Senator Krysten Sinema didn’t exactly do herself any favors today with an op-ed she penned in the Washington Post. In it, the Arizona Democrat wrote, “We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster.”
Arizonans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate: to be independent — like Arizona — and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results.
She argues that, “Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on.”
We’ve read that three times and we’re still not sure what that means.
As you might expect, a defense of the filibuster has not exactly received a standing ovation from Democrats.
In an opinion piece, also in the Post, Greg Sargent, states the obvious, pointing out there’s a “fundamental flaw” in Sinema’s argument.
Defending democracy and the filibuster simultaneously, in the terms that Sinema herself employs, is simply incoherent to its core.
Sargent goes on to say, “Sinema, of course, is lamenting the possibility that if we did away with the filibuster, a Republican-controlled Congress might more easily pass such measures on a national level, whereas right now, this is happening everywhere on the state level.”
