Rather than asking Manchin/Sinema for the 100th time whether they support dumping the filibuster, maybe reporters should ask them *what they are doing* to win the Republican votes they need in a 60-vote Senate to pass things they say they support.
‘Cause it sure seems like they aren’t doing a damn thing; they’re just A) claiming to support legislation while B) refusing to pass it with only Dem votes but C) waiting for someone else to win over Republicans.
Example: Sinema *says* she supports the For the People Act, though she won’t ditch the filibuster to do it.

OK, @SenatorSinema, what have you done this week to persuade 10 Republican Senators to vote for it? Which of your Republican colleagues have you lobbied? How did that go?
Joe Manchin *says* he supports voting rights, but only with Republican votes. OK, @Sen_JoeManchin, what have you done this week to win those votes? Which Republican colleagues have you lobbied?
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are not mere *pundits,* powerless to do anything but speculate. They have agency. If they sincerely support voting rights but want Republican Senators’ votes for it, it’s *on them* to go get those votes. That’s the job. What are they doing?
Manchin/Sinema *could,* if they gave a damn, tell Republicans "we'll pass this without you, and we'll pass a version you REALLY won't like. Or you can vote with us and we'll do a version you like a better."

But they'd rather feign powerlessness. Responsibility terrifies them.
Anyway: They want to pretend they're just observers, with no responsibility. If *someone else* wins 10 Republican votes for a bill, they'll vote for it. Fuck that. 10 GOP votes is the strategy *they* want, *they* need to get them. And that's what reporters should press them on.
Does Manchin really stand out for working with Republicans? Guy has introduced 180 bills and 1 of them has become law. Sinema has intro’d 80 bills; 2 have become law.

What, exactly, are they doing to win the GOP support they say is essential for the bills they say they support?
Kinda seems like Manchin and Sinema don’t really want to “work with Republicans” — they know that’s basically impossible. They just want to use other Democrats’ failure to win Republican votes as an excuse for not doing things they claim they want to do.
So, again: Maybe reporters should stop asking Manchin/Sinema about the filibuster and start asking which Republicans they’re lobbying, and how.

Or ask Republicans! Has Susan Collins or Pat Toomey heard from Kyrsten Sinema about the For the People Act? Or is this all just BS?
Yes, good point, why bother to demonstrate that people who claim to support democracy are in fact hastening its demise. Nothing matters, we’re all going to die, you’re very savvy, congratulations.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jamison Foser

Jamison Foser Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jamisonfoser

13 Apr
Hi, @nytimes. Seems like an article that attempts to equate a donor to environmental causes with the Koch brothers and includes a quote from a “watchdog group” explicitly equating them should mention that *the watchdog group is funded by the Kochs.* desmogblog.com/capital-resear…
A key difference between the Kochs and Wyss, Arabella, etc etc, is that the Kochs have spent decades and billions of dollars attacking the concept of truth and funding a movement that seeks to destroy democracy, and Wyss, Arabella, etc etc have, you know … not.
This is some spectacular false equivalence by the @NYTimes. The substance of the Kochs’ actions — their goals, and the damage they do to society in order to achieve them — matters.
Read 12 tweets
13 Apr
I’ve been thinking a lot about Justice Breyer’s comments about the importance of trust in the Supreme Court, and the thing is: it’s even more important to have a *trustworthy* Court. And we do not. That’s why we must expand the court. Me, in @crookedmedia: crooked.com/articles/supre…
Democrats have won the most votes in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, and yet two-thirds of Americans were not even born yet the last time the Supreme Court had a majority that was appointed by Democratic presidents.

Nobody can seriously argue this is how things should be
How is a court dominated by America's minority political party for 50 years and counting and that does things like gutting the Voting Rights Act, helping that party impose minority rule, worthy of our trust? It is not. It is a participant in the GOP's assault on democracy.
Read 18 tweets
6 Apr
LEFT: Headline

RIGHT: Paragraph 21

Keep carrying that water, @nytimes ImageImage
@nytimes If it was me, I probably would have noted that Edward Glaeser is a senior fellow at the right-wing Manhattan Institute, but giving readers that kind of context might make them wonder why this article even exists. Image
Car charging stations are tangible. Water pipes are tangible. Broadband is tangible!

What is the New York Times even talking about? Image
Read 8 tweets
19 Feb
Can’t think of a single time in history a Senator opposed a nominee of his own party for the stated reason that the nominee is too partisan. Unprecedented stupidity.

Joe Manchin voted to confirm Bill Barr, but says he’ll vote against Neera Tanden because she’s too partisan.

I don’t think “too partisan” is his real objection.
Joe Manchin voted to confirm Jeff Sessions — a man who had previously been rejected for a federal judgeship for being too racist — but says he’ll vote against Neera Tanden because she’s too partisan.

I don’ think “too partisan” is Manchin’s real objection.
Read 7 tweets
5 Feb
The case against it is that the premise — that there’s something Biden and Democrats could propose that Republicans would agree to — is highly suspect, given everything that has happened for the last thirty years.
Republicans reacted to Bill Clinton — not exactly Bernie Sanders, you know? —becoming president by voting *unanimously* against his first budget. Obama intro’d Mitt Romney’s health care plan and loaded stimulus with GOP-friendly tax cuts. They opposed both. It’s what they do.
This idea that a nontrivial number of Republicans will work with a Democratic president at the beginning of his administration — no matter what he proposes — is just pure fantasy. It’s based on *nothing* but pundits’ desire to pretend the Republican Party isn’t what it is.
Read 4 tweets
4 Feb
Can’t believe I didn’t go with “Still at the end of every hard-earned day, people find some reason to believe”
mister state trooper please don’t stop me Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(