I agree with Heebie that it isn't a flattering portrait, just an interesting one.
The jokes* about actors exist for a reason, and many of them apply to politicians as well.
* "Enough about me, let's talk about you. How did _you_ think I did in the play?"
"Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did I do in the play?"
I'm looking forward to hating her for the rest of my life.
I genuinely wonder if she was influenced for the worse by Parks & Rec.
3: You may not have to. It's going to be a viability test for the nation whether Arizona can keep on re-electing Democratic senators going forward, and I'm not at all sure how incumbency and centrist appeal willbalance out loss of enthusiasm among Arizona progressives who worked like hell to get them installed. Kelly hasn't taken stances as openly infuriating as Sinema's of course, but he's purple-state cautious and I worry about what rough beast will end up challenging him in 2022.
Kelly's great. I don't understand why Sinema is so uniquely annoying among all the moderate senators from purple-to-red states (WV is a bit of a weird case). But Kelly, Tester, Brown, Ossoff, Warnock, Rosen, etc. aren't like Sinema, and neither were Donnelly, McCaskill, Jones, etc. I guess James Webb was kinda annoying back in the day.
7: She and Manchin are the two Democrats who have came out and said they support the filibuster, aren't they? The other 48 either want to get rid of it or care enough about goodwill from the left that they're saying they want to get rid of it, but Sinema and Manchin are the two Democrats who are happy to say fuck off to progress, unless I've missed something. As for Manchin, everyone knows that he's the best we're going to get from West Virginia for the foreseeable future - a weird case, like you said. But as for Sinema, it's easy to imagine someone better, and she herself used to be better.
This is admittedly ex recto. I can imagine sexism or other bad things being the reason to dislike Sinema in other cases, but I don't think it's necessary to explain things in this case.
4: What makes you blame Parks and Rec?
the common lifetime thread is ambition and wanting attention
Yes, this. Her entire Senate career is very likely to be one long exercise in positioning herself for a big money job afterward.
9 is objectively pro-Parks and Rec.
Does she pronounce it like a movie theatre?
they? The other 48 either want to get rid of it or care enough about goodwill from the left that they're saying they want to get rid of it, but Sinema and Manchin are the two Democrats who are happy to say fuck off to progress, unless I've missed something.
It appears there are at least a handful of other Dem Senators who have similar preferences to Sinema and Manchin but are letting those two take all the heat.
|| While the loss of the Chicago Tribune is sad, I admit to being vaguely gleeful that I'll never accidentally click on a John Kass column again.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-john-kass-leaves-chicago-tribune-20210619-f7ezz23qr5cv7a3owey3j5edfu-story.html
|>
Without the Tribune I assume this state and city just become even more corrupt. Ugh.
Genuine question: Why didn't McConnell abolish the filibuster? The only reason I can think of is that he really doesn't have any legislative goals besides tax cuts and reconciliation-friendly policies and so there was nothing tempting him.
He seems to burn SO MANY BRIDGES that the idea that he'd save it for himself as a future minority leader seems more far-sighted than his other decisions. Ie Gorsuch vs Kavanaugh inconsistencies didn't trouble him one bit. I would have guessed he'd throw out the filibuster when it suited him, and then resurrect some alternate bullshit antiquated Senate move when he needed it as a minority leader. ("Now we shall duel!! In war!! the card game! with invisible cards! and we don't have to be present and it takes a cloture vote to win.")
I think 18.1 is most likely correct (McConnell didn't challenge the filibuster because he didn't need to do so to pass tax cuts or confirm judges).
It is probably also the case that a small number of Republican Senators don't want to eliminate the filibuster, but I have no idea whether they would present an obstacle if McConnell was motivated.
Also, people are not impressed by Sinema's defense of the filibuster: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/06/opinion-kyrsten-sinema-i-think-you-are-a-total-dumbshit
Yeah, he eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS justices the minute that became necessary, but he never had other priorities that required eliminating it for legislation.
18: McConnell is well-served by the filibuster and the illusion of norms. The filibuster limits the efficacy of the US government, which is central to his program. And Manchin and Sinema and other assholes are able to pretend that the filibuster is integral (WSJ beyond paywall) to US democracy as established by the Founding Fathers.
You get rid of the filibuster, and you get closer to majority rule. This is a thing that interests Republicans not in the least.
Chait is good here in explaining why Democrats get an institutional disadvantage from the filibuster. (You can call it up in an anonymous window if you don't subscribe.)
9: The image of the plucky, principled-yet-pragmatic thing-doer who loves Biden and McCain equally.
That seems unfair to Parks and Rec to me. Sinema isn't a "thing doer" at all -- she takes positions that keep her from letting anything get done. If she was cosplaying Leslie Knope she'd be obsessively trying to pull together 60 votes for something weirdly specific, like funding greater awareness of and treatment for fungal infections. Parks and Rec encourages small ball, not "principled" legislative sclerosis. And maybe I'm forgetting more PnR bipartisanship than there was, but I'm not remembering that as a principle at all.
I'm reconciled to The West Wing being politically pernicious, but I don't want to give up on Parks and Rec yet.
26: Small ball:
Since I was elected to Congress, a bipartisan approach has produced laws curbing suicide among our troops and veterans, boosting American manufacturing, delivering for Native American communities, combating hate crimes, and protecting public lands.
Maybe I should watch another episode of it before I dismiss it. Or at least a full one.
I don't think Parks & Rec should be canceled, it has a lot of funny in it, and any negative impacts are probably pretty culturally minor compared to anything in GOP-land (or, you know, shows with better ratings), but they are on our side of the aisle, so we should be open to them.
I was pretty dejected when I realized the last season revealed Leslie to be an out-and-out NIMBY - and not something the writers were portraying as for her to learn about or discuss, but implied to be one of the core values she disagreed on with (apartment-builder) Ron but something she would magnanimously be friends despite.
But she's not particularly making any of that happen -- that's just the category of things she's not blocking. If she were responding to all press inquiries with "look, what's happening now is zebra mussel eradication. That's all I'm focused on, and I just need two more votes," that'd be Parks and Rec style. But she doesn't seem to be pushing a personal policy agenda, even a small-ball one, just burbling pointlessly about bipartisanship.
That was to 27. On the NIMBYism, I'd forgotten it but ugh.
Maybe Biden could offer Sinema an ambassadorship somewhere glamorous?
28: the first season is terrible. Skip directly to the 2nd season.
The whole last season jumped the shark, NIMBY-ism aside.
But she's not particularly making any of that happen
She introduced a bill on military suicide; that seems to be the kind of middle-of-the-road thing she likes to spend personal effort on.
It's only a matter of time before the Republicans switch sides on that one.
Ok, I don't understand Manchin's proposal on a voting bill. Is it implied that it must be also deal about filibuster reform? or is it meaningless twaddle?
I think he's simultaneously saying (a) no change to filibuster, even reform, and (b) here's the kind of voting bill I'd like to see. Publicly, he's not connecting the two, meaning that (a) will doom (b) unless he changes his mind after Democrats do enough contortions for him.
I think he thinks that ID requirements will actually get Republicans on board.
I think he wants to act like he thinks that.