Krysten Sinema Leaves Democratic Party

[lpetrich]

We’ve Solved the Mystery of Kyrsten Sinema | The New Republic - "Two new magazine profiles attempt to explain the Arizona senator. Here’s our own theory."

First mentioning her and Joe Manchin about Build Back Better back in 2021. JM made it very clear what he wanted -- "he wanted pork for his home state, protections for its environment-destroying industries, and to make sure nothing changed too much or too fast." KS was another story altogether.

She favored loud, garish dresses that somehow only made her seem more unpredictable. She didn’t explain herself to the press or to her constituents. Her voting record largely made no sense. She would block anything for any reason. She didn’t want to raise the minimum wage in a Covid-19 relief bill but never said why—and instead killed it by cosplaying as John McCain. She stalled passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, a climate bill, because she was worried about the repeal of the “carried interest loophole”—even though she had never previously uttered those words during a legislative session. She spent months stymying the administration’s “Build Back Better” bill without ever saying why.

Then mentioning the recent profiles of her in The Atlantic and The New York Times. "The biggest takeaway from both, however, is simply that she is running." This may explain her recent willingness to talk to the news media.

From The Atlantic, "She says she’s guided by an unchanging set of “values”—she mentions freedom, opportunity, and security—that virtually all Americans share." Also that she's "practical", doing everything case-by-case.

TNR: "This is both plausible and a bunch of nonsense." and saying that her votes are done for "freedom, opportunity, and security" "is both Beltway pabulum and something that Sinema may earnestly believe."

Not exactly what AOC puts in her Twitter bio:

In a modern, moral, & wealthy society, no American should be too poor to live. % People-Funded, no lobbyist. She/her.

 

[lpetrich]

Back to TNR. "Sinema is undoubtedly setting up to run for reelection as a pragmatic dealmaker." That fits.

Sinema’s argument is that it doesn’t matter what she believes because she’s singularly focused on something few in Washington are: actually getting things done. This would be compelling if there were much evidence that it were true.

Like that gun-control bill and the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

But most of Sinema’s time exercising power has been about not getting things done—being a stick in the mud for the sake of being a stick in the mud.

Like blocking that voting-rights bill, "that would have done a great deal to reverse dozens of suppression efforts underway in red states across the country." She said about it that she wanted some Republicans to support it, when such voter suppression is being done by Republicans. Then at Davos, she claimed that not passing it was not the disaster that her fellow Democrats implied that it would be.

Author Alex Shephard then says that KS's love of the filibuster is all about power for her -- it gives her more power than a simple majority vote.

"Ultimately, the mystery of Sinema isn’t that complicated. She saw herself as a valve who could control what gets passed, and when, and she used that power liberally, if erratically."

She's now well behind the other candidates in the race for her Senate seat.

She has tried to hastily recover by repositioning herself not as someone who blocked much of the Democratic agenda but as someone who can break Washington’s gridlock. The big problem with that argument is that Sinema herself has been responsible for so much of that gridlock.

 

[ZiprHead]

From The Atlantic, "She says she’s guided by an unchanging set of “values”—she mentions freedom, opportunity, and security—that virtually all Americans share." Also that she's "practical", doing everything case-by-case.

TNR: "This is both plausible and a bunch of nonsense." and saying that her votes are done for "freedom, opportunity, and security" "is both Beltway pabulum and something that Sinema may earnestly believe."

Follow the money.

 

[lpetrich]

From The Atlantic, "She says she’s guided by an unchanging set of “values”—she mentions freedom, opportunity, and security—that virtually all Americans share." Also that she's "practical", doing everything case-by-case.

TNR: "This is both plausible and a bunch of nonsense." and saying that her votes are done for "freedom, opportunity, and security" "is both Beltway pabulum and something that Sinema may earnestly believe."

Follow the money.

Yes indeed. None of these three recent profiles mentioned that aspect of KS's career. Not in The Atlantic, not in The New York Times, and not in The New Republic.

 

[Jarhyn]

Kyrsten Sinema spent more than $100K on jets, limos, luxury hotels and wine

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) has filled her campaign coffers with Wall Street cash — but some donors are miffed she’s spent more than $100,000 of it on luxury hotels, private jets, limos and fine wines, On The Money has learned.

Since 2021, Sinema has spent nearly $20,000 worth of campaign donations on wine-related expenses alone — dropping thousands at some of the most exclusive vineyards on the West Coast including Promontory Winery in Napa Valley, Auteur Winery in Sonoma and Argyle Winery in the Willamette Valley, according to election filings.

During that same timeframe, Sinema spent nearly $10,000 in campaign funds at posh restaurants like the Russian Tea Room in New York City and Sketch in London’s Mayfair neighborhood, as well as restaurants in Barcelona, Paris and Miami.

Sinema posted an Instagram and tagged her partner Lindsey Buckman at San Diego’s Civico 1845 — where she dropped $600 in campaign funds in February and June of last year, filings show.

An even bigger drain on campaign coffers: more than $45,000 on chauffeurs since 2019. On a trip to New York in December, Sinema paid a luxury car service more than $4,000 for a single day, according to filings.

noting
Kyrsten Sinema ignoring Democratic donors who want money back



Corrupt donors being bitten in the rear end by their own corruption.

Like... I don't understand how they don't understand this: either your donations to politicians are donations or they are bribes, and if you want your money back when they don't actually do what you ask... They were attempted bribes, not donations.

Her behavior is shit, not gonna lie, but you can't give money to a politician and expect them to toe a line.

 

[lpetrich]

Kyrsten Sinema’s 'lavish lifestyle' shows she’s 'in it for the perks and privileges': conservative - Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism
noting
Kyrsten Sinema Is Just Another Politician in It for the Perks

"I'm no lefty who feels betrayed because Sinema left the Democratic Party to run as an independent," Lewis writes. "In fact, I have argued that Sinema is one of 'America's best and bravest politicians' and that she's 'one of the most effective U.S. senators.' But it's hard to read the reports about her lavish lifestyle and not conclude that she's just another politician who's in it for the perks and privileges."

Sinema's lifestyle, according to Lewis, "reinforces a growing sense among many Americans that the game is rigged and that politicians are using their perch to benefit themselves, not 'we the people.'"

"It also detracts from some of Sinema's legislative achievements, not to mention her once-bright potential to be an independent-minded political star," Lewis laments. "Sinema was supposed to be running for reelection as the late Sen. John McCain's heir, but she appears to be more focused on running marathons. Increasingly, it looks like she is more interested in serving herself than serving the public."

The Never Trump conservative continues, "In the immortal words of McCain, 'It's hard to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan.' He wasn't wrong."

Like spending over $100K on jets, limos, luxury hotels and wine, and conveniently timing her fundraising visits to coincide with athletic competitions that she wanted to participate in.

In fairness to her, how many politicians of either sex show much interest in participating in athletics? Vladimir Putin, maybe.

 

[Derec]

The US does not have much risk of being divided up between Canada and Mexico, but ineffectiveness is not exactly good government, and and ineffectiveness of Congress is *very* bad for democracy. This is because there is a strong correlation between powers of a legislature and the strength of its nation's democracy. The highest-quality democracies almost always have the acting executive directly responsible to the legislature: a parliamentary system. A strong-president system risks dictatorship, something much evident in Latin America.

Parliamentary systems have their problems too. As you say, the executive is beholden to the legislative. There is no separation of powers.
In practice that either means that the governing party/coalition can either push anything it wants with opposition having little to say, or else the government collapses if they cannot push a major piece of legislation through. The former is especially dangerous in systems like UK where small popular vote differences can lead to huge majorities in seats. In proportional systems coalitions are usually required, which can lead to instability if the parliaments are too fractured (Israel, Italy).

I agree that Congress in its current form is ineffective. But letting the majority party easily push everything through is a cure worse than the disease. It was good that McCain could stop repeal of the ACA. It was good that Manchin and Sinema could stop the fiscally irresponsible B³ bill that would have driven debt and inflation even higher, requiring even steeper interest rake hikes by the Fed to get inflation under control.

My solution would be to keep US presidential system (change it to popular vote with some form of runoff) but elect the House of Representatives proportionally. That would allow more parties into the House and likely also the Senate, as smaller parties gain legitimacy from the proportionally elected House. Proportional representation would mean that a single party would be unlikely to hold a majority. The Speaker would have to be a compromise candidate for starters, and not a partisan one. Second, a single party couldn't either push legislation through without opposition nor block any legislation. All legislation would have to involve compromise. But unlike the parliamentary system with codified coalitions electing the executive, there would be no need for formal coalitions, and legislative majorities could be formed on an issue-to-issue basis.

 

[Derec]

It’s not just the activism she’s discarded; it’s also the left-wing politics. Sinema, who described herself in 2006 as “the most liberal legislator in the state of Arizona,” freely admits that she’s much less progressive than she used to be.

Why is that surprising? Her positions evolved.
I do not see you (or others) complaining about Kirsten Gillibrand changing from a moderate congresswoman to a rather left-wing senator.

While her critics contend that she adjusted her politics to win statewide office in Arizona, she chalks up the evolution to “age and maturity.” She bristles at the idea that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to change their mind. “Imagine a world in which everybody who represented you refused to grow or change or learn if presented with new information,” she tells me. “That’s very dangerous for our democracy. So perhaps what I’m most proud of is that I’m a lifelong learner.”

All true.

 

[Derec]

Garish to you. Did you see Matt Gaetz’ suit coat? The cobalt blue one with the navy windowpane plaid? (I really like that one, btw - it’s very fun) Trump’s garish red satin tie that hangs below his belt to try to make himself look less fat and more tall?

I thought nobody cared what male politicians wear?

Because you choose to think that’s what it means. I think a showhorse politician is one that puts forth showy bills that will never get passed. THAT is a showhorse. The clothing, yah, no. Not related.

I agree. Like Cori Bush introducing a $14T reparations bill that has a snowball's chance in a supernova of passing.
She was also the one with the "pretend to sleep on the Capitol steps" stunt that pushed Biden into extending the eviction moratorium even he knew was illegal. That worked, at least for a while, but it was very showy nevertheless.

You can acknowldge what a woman looks like; you can’t mock her for it, or put her down for it, or diminish her work over it.

And yet men are often mocked for what they look like - nobody more than Trump whose physique is often a source of ridicule.

Kyrsten Synema does lots of things wrong. Having bare arms or yellow petal sleeves are not among them.

I agree that her choices of clothes are a matter of personal preference.
I disagree with the things you likely think she does wrong. By stopping B³ she, along with Joe Manchin, saved us from even higher inflation and even steeper Fed rate hikes which would have precipitated a recession by now.

 

[Rhea]

Garish to you. Did you see Matt Gaetz’ suit coat? The cobalt blue one with the navy windowpane plaid? (I really like that one, btw - it’s very fun) Trump’s garish red satin tie that hangs below his belt to try to make himself look less fat and more tall?

I thought nobody cared what male politicians wear?

I am pretty sure no one but me cares. I love that suit. I did not hear a single other person say anything about it.

Because you choose to think that’s what it means. I think a showhorse politician is one that puts forth showy bills that will never get passed. THAT is a showhorse. The clothing, yah, no. Not related.

I agree. Like Cori Bush introducing a $14T reparations bill that has a snowball's chance in a supernova of passing.

If all of her bills are like that, then yes, that would make her a showhorse.

You can acknowldge what a woman looks like; you can’t mock her for it, or put her down for it, or diminish her work over it.

And yet men are often mocked for what they look like - nobody more than Trump whose physique is often a source of ridicule.

”Nobody more than Trump?”
No. Not hardly.

Although to be accurate, a very large portion of the ridicule is not how he looks, it’s how he looks compared to how he thinks he looks. All the ridiculous air-brushing and the fake height and the fake weights. Yikes.

But nobody more: Nah, see “McConnell, Mitch”

Kyrsten Synema does lots of things wrong. Having bare arms or yellow petal sleeves are not among them.

I agree that her choices of clothes are a matter of personal preference.
I disagree with the things you likely think she does wrong.

Now why would you bother to stop and make unfounded guesses about what I think she does wrong? What’s the intent of that comment? Weird.

By stopping B³ she, along with Joe Manchin, saved us from even higher inflation and even steeper Fed rate hikes which would have precipitated a recession by now.

A discussion for another thread.

 

[Derec]

It’s because she’s a woman.

lpetrich does seem to be inordinately interested in what female politicians are wearing. That much is true.
But in the broader discussion, male politicians physiques, attire, hair etc. do get a lot of attention too. Except you never get feminists complain about discussions of Jim Jordan's shirtsleeves, Bernie's wild hair, Kerry's expensive haircuts, or Chris Christie's weight. Just to name a few examples. Or to mention Bernie again, remember how much discussion there was about his 2021 inauguration outfit?

Therefore, her marital status, who she may/may not be dating, her status as a mother/not a mother, her age, weight, dress size, amount she spends on her clothing and hair and nails and whether she can cook and bake are of far more importance than any other thing about her, no matter her education, experience, talents or accomplishments.

Let's not pretend these things are not discussed with male politicians as well.

There are no similar threads about male politicians. There are no similar posts about the wardrobes of male politicians. Not here. Not anywhere.

Of course there are. Male politicians' appearance is often discussed.
Hell, even the size and shape of Trump's genitalia has been discussed on here and elsewhere. That goes well beyond what is being talked regarding female politicians.

 

[Rhea]

Derec, you have to know - you can’t be ignorant of the facts - that women’s looks and outfits are used much more often to degrade their worth and reputations than men. MUCH more often.

Surely you are not arguing that men have it “just as bad,” surely.

 

[Toni]

It’s because she’s a woman.

lpetrich does seem to be inordinately interested in what female politicians are wearing. That much is true.
But in the broader discussion, male politicians physiques, attire, hair etc. do get a lot of attention too. Except you never get feminists complain about discussions of Jim Jordan's shirtsleeves, Bernie's wild hair, Kerry's expensive haircuts, or Chris Christie's weight. Just to name a few examples. Or to mention Bernie again, remember how much discussion there was about his 2021 inauguration outfit?

Therefore, her marital status, who she may/may not be dating, her status as a mother/not a mother, her age, weight, dress size, amount she spends on her clothing and hair and nails and whether she can cook and bake are of far more importance than any other thing about her, no matter her education, experience, talents or accomplishments.

Let's not pretend these things are not discussed with male politicians as well.

There are no similar threads about male politicians. There are no similar posts about the wardrobes of male politicians. Not here. Not anywhere.

Of course there are. Male politicians' appearance is often discussed.
Hell, even the size and shape of Trump's genitalia has been discussed on here and elsewhere. That goes well beyond what is being talked regarding female politicians.

Hardly in the same way. BTW, I meant no disrespect towards lpetrich—he merely did what most people do and mentioned something about a woman’s appearance.

You are correct that sometimes men’s dress is mentioned. In the case of Bernie Sanders, his puffy coat and mittens became quite the meme—in a very fond way. I’m not certain it was entirely respectful of him and his stature as a politician. But it certainly was never done as though his only or major value was in his appearance. Of course, Trump has been much maligned with regards to his looks and wardrobe. I don’t approve of that, either. However, that is the exception to the general custom.

With respect to the 2016 election season, Trump managed to cast Hillary Clinton, a few years his junior, as in failing health and elderly. Elizabeth Warren was similarly treated as being ‘too old.’ And school marmy.

 

[TomC]

Let's not pretend these things are not discussed with male politicians as well.

Oh please...

If I cared enough I'd google out the quip from Hillary Clinton in 2015.

"Finally! A political opponent whose hair gets as much attention as mine."

Yeah, from her pantsuits to her marriage issues, somehow her personal stuff was fair game. Trump's hair, make up, weight, clothes, and infidelity just weren't important to a certain segment of the electorate.

Like most of us.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

Garish to you. Did you see Matt Gaetz’ suit coat? The cobalt blue one with the navy windowpane plaid? (I really like that one, btw - it’s very fun) Trump’s garish red satin tie that hangs below his belt to try to make himself look less fat and more tall?

I thought nobody cared what male politicians wear?

I am pretty sure no one but me cares. I love that suit. I did not hear a single other person say anything about it.
View attachment 43327

I hadn't commented on that because that's still a business suit. But as you say, its bright blue is very distinctive.

It reminds me of like the  Obama tan suit controversy which I had not paid much attention to because that was still a business suit.

I have, however, noticed that Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) wears a business suit without a jacket most of the time.

About Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA),
Back in hoodies and gym shorts, Fetterman tackles Senate life after depression treatment | AP News

Male senators are expected to wear a jacket and tie on the Senate floor, but Fetterman has a workaround. He votes from the doorway of the Democratic cloakroom or the side entrance, making sure his “yay” or “nay” is recorded before ducking back out. In between votes this past week, Fetterman’s hoodie stayed on for a news conference with four Democratic colleagues in suits, the 6-foot-8 Fetterman towering over his colleagues.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I am waiting for the first Senator brave enough to wear a kilt into the Senate chamber.

 

[Rhea]

I hadn't commented on that because that's still a business suit. But as you say, its bright blue is very distinctive.

It reminds me of like the

Obama tan suit controversy which I had not paid much attention to because that was still a business suit.

Kyrsten Sinema’s dress is still a dress.

 

[Rhea]

I am waiting for the first Senator brave enough to wear a kilt into the Senate chamber.

I say don’t even make it a kilt. Make it a regular skirt.
There was a protest a while back in a New Jersey school where the boys wore skirts because shorts were not allowed. And a whole host of boys in schools that have uniforms choosing the uniform plaid skirt as protest in Quebec, France, England and NZ as well as USA.

It’s ready for the House.

 

[lpetrich]

True, but KS likes very splashy and colorful dresses -- much more of a difference than MG's blue suit or BO's tan suit.

FEC complaint calls for federal probe of Sen. Kyrsten Sinema spending

A complaint filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission asks regulators to open a formal investigation into campaign spending by Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. Sinema has faced mounting questions about the legitimacy of more than $180,000 in campaign expenditures dating back to 2019 on luxury hotels, posh resorts, Michelin-star restaurants, international travel and winery visits. The campaign spending has drawn further scrutiny because it occurred while Sinema was not actively campaigning for office. The senator has declined to announce whether she will run for reelection in 2024.

A KS spokesman e-mailed “It’s not surprising that desperate political attacks from dark money Super PACs are based on lies. There’s no standing here, and Kyrsten remains laser focused on delivering lasting solutions to the challenges we face – including addressing our border crisis and ensuring Arizonans are protected from a national default.”

However, an independent attorney and government ethics expert not involved with the PAC said the claims appear to have merit. “When I read this FEC complaint, I was shocked – and I’ve seen a lot of political corruption in my life,” said attorney Tom Ryan. “You don’t get to mislead donors. You don’t get to take money that’s intended for a public use and turn it into a private benefit, and she has clearly done that in spades.” The spokesman for Sinema declined further comment.

 

[lpetrich]

The complaint document:

FEC Complaint - Change for Arizona 5.18.23 - final-fec-complaint-in-the-matter-of-sinema-for-arizona-et-al-5182023.pdf
FEC = Federal Election Commission

Senator Kyrsten Sinema spent over $180,000 in campaign, PAC, and Senate funds on luxury hotels and resorts, car services, expensive charter flights, high-end restaurants, and winery visits and purchases from 2019 to 2022. Campaign donors, many from the same Wall Street and private equity firms that have benefitted from Senator Sinema’s legislative actions, including her protection of the carried interest loophole, appear to have financed Senator Sinema’s athletic avocation, luxury accommodations, Michelin-star meals, limousine service, and international travel to cities including Paris, London, and Barcelona. These lavish expenditures appear to serve no legitimate campaign purpose.

Complainant alleges that Senator Sinema has been living a lifestyle of luxury financed by her special interest donors, to the detriment of her constituents in Arizona. While Sinema is on international trips or running marathons or pursuing her high-end wine hobby—each of which has been subsidized by campaign donors—Arizona families are struggling with an increased cost of living and a housing crisis partially fueled by the very same private equity firms that donate to Senator Sinema’s campaigns.

The complaint breaks down KS's spending by category: luxury hotels and resorts, wine and alcohol, expensive restaurants, car service and limousine transportation, charter air travel.

Example 1. Senator Sinema Pursued Her Personal Hobby of Recreational Sports Competition Using Campaign Funds

Since her election, Senator Sinema has participated in at least 17 marathons, triathlons, and bicycle races, and has used both campaign and Senate funds to subsidize her trips and activities.

Like this:

In one particularly egregious example, Senator Sinema made over $9,000 in Expenditures of campaign funds in connection with a trip to Boston to participate in the Boston Marathon, in the process converting a large portion of that sum for personal use.

Senator Sinema ran in the Boston Marathon on April 18, 2022, according to contemporary press accounts and social media posts in her name. 17 And during the trip, she stayed in the Ritz-Carlton Boston, a hotel in which room rates typically start around $600 18—and would be much higher during the Boston Marathon, one of the most high-demand hotel periods of the year in the city. A photo in one of her posts shows her and a companion wearing athletic gear inside the Ritz-Carlton Boston, alongside certificates and souvenir items displaying the Ritz-Carlton name and logo and memorabilia from the Boston Marathon, and in that month her campaign made a disbursement of $8,470.73 to the Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company LLC. 19 20

On the same days in April, Respondent’s disclosures also include PAC Expenditures in Boston of over $1,500 for meals and “event supplies” (Trident Booksellers & Cafe, $110.06; Fairmont Copley Plaza, $175.52; Montien Thai Restaurant, $380.00; Empire, $850.17).

What extravagant expenses.

Also,

Senator Sinema is so committed to competitive running that on multiple occasions she has prioritized it ahead of her official duties. Among other examples, she was absent from the Senate for a week in March 2019 to compete in a triathlon in New Zealand. During that week, she missed eight floor votes, including confirmation votes for the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and a judge for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over Arizona). 22