection in clearly red states. There’s no margin for error. So they need to swallow their misgivings and line up behind her. I don’t have a good read on where the Senate Democratic leadership is on this or the various stakeholder groups that are involved in this kind of decision. But I don’t think I need to. Because I don’t think it will be their call. Sinema is simply too reviled by Arizona Democrats to make this work.

Polls of Sinema’s favorability among Democrats range from the mid-30s to as low as 5%. The 5% number was from a new poll released today. By comparison Mark Kelly’s favorability among Democrats is about 90%. There’s simply no way to repair those numbers. Her move today to brand the Arizona Democratic Party as extremist basically closes the door to any possible repair effort. I don’t think anyone in a position of leadership anywhere in the Democratic Party is going to be able to force the matter.

This is not necessarily good news for the Democratic Party, to put it mildly. There’s a very good chance the result of Sinema’s antics is the loss of the Senate seat. Much of elite journalistic opinion in D.C. portrays this as a choice between being pragmatic and backing Sinema or giving way to party activists and losing the seat. But as I’ve explained, the “pragmatic” path just isn’t open. If your support in your own part is 35% or less, that’s not about activists. You need a united and charged-up Democratic Party in Arizona to win a Senate race. It’s a necessary but by no means sufficient condition of winning. Sinema will never achieve that.

There’s one other point worth making here. Sinema and many of her D.C. admirers portray her current situation as the product of not passing various liberal or progressive litmus tests. That’s not true. Mark Kelly’s successive candidacies make the point eloquently. He’s not a down-the-line liberal voice on every issue. He’s actually dissented pretty significantly from the White House on immigration policy. But by and large Democrats in Arizona (where he needs votes) and out (where he needs contributions) are perfectly happy with him. What has soured Democrats on Sinema is her contempt for her own constituents and the fact that her guiding star in D.C. has been what’s best described as her own ego trip. It’s not about ideology. That’s just her excuse because it appeals to official D.C.

[LFC]

More on Sinema's possible political future. Much is rehash but there are more details on how big the headwinds are to her running as either a Democrat or an independent.

Then there's this from a former friend who she hosed politically. Nobody should be surprised.

Kyrsten Sinema is no stranger to burning bridges. She’s in the process of doing just that with her former Democratic colleagues now that she officially switched her party to Independent, and according to David Schapira, a former Arizona politician and ex-friend to Sinema, she burned a bridge with him, too.

He wrote a viral Twitter thread that details the time that both he and Sinema were running for office in Arizona and the two promised each other they wouldn’t go “negative” or run attack campaigns out of respect for their friendship. Spoiler alert: She did anyway, Schapira tells New Abnormal co-host, Danielle Moodie.

In this episode of the politics podcast, Schapira breaks down exactly what happened—and the half-assed apology she allegedly gave him after—as well as some reasons he believes his former pal cares more about “notoriety” than her role as a servant of the public.

On the party change issue, he says “she is too calculated. She thinks too long-term for this to have just been a recent decision.”

And of her character?

“I don’t think her political ambition has any bounds,” he tells Moodie after recounting an alleged interaction with Sinema that he never shared publicly before.

“Ego is a hell of a drug,” Moodie replies.

Yep, she actually believes that she's really something. The countdown to reality is coming fast.

[LFC]

She's an entitled diva who thinks taxpayer paid employees should take care of her personal business like grocery shopping and dealing with internet outages at her home. Anyone shocked?

Always have a “room temperature” bottle of water on hand for her at all times. Make sure you get her groceries. And book her a weekly, hour-long massage.

These are just a few of the tasks, framed in a dizzying array of do’s and don’ts, that have fallen to the staffers for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), according to an internal memo obtained by The Daily Beast.

The 37-page memo is intended as a guide for aides who set the schedule for and personally staff Sinema during her workdays in Washington and Arizona. And while the document is mostly just revealing of Sinema’s exceptionally strong preferences about things like air travel—preferably not on Southwest Airlines, never book her a seat near a bathroom, and absolutely never a middle seat—Sinema’s standards appear to go right up to the line of what Senate ethics rules allow, if not over.

One section of the staffer guide explains that the senator’s executive assistant must contact Sinema at the beginning of the work week in Washington to “ask if she needs groceries,” and copy both the scheduler and chief of staff on the message to “make sure this is accomplished.” It specifies Sinema will reimburse the assistant through CashApp. The memo also dictates that if the internet in Sinema’s private apartment fails, the executive assistant “should call Verizon to schedule a repair” and ensure a staffer is present to let a technician inside the property.

The Senate ethics handbook states that “staff are compensated for the purpose of assisting Senators in their official legislative and representational duties, and not for the purpose of performing personal or other non-official activities for themselves or on behalf of others.”

Craig Holman, a congressional ethics expert with the nonprofit group Public Citizen, said Sinema’s apparent demands that staffers conduct personal tasks amount to a clear violation of Senate ethics rules, and would typically warrant a formal reprimand by the Senate Ethics Committee.

Sinema spokesperson Hannah Hurley told The Daily Beast that “the alleged information—sourced from anonymous quotes and a purported document I can’t verify—is not in line with official guidance from Sen. Sinema’s office and does not represent official policies of Sen. Sinema’s office.”

Hurley added that Sinema’s office “does not require staff to perform personal errands.”

The Daily Beast did not share the document itself with Sinema’s office, and is not printing it in its entirety over concerns that doing so may reveal who shared the memo. However, The Daily Beast was able to independently corroborate the veracity of the document, which is at least a couple of years old but could still reflect current policies.

[LFC]

I so loathe this woman. On the upside she'll almost certainly be gone from her Senate seat soon and then she'll just end up as the pet "liberal" on Faux News or some other poisoned programming.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) told Davos attendees yesterday that she and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had been vindicated in their decision to protect the filibuster last year, even going so far as to share an onstage high five about it.

Sinema also argued that while the January 6 attack was a source of “concern and fear for every patriotic American,” Democrats had overreacted to it and politicized it.

“The Democratic Party shared a narrative that said we would not have any more free and fair elections in this country if the United States Congress didn’t eliminate the filibuster and pass a massive voting rights package … That massive voting rights bill was not passed through Congress, and then we had a free and fair election all across the country … So one could posit that the push by one political party to eliminate an important guardrail and an institution in our country may have been premature or overreaching in order to get the short-term victories they wanted.”

Sinema appeared on the Davos panel Tuesday along with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D), Manchin, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), and Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ).

If she actually thinks that the 2022 elections were fair, rather than just won by large margins, then she clearly knows nothing of the level of voter suppression that took place. Vote tallying was fair. The wide-scale program of voter suppression and intimidation across multiple states wasn't and she'd know that if she was a) reasonably bright and b) gave a shit.

[goldenvalley]

Jan 18, 2023 19:10:52 GMT LFC said:

I so loathe this woman. On the upside she'll almost certainly be gone from her Senate seat soon and then she'll just end up as the pet "liberal" on Faux News or some other poisoned programming.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) told Davos attendees yesterday that she and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) had been vindicated in their decision to protect the filibuster last year, even going so far as to share an onstage high five about it.

Sinema also argued that while the January 6 attack was a source of “concern and fear for every patriotic American,” Democrats had overreacted to it and politicized it.

“The Democratic Party shared a narrative that said we would not have any more free and fair elections in this country if the United States Congress didn’t eliminate the filibuster and pass a massive voting rights package … That massive voting rights bill was not passed through Congress, and then we had a free and fair election all across the country … So one could posit that the push by one political party to eliminate an important guardrail and an institution in our country may have been premature or overreaching in order to get the short-term victories they wanted.”

Sinema appeared on the Davos panel Tuesday along with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R), Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D), Manchin, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), and Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ).

If she actually thinks that the 2022 elections were fair, rather than just won by large margins, then she clearly knows nothing of the level of voter suppression that took place. Vote tallying was fair. The wide-scale program of voter suppression and intimidation across multiple states wasn't and she'd know that if she was a) reasonably bright and b) gave a shit.

And there are bills being introduced in state legislatures even now that support voter suppression for the next time around. The need for some federal standards for federal offices elections at least is still present.

[jackd]

Naw; as the Chief Justice observed while gutting the Voting Rights Act, that stuff doesn't happen anymore.

[andydp]

Jan 19, 2023 3:10:15 GMT jackd said:

Naw; as the Chief Justice observed while gutting the Voting Rights Act, that stuff doesn't happen anymore.

This just in:

Judge strikes down Matt Gaetz claim voter suppression is free speech

"Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, 31, of West Palm Beach, was charged by criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York," the Justice Department said in a release after the arrest. "He was taken into custody ... in West Palm Beach and made his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart of the Southern District of Florida."

Mackey's lawyers had two motions before the court, one to change the venue from the Eastern District of New York and a motion to dismiss the charges because his right to tweet whatever he wants falls under the First Amendment. The judge ruled Wednesday that both of those motions are being denied.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-strikes-down-matt-gaetz-claim-voter-suppression-is-free-speech/ar-AA16uyG8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=74f22ba896184883ae7a3fa4a8a9fa4b

(ED comment: Using that argument, so was cross burning)

[goldenvalley]

Jan 19, 2023 13:02:40 GMT andydp said:

Jan 19, 2023 3:10:15 GMT jackd said:

Naw; as the Chief Justice observed while gutting the Voting Rights Act, that stuff doesn't happen anymore.

This just in:

Judge strikes down Matt Gaetz claim voter suppression is free speech

"Douglass Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, 31, of West Palm Beach, was charged by criminal complaint in the Eastern District of New York," the Justice Department said in a release after the arrest. "He was taken into custody ... in West Palm Beach and made his initial appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart of the Southern District of Florida."

Mackey's lawyers had two motions before the court, one to change the venue from the Eastern District of New York and a motion to dismiss the charges because his right to tweet whatever he wants falls under the First Amendment. The judge ruled Wednesday that both of those motions are being denied.


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-strikes-down-matt-gaetz-claim-voter-suppression-is-free-speech/ar-AA16uyG8?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=74f22ba896184883ae7a3fa4a8a9fa4b

(ED comment: Using that argument, so was cross burning)

What these people fail to understand is that Twitter is a private, not a government owned, company.  The First Amendment doesn't apply to it.  

[LFC]

Jan 19, 2023 14:30:57 GMT goldenvalley said:

What these people fail to understand is that Twitter is a private, not a government owned, company.  The First Amendment doesn't apply to it.  

What? The party that tells us over and over and over about how much they love the Constitution, with some carrying around tiny little copies of it as props, don't actually know what's in it? Say it ain't so!

[LFC]

Say what you will about Kyrsten Sinema being a clown, at least she dresses the part and doesn't try to hide who she is. You go, girl! You are clearly out of the stupid closet!

[goldenvalley]

Feb 8, 2023 16:18:05 GMT LFC said:

Say what you will about Kyrsten Sinema being a clown, at least she dresses the part and doesn't try to hide who she is. You go, girl! You are clearly out of the stupid closet!

So she dug out a bridesmaid dress that she wore in the late '80's.  At least she's thrifty!  And like MTG and George Santos, she craves the attention.

[LFC]

Manchin is having buyer's remorse. What an asshole.

Sen. Joe Manchin is losing patience with his fellow Democrats over their signature climate law — and the feeling is mutual.

The West Virginia Democrat has spent weeks escalating his attacks on President Joe Biden’s implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping bill that Manchin helped write in a deal that stunned Washington last summer. Last week, he threatened to join Republicans in voting to repeal the law, as the House GOP is demanding in its legislation for raising the nation's debt limit.

Manchin's comment caught his caucus colleagues off guard, even if such a repeal would be a long shot in Congress. It came just as Biden was launching a reelection campaign that rests heavily on that legislation’s climate and health care provisions.

"That surprises me that he wants to repeal it. I think it’s one of his greatest accomplishments," said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a close colleague of Manchin's on the Energy Committee, in an interview.

The IRA is far less of a political bright spot for Manchin, whose potential reelection hopes are clouded by growing disapproval ratings in his home state, partly driven by his support for the law. Manchin has yet to announce whether he’s running, but a formidable challenger entered the West Virginia Senate race last week — GOP Gov. Jim Justice.

Manchin’s fellow Democrats understand that his reelection could determine whether they retain their slim 51-seat Senate majority in 2024. But they are also growing weary of his attacks against their marquee climate law — even if they've come to expect it and know there's little they can do to change his mind. And his votes against Democratic policies and Biden nominees have already complicated his party's agenda in the 51-49 Senate.

[goldenvalley]

May 1, 2023 20:40:40 GMT LFC said:

Manchin is having buyer's remorse. What an asshole.

Sen. Joe Manchin is losing patience with his fellow Democrats over their signature climate law — and the feeling is mutual.

The West Virginia Democrat has spent weeks escalating his attacks on President Joe Biden’s implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, the sweeping bill that Manchin helped write in a deal that stunned Washington last summer. Last week, he threatened to join Republicans in voting to repeal the law, as the House GOP is demanding in its legislation for raising the nation's debt limit.

Manchin's comment caught his caucus colleagues off guard, even if such a repeal would be a long shot in Congress. It came just as Biden was launching a reelection campaign that rests heavily on that legislation’s climate and health care provisions.

"That surprises me that he wants to repeal it. I think it’s one of his greatest accomplishments," said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), a close colleague of Manchin's on the Energy Committee, in an interview.

The IRA is far less of a political bright spot for Manchin, whose potential reelection hopes are clouded by growing disapproval ratings in his home state, partly driven by his support for the law. Manchin has yet to announce whether he’s running, but a formidable challenger entered the West Virginia Senate race last week — GOP Gov. Jim Justice.

Manchin’s fellow Democrats understand that his reelection could determine whether they retain their slim 51-seat Senate majority in 2024. But they are also growing weary of his attacks against their marquee climate law — even if they've come to expect it and know there's little they can do to change his mind. And his votes against Democratic policies and Biden nominees have already complicated his party's agenda in the 51-49 Senate.

What is Manchin's beef with the Inflation Reduction Act?  Just the reading of the $7500 tax credit for buying an electric vehicle?  He forced through the American made content part of that bill.

[LFC]

May 1, 2023 22:56:56 GMT goldenvalley said:

What is Manchin's beef with the Inflation Reduction Act?  Just the reading of the $7500 tax credit for buying an electric vehicle?  He forced through the American made content part of that bill.

He thinks Biden is using that more aggressively than he should. Anything that smacks of getting off fossil fuels needs to be fought. I'm sure he had to be wrestled pretty hard for any EV credit. He probably just hoped it would be ineffective.

[pnwguy]

May 3, 2023 13:56:11 GMT LFC said:

May 1, 2023 22:56:56 GMT goldenvalley said:

What is Manchin's beef with the Inflation Reduction Act?  Just the reading of the $7500 tax credit for buying an electric vehicle?  He forced through the American made content part of that bill.

He thinks Biden is using that more aggressively than he should. Anything that smacks of getting off fossil fuels needs to be fought. I'm sure he had to be wrestled pretty hard for any EV credit. He probably just hoped it would be ineffective.

Apart from impurities, coal is pure carbon.  So for conservatives, it must be seen as the underground version of manna from heaven.  Leaving it in the ground is blasphemous rejection of the Almighty's goodness.  Release it and let the flames reach high, as a burnt offering to the Lord.  CO2 is His frankincense and a sweet smell unto His nostrils.

[LFC]

Who's shocked? Anybody? Didn't think so.

Following reports this week that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) has been using campaign funds to pay for costs related to her marathon running, an Arizona group has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) calling on regulators to open a formal investigation into spending by the senator. Apparently, per the complaint, using campaign funds for her marathon participation was the tip of the iceberg: Sinema is also facing scrutiny over more than $180,000 in campaign expenditures as far back as 2019 that went toward luxury hotels and resorts, jets, limos, Michelin-starred restaurants, international travel, winery visits, and more.

The FEC complaint against Sinema filed on Thursday by the liberal political action committee Change for Arizona 2024 alleges that Sinema has been using both campaign funds and public funds to bankroll her “lifestyle of luxury,” pointing specifically to trips to resorts in Paris and, of course, her participation in marathons. The complaint says that this campaign spending is especially suspicious because it took place while Sinema wasn’t actively campaigning: The senator still hasn’t announced whether she’s running for reelection when her term expires next year.

The complaint comes after reports this week that Sinema’s campaign paid for more than $9,000 in expenses when the senator participated in the Boston Marathon last April. Her comically named Getting Stuff Done PAC spent nearly $2,000 on “event supplies” and “meeting meals” in the Boston area during the week of the race, per The Daily Beast’s reporting. Her campaign also paid $8,470 for a stay at the local Ritz-Carlton. The same Daily Beast report claims Sinema has repeatedly scheduled fundraising events in states where she was participating in races so that she could use campaign funds to cover the cost of her otherwise-extracurricular travel.

The Thursday complaint against Sinema builds on that argument, pointing out that she has participated in at least 17 marathons and other races since being sworn in to the Senate, allegedly bankrolling some of them by scheduling incidental campaign events or fundraisers in the area to then pay for the entire trip with campaign funds. FEC rules bar candidates from using campaign funds to “fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense...that would exist irrespective” of their campaigning for or holding office.