Kyrsten Sinema - a DINO?

[Harry Bosch]

Dumb question, but why in the world are we focusing on her clothing and her style? If she were a male, no one would care what she wears.

It's because she's willfully such an empty suit there's nothing left to talk about.

And you would say the same thing about a republican male who wore non conventional clothes who you didn't agree with?

 

[Shadowy Man]

We first need to figure out where she stands to know if we disagree with her. And “in front of the elevator” doesn’t exactly cover it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We first need to figure out where she stands to know if we disagree with her. And “in front of the elevator” doesn’t exactly cover it.

Well, I'm pretty clear on what she stands for. Just look at her website. Look at her twitter. Study what she says. And I like the fact that she doesn't tow the line, is mavericky, and above everything else - doesn't give a damn what the fashion police say!

 

[Shadowy Man]

We first need to figure out where she stands to know if we disagree with her. And “in front of the elevator” doesn’t exactly cover it.

Well, I'm pretty clear on what she stands for. Just look at her website. Look at her twitter. Study what she says. And I like the fact that she doesn't tow the line, is mavericky, and above everything else - doesn't give a damn what the fashion police say!

I put more stock in what politicians vote for than what they say.

I agree that politicians shouldn’t simply be in lock step with their parties. I don’t take issue with her there. But it was coming across from what I had read and seen that she didn’t seem to be negotiating in good faith.

So if you stand for something put it out there and let’s get things done. Her elevator comment was disrespectful to the press and her not having town halls is disrespectful to her constituents.

I’d prefer having no parties at all if it were possible and have them vote based on what the desires of their constituents are and if they aren’t liked they get replaced in the next election. But political parties are a big business now so alas…

 

[Harry Bosch]

We first need to figure out where she stands to know if we disagree with her. And “in front of the elevator” doesn’t exactly cover it.

Well, I'm pretty clear on what she stands for. Just look at her website. Look at her twitter. Study what she says. And I like the fact that she doesn't tow the line, is mavericky, and above everything else - doesn't give a damn what the fashion police say!

I put more stock in what politicians vote for than what they say.

I agree that politicians shouldn’t simply be in lock step with their parties. I don’t take issue with her there. But it was coming across from what I had read and seen that she didn’t seem to be negotiating in good faith.

So if you stand for something put it out there and let’s get things done. Her elevator comment was disrespectful to the press and her not having town halls is disrespectful to her constituents.

I’d prefer having no parties at all if it were possible and have them vote based on what the desires of their constituents are and if they aren’t liked they get replaced in the next election. But political parties are a big business now so alas…

I think that it's more that she prefers to negotiate directly with her counterparts. She doesn't like blabbing to the press. But her counterparts don't like her positions. So, they call her "not acting in good faith".

 

[blastula]

Dumb question, but why in the world are we focusing on her clothing and her style? If she were a male, no one would care what she wears.

It's because she's willfully such an empty suit there's nothing left to talk about.

And you would say the same thing about a republican male who wore non conventional clothes who you didn't agree with?

Of course, why wouldn't I? I mean, I don't have to wait for there to be nothing else to talk about. Trump wore an ill-fitted clown suit every day.

I haven't said anything about Sinema's clothing, but I don't care if anybody does. She obviously wants her clothes to be noticed, is she even complaining about it?

I think that it's more that she prefers to negotiate directly with her counterparts. She doesn't like blabbing to the press. But her counterparts don't like her positions. So, they call her "not acting in good faith".

Didn't you see where she stopped talking to the White House? But it's bullshit anyway to say she doesn't have to talk to the public about her positions. And she's not just talking to the press, she doesn't talk to her constituents. She obviously wants to take on a "maverick" role like McCain, except McCain wasn't a perpetually holed up child like Sinema, he would appear on every Sunday show that would have him. Her problem is she can't explain her positions, they are bereft of any coherent political philosophy, other than narcissism.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Incorrect. KS mostly votes based on how much it favors her biggest donors, which is almost 180 degrees from what she campaigned on.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Incorrect. KS mostly votes based on how much it favors her biggest donors, which is almost 180 degrees from what she campaigned on.

Amigo! Did you read the paper this morning! The dems got crushed yesterday. Familiar pattern: the dems win; drift further in and left; right attacks the left on the flanks, the left mocks the moderates, moderates drift right, the left gets bored, turnout diminishes, republicans win. What happened yesterday in Virginia is going to happen nation wide in 2022 unless we can motivate the left to vote and grow the party. Pushing out the moderates will crush the agenda that the left wants.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Incorrect. KS mostly votes based on how much it favors her biggest donors, which is almost 180 degrees from what she campaigned on.

Amigo! Did you read the paper this morning! The dems got crushed yesterday. Familiar pattern: the dems win; drift further in and left; right attacks the left on the flanks, the left mocks the moderates, moderates drift right, the left gets bored, turnout diminishes, republicans win. What happened yesterday in Virginia is going to happen nation wide in 2022 unless we can motivate the left to vote and grow the party. Pushing out the moderates will crush the agenda that the left wants.

“The left mocks moderates”? What “left”? Some progressive? Some knob on MSNBC? Late nite comedy?

 

[lpetrich]

Incorrect. KS mostly votes based on how much it favors her biggest donors, which is almost 180 degrees from what she campaigned on.

Amigo! Did you read the paper this morning! The dems got crushed yesterday. Familiar pattern: the dems win; drift further in and left; right attacks the left on the flanks, the left mocks the moderates, moderates drift right, the left gets bored, turnout diminishes, republicans win. What happened yesterday in Virginia is going to happen nation wide in 2022 unless we can motivate the left to vote and grow the party. Pushing out the moderates will crush the agenda that the left wants.

What do you mean? I'd like to see some detail.

If you mean the Clinton and Obama Presidencies, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama strikes me as a militant left-winger. If they were, then their presidencies would have been very different. As it was, they were wimpy centrists who were unwilling to push very hard. Not like FDR or LBJ.

 

[blastula]

Dino

Sinema’s raking in cash from MLMs. They want to kill her party’s labor bill.

The Arizona senator is one of just a few lawmakers that multilevel marketing businesses —often derided as pyramid schemes — are giving to.

www.politico.com

 

[lpetrich]

Kyrsten Sinema showed up for President Biden's signing of the infrastructure bill, and she wore a long dress with lots of patterns on it.

By comparison, Kamala Harris wore a pantsuit with a black shirt and gray jacket and pants. She also wore a black-pearl necklace, though the pearls could have been plastic fake pearls. A sort of female version of a male business suit.

Also, Nancy Pelosi was wearing a salmon-pink jacket on top of a salmon-pink shirt or dress with a shiny necklace.


Why discuss what KS wears? It seems like a jarring contrast with the sort of politics that she espouses.

Populist personalities? The Big Five Personality Traits and party choice in the 2015 UK general election | British Politics and Policy at LSE

Trait	Details
Conscientiousness	Socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior
Extroversion	Energetic approach to social activity
Emotional instability (neuroticism)	Tendency towards neurosis, negativity and anxiety, as opposed to even-tempered
Openness to experience	‘the breadth, depth, originality and complexity of an individuals’ mental and experiential life’
Agreeableness	A pro-social and communal orientation toward others

I have a thread on the Big Five in Social Science: More on the "Big Five" Five-Factor Model of Personality | Internet Infidels Discussion Board

The success in matching personality traits with party choice and ideologies has been mixed. Undoubtedly the two most consistently found relationships are the positive effect of conscientiousness on right-wing voting and the positive effect of openness to experience on left-wing voting. Conscientious individuals are theorised to be more conservative because they take greater heed of social norms, valuing order and accomplishments that are socially proscribed. Open-minded individuals are more accepting of unconventional social behavior and unorthodox economic policies that are generally associated with the left.

• O'ness without C'ness: having lots of ideas but poor follow-through and inability to produce very much
• C'ness without O'ness: being diligent but plodding and unimaginative and uncreative

KS's flashy fashions fit in well with high O'ness.

There has been reasonably consistent evidence that a third trait, emotional instability, often called neuroticism, increases one’s chance of left-wing views. Emotionally unstable individuals are more anxious about their economic future, more desirous of state control, and are less likely to view the status quo in positive terms – all of which theoretically increases the chance of left-wing attitudes.

Extroversion and agreeableness have proven to be less clearly associated with political preferences. The evidence that exists regarding extroversion points towards a slight leaning towards conservatism – with extroverts exhibiting more or the ‘tough-mindedness’ that is compatible with right-wing policies. Agreeableness is the only trait to point in opposite political directions on social and economic matters, with some evidence suggesting that highly agreeable individuals prefer social conservatism and left-wing economic policies, wary as these individuals are of the disturbances to social and economic harmony that liberalization may present.

 

[Jarhyn]

Kyrsten Sinema showed up for President Biden's signing of the infrastructure bill, and she wore a long dress with lots of patterns on it.

By comparison, Kamala Harris wore a pantsuit with a black shirt and gray jacket and pants. She also wore a black-pearl necklace, though the pearls could have been plastic fake pearls. A sort of female version of a male business suit.

Also, Nancy Pelosi was wearing a salmon-pink jacket on top of a salmon-pink shirt or dress with a shiny necklace.


Why discuss what KS wears? It seems like a jarring contrast with the sort of politics that she espouses.

Populist personalities? The Big Five Personality Traits and party choice in the 2015 UK general election | British Politics and Policy at LSE

Trait	Details
Conscientiousness	Socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed behavior
Extroversion	Energetic approach to social activity
Emotional instability (neuroticism)	Tendency towards neurosis, negativity and anxiety, as opposed to even-tempered
Openness to experience	‘the breadth, depth, originality and complexity of an individuals’ mental and experiential life’
Agreeableness	A pro-social and communal orientation toward others

I have a thread on the Big Five in Social Science: More on the "Big Five" Five-Factor Model of Personality | Internet Infidels Discussion Board

The success in matching personality traits with party choice and ideologies has been mixed. Undoubtedly the two most consistently found relationships are the positive effect of conscientiousness on right-wing voting and the positive effect of openness to experience on left-wing voting. Conscientious individuals are theorised to be more conservative because they take greater heed of social norms, valuing order and accomplishments that are socially proscribed. Open-minded individuals are more accepting of unconventional social behavior and unorthodox economic policies that are generally associated with the left.

• O'ness without C'ness: having lots of ideas but poor follow-through and inability to produce very much
• C'ness without O'ness: being diligent but plodding and unimaginative and uncreative

KS's flashy fashions fit in well with high O'ness.

There has been reasonably consistent evidence that a third trait, emotional instability, often called neuroticism, increases one’s chance of left-wing views. Emotionally unstable individuals are more anxious about their economic future, more desirous of state control, and are less likely to view the status quo in positive terms – all of which theoretically increases the chance of left-wing attitudes.

Extroversion and agreeableness have proven to be less clearly associated with political preferences. The evidence that exists regarding extroversion points towards a slight leaning towards conservatism – with extroverts exhibiting more or the ‘tough-mindedness’ that is compatible with right-wing policies. Agreeableness is the only trait to point in opposite political directions on social and economic matters, with some evidence suggesting that highly agreeable individuals prefer social conservatism and left-wing economic policies, wary as these individuals are of the disturbances to social and economic harmony that liberalization may present.

Let's not make a tan suit out of this.

 

[lpetrich]

Voters of the two major parties, Labour and the Conservatives, follow fairly predictable patterns. As predicted by the literature and shown with Republican and Democrat voters, Conservatives are significantly more conscientious than the mean respondent, the opposite being true for Labour voters. The average Conservative voter is also significantly less open to experience though, surprisingly, Labour voters tended to be barely any more open to experience than the average voter in 2015.

Emotional instability, the third personality trait most commonly shown to affect party choice, follows a predictable pattern, with Conservative voters shown to be less unstable than the mean voter, and Labour voters more unstable. Labour voters are also shown to be more agreeable than the mean and, in fact, the most agreeable group of voters, while Conservatives are the most extroverted, as predicted by the literature.

So KS's politics would be out of step with how she dresses.

How do voters of the other three parties fare? First, we should consider the propensity amongst the voters of the Greens and UKIP for relative centrism on economic matters, such as redistribution, but radicalism on social issues, such as immigration. Liberal Democrat voters in 2015 were highly centrist on economic issues and centre-left on social issues.[1] Given this, the associations between party choice and conscientiousness and open-mindedness come as little surprise, except perhaps in the strength of their effect.

UKIP and Green voters are the most closed and open-minded respectively, suggesting that attitudes to immigration are particularly affected by this trait. Green voters are far less conscientious of social norms than any other party, with UKIP voters around the national average. Liberal Democrat voters rank in the middle of all five parties on both traits. On emotional instability, UKIP voters are more neurotic than we might expect and Green voters scores especially highly on this trait. Finally, on agreeableness and extroversion, the two traits with the least evidence of association with party choice in the literature, we see interesting results. Green, Liberal Democrat and UKIP voters are all less agreeable and less extrovert than the voters of the major two parties. Disagreeableness and introversion may therefore be key personality traits of the protest voter.

...
[1] Z-scores on (1) redistribution: Labour: 0.42, Green: 0.36, Liberal Democrat: 0.02, UKIP: -0.06, Conservatives: -0.61 (2) immigration: Green: 0.61, Liberal Democrat: 0.34, Labour: 0.19, Conservatives: -0.26, UKIP: -0.82

James Dennison on Twitter: "No huge surprises here bt still interesting #Greens/#Labour & #Conservatives/#UKIP swap on #immigration and economy (link)" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

From late June: Of the women, Jeanne Shaheen was dressed the most like the men, in a pantsuit with dark pants and jacket and a pinkish-white shirt. Lisa Murkowski wore a purple dress and Susan Collins a pinkish-white shirt and skirt, but Kyrsten Sinema wore a sleeveless red top and a long skirt with diagonal red and white stripes

From early October: But aside from that, she continues to be a fashion plate. When some people tried to ask her about something in a Senate office building, she wore a white shirt and a ruffled pink skirt. When some people confronted her in that ASU bathroom, she was wearing an ankle-length sleeveless pink dress wtih black and white rectangles on it. On the plane, she was wearing a black-and-white patterned dress with a neckline low enough to show some cleavage.

As to why I'm discussing KS's clothes so much, it's because she stands out in that department. I've never discussed MTG's clothes or Lauren Boebert's clothes, for instance. I checked on what they wear, and they didn't seem very different from other Congresswomen when on the job, or many other women when off the job.

Also, she doesn't talk very much to the news media, and she's not very known for town-hall meetings.

 

[Harry Bosch]

From late June: Of the women, Jeanne Shaheen was dressed the most like the men, in a pantsuit with dark pants and jacket and a pinkish-white shirt. Lisa Murkowski wore a purple dress and Susan Collins a pinkish-white shirt and skirt, but Kyrsten Sinema wore a sleeveless red top and a long skirt with diagonal red and white stripes

From early October: But aside from that, she continues to be a fashion plate. When some people tried to ask her about something in a Senate office building, she wore a white shirt and a ruffled pink skirt. When some people confronted her in that ASU bathroom, she was wearing an ankle-length sleeveless pink dress wtih black and white rectangles on it. On the plane, she was wearing a black-and-white patterned dress with a neckline low enough to show some cleavage.

As to why I'm discussing KS's clothes so much, it's because she stands out in that department. I've never discussed MTG's clothes or Lauren Boebert's clothes, for instance. I checked on what they wear, and they didn't seem very different from other Congresswomen when on the job, or many other women when off the job.

Also, she doesn't talk very much to the news media, and she's not very known for town-hall meetings.

Well, I don't want to mischaracterize you. You're saying that you discuss her clothing because her clothing is different? You're just interested in her style or lack thereof? Secondly, what does her style have to do with not talking to the news media and or attending town-hall meetings?

 

[lpetrich]

I think that it's significant how Kyrsten Sinema dresses because of what kind of place Congress is.

A Brief History of How Maddening Capitol Hill Culture Is for Women (Still) - 2019 Mar 3

Women got to wear pantsuits . . .

After Maryland’s Barbara Mikulski led the “Pantsuit Rebellion of 1993” by urging colleagues to wear trousers one day on the notoriously stuffy Senate floor, dresses and skirts were no longer required. Pants became acceptable in the House about five years later.
. . . but fully modernizing the dress code took another 20 years.

Until 2017, sleeveless dresses and open-toed shoes were strictly forbidden on the House floor. After a revolt that summer, then-speaker Paul Ryan finally gave women the right to bare arms (and toes).

Barney Frank: What’s the House floor dress code, anyway? - The Washington Post - 2011 Dec 20

The sight of Rep. Barney Frank wearing a casual t-shirt on the House floor Monday caused more than a few raised eyebrows — room temperature notwithstanding.

...
The rules are vague but rigorously enforced: Coat and tie for men, “appropriate attire” for women. Jack Kennedy reportedly caused a scandal by wearing golf shoes onto the Senate floor. Then-Rep. Pat Schroeder supposedly broke tradition as the first woman to wear pants on the House floor in the 1970’s — though some accounts say it was Susan Molinari or Cynthia McKinney. (Update, 12/21: Rep. Charlotte Reid was the first in pants)

Hill veterans say Sen. Robert Byrd used to lecture female senators about open-toed shoes; John Ensign, who frequently jogged on the mall, would run in and borrow a jacket in order to cast his vote.

Sleeveless dress were once forbidden, but that was before Michelle Obama displayed her bare arms in the House chamber. The random turtleneck has been tolerated, but the no-hat provision has been enforced for more than 150 years. Bella Abzug couldn’t change it; freshman Rep. Frederica Wilson — known for her signature toppers back in Florida — fully expected that Speaker John Boehner would overturn the ban. But eleven months later, she told us she’s “still wishing and hoping.”

And yet — Jim Traficant’s toupee was perfectly acceptable. Go figure.

Update: First woman to wear pants on House floor, Rep. Charlotte Reid - The Washington Post - back in 1969 Dec 24

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think that it's significant how Kyrsten Sinema dresses because of what kind of place Congress is.

And you'd be wrong. How she dresses isn't important. Now if she dressed like 19th century French aristocracy, it'd be worth pointing out.

 

[lpetrich]

A look at women’s advances over the years in Congress | PBS NewsHour

1969: Rep. Charlotte T. Reid, a Republican from Illinois, is credited with being the first woman to wear pants on the House floor; she showed up to work in a “black wool, bell-bottomed pantsuit” and caused a stir. In the decades that followed, female representatives were discouraged from wearing pants, but some continued to do so. (11 congresswomen; 1 senator, 10 House members)

...
1993: Sens. Barbara Mikulski, Nancy Kassebaum and Carol Moseley-Braun are credited with being the first to buck tradition by wearing pants on the Senate floor, breaking an unofficial rule that women must wear dresses or skirts. According to other reports, Senate sergeant-at-arms Martha Pope circulated a memo among door attendants updating the dress code to include “coordinated pantsuits” after Moseley-Braun showed up in slacks. (54 congresswomen; 7 senators, 47 House members)

...
2017: More than 30 female lawmakers from both parties wore sleeveless blouses and dresses during a “Sleeveless Friday” protest of a rule barring congresswomen from showing their arms on the House floor and the adjoining Speaker’s Lobby. Speaker Paul Ryan pledged to “modernize” the dress code. (105 congresswomen; 21 senators, 84 House members)

Ilhan Omar and the history of the House of Representatives ban on hats - The Washington Post

Nineteenth-century congressman George Kremer would probably tip his hat to new congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

Omar, a Minnesota Democrat and a Muslim who wears a headscarf, prompted a new rule that allows, for the first time in 181 years, head coverings to be worn on the House floor for religious reasons.

In 1837, the hat-wearing Kremer vigorously opposed the ban before the House passed it.

The article got into what a big controversy wearing hats was in the early 19th cy.

Lawmakers seemingly put a lid on the hat issue. Then on Sept. 14, 1837, without debate, the House passed a resolution that “Every member shall remain uncovered during the sessions of the House.” How did it happen? By now Mercer, who first proposed a hat ban, had risen to chairman of the Select Committee on the Rules of the House. He tucked the hat prohibition into a batch of rules that members voted on together without any discussion.

...
The hats were off until a possible challenge arose nearly 100 years later in 1970, when women’s activist Bella Abzug of New York won election to the House. Abzug, a lawyer, was known for wearing wide-brimmed hats. She said she started wearing the hats when meeting with male lawyers. As a young female lawyer, she said, “It was the only way they would take you seriously.”

Abzug vowed to wear her hats on the House floor. But she never did. Reportedly she once headed to the House floor with her hat on. But when the House doorkeeper asked for the bonnet, she turned it over to him — while uttering a four-letter word.

The closest to a real challenge came in 2011 after Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) first won election. Wilson wears colorful sequined cowboy hats. “People get excited when they see the hats,” she said. “This is just me.” Wilson said she would seek permission to wear her hats in the House but dropped the idea.

 

[lpetrich]

KS came out of her shell and talked to Politico.
Sinema speaks up — and shakes off her critics - POLITICO - "he reticent Arizona Democrat granted a rare interview to talk about her negotiating style, disagreeing with her party and those relentless fashion critiques."

Watch the Senate floor enough and you'll notice Sen. Kyrsten Sinema regularly chatting with Mitch McConnell and his top deputy John Thune. Republicans have even tried to recruit her to their conference, and throw the Senate to the GOP.

Don't worry though, Democrats: Sinema's not becoming a Republican.

"No. Why would I do that?" the moderate Arizonan says in her trademark deadpan.

Thune, the GOP whip, wishes it were otherwise, confirming in an interview he’s pressed Sinema to join his party multiple times.

Why wouldn't she? She sometimes seems a lot like a Republican.

Yet when she does decide to speak, she has plenty to say. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer constantly preaches unity in a 50-50 Senate, Sinema says her differences with other Democrats are natural and they shouldn’t paper over them.

“I've been concerned at the push that happens in both parties, this push to have no disagreements. To only have unity or to only speak with one voice. And some will say, ‘Oh, that is our strength,’” Sinema said. “Having some disagreement is normal. It is real, it is human. And it's an opportunity for us as mature beings to work through it.”

She should tell that to her Republican buddies.

Sinema also revealed why she’s constantly spotted on the floor chatting with GOP leader McConnell: “He has a dry sense of humor. It's underrated.”

Is that her big reason?