AZ Senator Kyrsten Sinema under attack with two new ads by progressive group

Originally published at: AZ Senator Kyrsten Sinema under attack with two new ads by progressive group | Boing Boing


Whoopsie Daisy! Primaries right around the corner Ms. Sinema…


“Failing us” implies she was trying to help make things better. “Hurting us” would be more accurate, even if it made the Dem establishment clutch their pearls.

Either primary out these DINOs or get enough actual liberal or progressive Senators elected in other states so that Sinema and Manchin can’t hold the party hostage anymore.


Manchin and Sinema are taking advantage of the far-right takeover of the Republicans. If the Republicans were sensible they could primary a Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins type (both of whom vote to the left of the DINOs), campaign as the real progressives in the election and take away a lot of support.


What baffles me is that she isn’t secure in her seat and the voter suppression she isn’t going to do anything to stop could cost her the next election. Couple that with her voting against the interests of her party 1/4 of the time and her whole strategy seems to be play to the middle of the Overton window no matter what the situation is. It’s a craven strategy to stay in office while avoiding the burden of actual leadership.


Given the current republican party (since approximately newt_gingrich) any who would emphatically pursue “bipartisanship!” are doing so for slightly covert reasons quite unrelated to “bipartisanship”. (in the cases of Manchin and Sinema it’s entirely for personal power and selfish political existence). Abandon (or at least hobble) the damn filibuster! It’s thoroughly evil in history and institutional progress.


Three more years.

1 Like

My daughter went through her PhD program at the same time as Sinema did, so she has actually had the first-hand opportunity to hear Sinema’s positions/strategy. Here’s what my daughter told me about Sinema: 1) she believes in bi-partisanship in a sort of win-win, low-hanging fruit way. 2) she’s in it for the long-term, in the sense of a long series of smaller changes rather than a few blockbuster moves, 3) she believes more in representing the views of her constituents than in voting according to personal or party beliefs/philosophy.

All three of these have contributed to her acting in a way that is more conservative than her personal beliefs. Personally, I believe that this is a losing strategy. I don’t believe that progressives and conservatives have any common ground anymore. Progressives are pushing for a more equal, more democratic country for all citizens, while conservatives are pushing for minority rule by a few select groups (white people, men, religious fundamentalists, the rich and big corporations, etc.). They are fundamentally at odds with each other.

Sinema is playing it moderately in order to implement a slow, steady push to the left. I hope that she rethinks this approach and replaces it with truly progressive moves in order to make real change and inspire disenfranchised/disillusioned groups to vote. I intend to vote for her challenger in the next Democratic primary, but will vote for her in the general election if she turns out to be the Democratic candidate; because I’m also in this for the long term.


Hm. And how do these “views of her constituents” manifest themself?


That’s what I don’t get. The GOP is very open about being the party of bad faith and yet Sinema and Manchin continue to pretend it’s otherwise. It speaks to willful ignorance of the facts in service of retaining power, which is yet another trait of Republicans.


It’s basic game theory. If a town has one coffee shop, what’s the best place to build a Starbucks? Right next to the existing coffee shop.


If showboating a “no” vote on giving people a living wage by mimicking the closing, highly principled act of a longstanding predecessor of great stature is “playing it moderately”, then less of that, please.


Let’s not go nuts.

McCain was showboating too. Dude was writing the ending of the movie somebody’s eventually going to make about him.


Yeah, he was absolutely showboating too, but it was at least showboating for something someone could believe in. And he had 30 years of Senate cred to back it up.


Yeah, Sinema desperately wants to be the Democratic John McCain, but I don’t think she’s nearly as media-savvy as he was. She knows how to get attention, but, well, whoever said “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” didn’t have any money invested in the Weinstein Company.

I get why she votes the way she does – I don’t agree with it, but I get it. Hell, ads like this attacking her from the left may actually help her; that whole “Democrat, but not that much of one” thing plays pretty well in Arizona (and it’s what got her the seat in the first place). Occasionally breaking with her party on an important vote is straight out of the McCain playbook and I think it’s probably good strategy (even if I find it horrifying from an ethical standpoint).

I don’t understand her choice of theatrics at all, though. That little flounce with her thumbs-down, the “fuck off” photo on her Instagram – so far, I think most voters don’t know about that stuff, but if she keeps doing it, eventually it’s going to get enough mainstream coverage that that’s the thing she’s known for. And I think that’s a lot likelier to sink her than her terrible-but-very-Arizona politics.


To see what she believes in, I read the stated priorities on her senate webpage.

In order of appearance, her listed priorities are:
pro military
anti-muslim “terrorist”
pro police
pro business (anti regulation)
pro retiree
pro military and veterans

there is not a single sentence even paying lip-service to any progressive or inclusive ideals. When a person tells you who they are …

ETA: also for someone who first ran for office as a Green Party candidate, that there isn’t any mention of the environment seems noteworthy


If it’s not wilful ignorance or cryptic support, it’s down right stupidity.

Right now McConnell is painting them both as the god damned devil for setting traps with false bipartisanship.


She listed ‘Pro-military’ twice?

And yes, you’re right; when someone shows us who they really are, we would be wise to believe them.


Its not a list but 3 sections. Her first section is about security (military and police) and the third section is just about supporting veterans. So basically two-thirds of what her priorities are

I wouldn’t be surprised if its copying heavily from John McCain’s old site


Hard Fail on that one.