We've held 15 town halls and absolutely no one has said:
"Hey Jeff, I want our next senator to keep the filibuster intact even if it means no progress on voting rights, minimum wage, broadband, or climate."
What I *am* hearing is:
"Don't cave to McConnell."
Loud and clear.
"Hey Jeff, I want our next senator to keep the filibuster intact even if it means no progress on voting rights, minimum wage, broadband, or climate."
What I *am* hearing is:
"Don't cave to McConnell."
Loud and clear.
I think we all know that McConnell's incentives are to just use the filibuster to try and block everything he can.
If that happens, then no one can call it a tool that produces compromise - it's just a weapon that grinds everything to a halt.
And we can't allow that.
If that happens, then no one can call it a tool that produces compromise - it's just a weapon that grinds everything to a halt.
And we can't allow that.
As a specific example, using the filibuster to block voting rights legislation that is needed to protect voters of color from the wave of suppression bills we're seeing is literally Jim Crow behavior.
We'd be foolish to say, "Well, darn, guess that's just the way it goes."
We'd be foolish to say, "Well, darn, guess that's just the way it goes."
Btw:
I've been in a senate chamber for the last seven years.
I've been in the minority the whole time.
At no point have I thought it was deeply unfair that I can't bring everything to a halt with a filibuster, because that's not a logical or necessary part of this process.
I've been in a senate chamber for the last seven years.
I've been in the minority the whole time.
At no point have I thought it was deeply unfair that I can't bring everything to a halt with a filibuster, because that's not a logical or necessary part of this process.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
