Adios, Senator Sinema
One term was enough.
Via the NYT: Kyrsten Sinema Bows Out of Arizona Senate Race.
Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, the Democrat turned independent who cut bipartisan deals that cemented parts of President Biden’s agenda but also stymied some of her former party’s highest priorities, said on Tuesday that she would not seek re-election.
Her announcement ended a year of speculation about her future in a politically competitive state. It cleared the field for a traditional matchup in the high-stakes battle for control of the Senate, between a more conventional Democrat, Representative Ruben Gallego, and the eventual Republican nominee.
This would likely increase the odds that the Democrats will win the seat.
And, you don’t say?
Ms. Sinema took pride in her relationships with centrist Republicans. She played a critical role in brokering a breakthrough bipartisan package earlier this year to clamp down on migration across the United States border with Mexico while providing fresh aid to Ukraine and other U.S. allies — a bill that Republicans demanded and then quickly tanked.
In the wake of its demise, Ms. Sinema appeared disillusioned and angry, having watched some of the Republicans she had worked closely with in cutting the deal swiftly turn against it.
“Turns out they want all talk and no action,” she said of Republicans in a scathing speech on the Senate floor just before the package failed. “It turns out border security is not actually a risk to our national security; it is just a talking point for the election.”
*plays a tiny violin*
She is, in many ways, the Democratic Party’s Susan Collins.
Yeah, she’s shocked and dismayed, maybe even disillusioned, to find out that most Republicans are not honest brokers, that they’re either extremely cynical or afraid of the Republican MAGA base.
Pretty sure she’s very concerned too.
Isn’t she making better money selling stuff on Facebook Marketplace anyway?
And, presumably, with the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy?
Can anyone name a “centrist Republican” in the current Congress? (Waits…) Yeah, I thought so.
Mark Kelly helped show her the door by proving her brand of politics wasn’t even necessary for an Arizona Dem. She behaved like Joe Manchin, but with far less of a political rationale.
Here’s what she was saying about Joe Lieberman back in 2003.
Sinema came to the party a bit late if she had never noticed the abundant bad faith of Senate Republicans. No finer example than Chuck Grassley, who negotiated for, and achieved, numerous changes to Obamacare, and then voted against those changes AND against the act itself. Asked why he voted against ACA he said it was because Republicans had been shut out of the negotiations. A bald faced, shameless liar…right there for everyone but Sinema to see.
@Kylopod:
Sinema wanted what Manchin has – the power of being the crucial vote in a deeply divided power structure the dominant party is barely hanging on to power. She wanted to be relevant, flattered and sought after like the belle of the ball. Manchin knows why he’s got the power he has and that it’s a fleeting situation due to the political environment, not a permanent state of being or worth. For better or worse, he saw the reality of it and took advantage of the power given to him in that scenario.
I genuinely believe that on some level, she thought this was like high school and she was the queen bee being “generous” enough to work with the uncool kids so she’d look better to the people that mattered when it was time to pick homecoming queen. She didn’t seem to get that she was only important due to razor-thin margins that may or may not exist next election. She thought people liked her because she was awesome and not because they elected her to represent their wishes in Congress. The look-at-me fashion and antics weren’t some feminist ploy to capitalize on the fact media cares more about a women’s looks then her words or an expression of her own kooky style; she did it because she liked the attention. Notice the new serious clothes style now that power is fading and she’s got to start courting other sources of funds. She’s dressing like she’s going to an interview after spending years in ridiculous teen/ youth-oriented “fashion”. Like Collins, she’s a pick-me girl that got power but unlike her predecessor isn’t good enough at the game to keep it.
@KM: I don’t disagree with any of that, but I think it’s only part of the picture. Politicians who occupy a swing-vote status can easily get high on their own farts. But the political calculus isn’t the same for all of them. Given the dramatic red shift of WV, Manchin’s branding was probably necessary for any hope of political survival (though I think he could have leaned more into economic populism). AZ, in contrast, is a state that’s been trending blue. I can understand Sinema’s calculation from a bird’s-eye-view: she thought she could build a base of support among moderates, particularly those with positive memories of John McCain who despise Trump. It was a misreading of the situation, but one I still get at some level.
Her past criticisms of Lieberman are especially ironic given that his attempt to appeal to Republicans did once make sense. Lieberman came to office in 1988 by running to the right of his Republican opponent and landing an endorsement from Buckley. He entered the Senate at the cusp of the DLC era, when his brand of centrism worked for him both politically and in terms of positive media coverage (he was dubbed “the conscience of the Senate”). It was the Iraq War that largely did him in–and even then, he may have survived politically if not for his endorsement of John McCain in 2008.
When it comes to all these figures–Lieberman, Manchin, Sinema–they were embracing a political branding that hasn’t always been a failure, but which is basically outdated by now.
She should go to hell for her vote against the carried interest reform which stopped the bill from passing. If her next career ends up in some finance related occupation we should not be surprised.
Steve
@Charley in Cleveland:
As a current Iowan, I despise Grassley deeply. He is always disingenuous. The ACA death panel business put me off for life.
Unfortunately, he has that seat until he dies. The D challenger will give a spirited run and lose 60-40 or so.