Yep--no judges, no executive branch appointments (they become vacant from time to time as people switch out) and impeachments and hearings on every damn thing. Imagine MTG and Hawley getting their say on everything. I'll take frustration over Manchin and Sinema over that.
Right--we don't really know what's going on behind closed doors, so they could be talking reasonably or they could just not be able to meet in the middle (it's conceivable that the highest the mods will go is lower than the progs will go). I'm more pissed at Sinema now because the reports are suggesting she's not even making counteroffers, and if that's true, then she's not acting in good faith here.
We "allow it" because we are a broad coalition, which comes with being in the majority. It may be an argument for giving leadership more tools to keep members in line (reduce media access to cut back on ego-boosting stunts, control campaign purse strings, earmarks, control of committee assignments) but over the years these things have been tossed by "good government" types who hated the "good old boys" networks. But the result has been too much "mavericky" crap.
True--and whatever the result, and whatever's going on behind closed doors, Democrats are doing terrible in terms of public optics. They all need to grow up and act disciplined--keep negotiations private, and only tell the media "we are negotiating this, ask Pelosi and Schumer". That's it! Instead, we have these prima donnas trying to fight it out with the media because their own egos matter more than serving the party and the people.
I'm pissed at the bunch of them from Sinema to AOC--the ONLY thing any of them should be saying publicly is "we are negotiating this now, talk to Pelosi and Schumer" and act like goddam adults. Fighting it out in the media is incredibly dumb and is one reason our party is dropping in the polls.
Well, either the progressives are telling the truth and Sinema hasn't counteroffered, in which case she's not negotiating, or they're lying and she isn't contradicting that in public. Either way I'd like to give Pelosi and Schumer actual whips to get these people in line! This may all be theater but it's creating pointless bad blood, for a deal that is a net win for both sides.
Plus, the problem is NOT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN. She's following rules that the Senate gave her! Change the damn filibuster. If Manchin et al balk, see what it'll take to get them to reform it. If the answer is "nothing, because a 60 vote supermajority for certain legislation is sacred" then yes, we're fucked, but the problem is Dems have only 50 Senators and if even one of them insists on a dumb terrible rule, then they're stuck trying to work around it.
Yep--the smart move for a purple state Democrat is picking her "independent" (even conservative" stands on matters of substance (maybe pro-gun concessions on a gun control bill, or reducing a tax increase to some extent) in such a way that allows her to appeal to moderates without unduly pissing off liberals. Klobuchar is a good example of walking that line. It's why Sinema's actions here (basically tanking the bill without offering anything to progressives) and with the filibuster make no sense, and I cannot believe she is so stupid as to think she can win re-election with any significant number of AZ Democrats pissed at her or Biden going down in flames in 2024. So I think she might not be planning to run.
Yes, scrolling down (as I should’ve done before posting) I see that that’s your position and I can’t argue you’re wrong.I would say the fact that we don’t know shows that this White House is pretty doggone good at leak prevention, compared to its recent predecessors.
The point is, money may not make a difference.
Depends on how it’s spent.
Did not work to get Collins out, why should it work to remove Sinema.
Okay. This is going around in circles. I’m going to bail now.
Amen.
She doesn't have to be. She was a Green party.
If they do, that would be awful but it'd be more awful to lose the Senate now than in 2023.
Yep--no judges, no executive branch appointments (they become vacant from time to time as people switch out) and impeachments and hearings on every damn thing. Imagine MTG and Hawley getting their say on everything. I'll take frustration over Manchin and Sinema over that.
Right--we don't really know what's going on behind closed doors, so they could be talking reasonably or they could just not be able to meet in the middle (it's conceivable that the highest the mods will go is lower than the progs will go). I'm more pissed at Sinema now because the reports are suggesting she's not even making counteroffers, and if that's true, then she's not acting in good faith here.
We "allow it" because we are a broad coalition, which comes with being in the majority. It may be an argument for giving leadership more tools to keep members in line (reduce media access to cut back on ego-boosting stunts, control campaign purse strings, earmarks, control of committee assignments) but over the years these things have been tossed by "good government" types who hated the "good old boys" networks. But the result has been too much "mavericky" crap.
True--and whatever the result, and whatever's going on behind closed doors, Democrats are doing terrible in terms of public optics. They all need to grow up and act disciplined--keep negotiations private, and only tell the media "we are negotiating this, ask Pelosi and Schumer". That's it! Instead, we have these prima donnas trying to fight it out with the media because their own egos matter more than serving the party and the people.
I'm pissed at the bunch of them from Sinema to AOC--the ONLY thing any of them should be saying publicly is "we are negotiating this now, talk to Pelosi and Schumer" and act like goddam adults. Fighting it out in the media is incredibly dumb and is one reason our party is dropping in the polls.
Well, either the progressives are telling the truth and Sinema hasn't counteroffered, in which case she's not negotiating, or they're lying and she isn't contradicting that in public. Either way I'd like to give Pelosi and Schumer actual whips to get these people in line! This may all be theater but it's creating pointless bad blood, for a deal that is a net win for both sides.
Plus, the problem is NOT THE PARLIAMENTARIAN. She's following rules that the Senate gave her! Change the damn filibuster. If Manchin et al balk, see what it'll take to get them to reform it. If the answer is "nothing, because a 60 vote supermajority for certain legislation is sacred" then yes, we're fucked, but the problem is Dems have only 50 Senators and if even one of them insists on a dumb terrible rule, then they're stuck trying to work around it.
Yep--the smart move for a purple state Democrat is picking her "independent" (even conservative" stands on matters of substance (maybe pro-gun concessions on a gun control bill, or reducing a tax increase to some extent) in such a way that allows her to appeal to moderates without unduly pissing off liberals. Klobuchar is a good example of walking that line. It's why Sinema's actions here (basically tanking the bill without offering anything to progressives) and with the filibuster make no sense, and I cannot believe she is so stupid as to think she can win re-election with any significant number of AZ Democrats pissed at her or Biden going down in flames in 2024. So I think she might not be planning to run.
Yes, scrolling down (as I should’ve done before posting) I see that that’s your position and I can’t argue you’re wrong.I would say the fact that we don’t know shows that this White House is pretty doggone good at leak prevention, compared to its recent predecessors.