"Former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona is being sued in North Carolina under the state's 'homewrecker' law."

"Sinema admitted in a deposition to having a sexual relationship with her then-married former bodyguard. Sinema argues the affair did not happen in North Carolina, so she shouldn't be sued in that state. The lawsuit was filed by Heather Ammel, the ex-wife of Sinema's former bodyguard Matthew Ammel...."

I'm reading "'We went inside and had sex.' Sinema details affair with bodyguard" (The Arizona Republic).

Presumably, Ms. Ammel's argument is that the thing Sinema wrecked, the marriage, was located in North Carolina. 

"In a conservative’s brain, psychedelics are not a drug. They are a medicine. In the old-school left psychedelic movement, they’re seen as a drug."

"That drug has healing properties, but it also has other properties that they celebrate that are not just medicine. I think what you might be seeing from mainstream blue communities is concern about looking like weirdo, hippie lefties if they support psychedelics. It also might be a commitment to mainstream medicine. It also could be, politically speaking, skepticism if conservatives like it...."

Said Kyrsten Sinema, quoted in "Kyrsten Sinema Is Ready for Her MAHA Turn/In a new interview, the one-time Democrat says the movement for psychedelic medicine should capitalize on the Trump administration" (Politico).

There's also this about her "ibogaine treatment" to deal with her mental distress over her grandmother’s dementia:

"Remember, Republicans, regardless of the Schumer Shutdown, the Democrats will terminate the Filibuster the first chance they get."

"They will Pack the Supreme Court, pick up two States, and add at least 8 Electoral Votes. Their two objectors are gone!!! Don’t be WEAK AND STUPID. FIGHT,FIGHT, FIGHT! WIN, WIN, WIN! We will immediately END the Extortionist Shutdown, get ALL of our agenda passed, and make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again have the chance to DESTROY AMERICA! Republicans, you will rue the day that you didn’t TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER!!! BE TOUGH, BE SMART, AND WIN!!! This is much bigger than the Shutdown, this is the survival of our Country!"

Writes Trump, at Truth Social.

1. What does "pick up two States" mean? I think it is a prediction that when Democrats next acquire a simple majority in both houses, they will vote for statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.

2. What does "Their two objectors are gone!!!" mean? The "two objectors" must be Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski —[but see #8] — but they are not "gone"... if "gone" means no longer in the Senate. But I think it means they count as nothing now, because we have the votes without them. Or it's a Trumpian way to say: Let them go. They're already gone. 

You'll just have to eat their lunch all by yourself....

3. I think Trump is saying all hell will break out anyway, so best to be the first to unleash the hell, and maybe, just maybe, the GOP hell will make life so good for Americans that these DERANGED DEMOCRAT politicians will never again win a majority. Meanwhile, half of America will think the deranged Republicans are destroying America. In the Trumpian vision of life — it's about winning — the question is just which half of America gets to turn America into what the other half regards as Destroyed America. 

4. Or maybe Trump's outburst is just part of the art of the deal — the part where he scares you so badly you accepts the sensible offer you were resisting. Here, the Democrats need only vote to end the shutdown.

5. Another meaning of "gone" — which I don't think is in play here — is the beatnik's "gone." Sample usage, from Jack Kerouac's "Dharma Bums": "Among the people standing in the audience was Rosie Buchanan, a girl with a short haircut, red-haired, bony, handsome, a real gone chick and friend of everybody of any consequence on the Beach...." Lisa Murkowski is bony and handsome. Forget Rosie Buchanan, Lisa Murkowski is a real gone chick:

6. Since I've said something about feminine beauty, let me provide balance with something about masculine beauty. I watched that Eagles clip, from 1974, and was amazed to see that they'd all styled themselves in the manner of Napoleon Dynamite.

7. But who was Rosie Buchanan? They say it was Natalie Jackson.

8. "Poor Rosie—she had been absolutely certain that the world was real and fear was real and now what was real? 'At least,' I thought, 'she's in Heaven now, and she knows.'"

9. As commenters to this post are pointing out, "Their two objectors" makes much more sense as a reference to Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, who really are gone from the Senate. They were theirs — the Democrats' — and they actually did object to the Democratic Senators' effort to vote away the filibuster to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act in 2022. 

"For years, Sinema was on the receiving end of a... single-target PAC.... [W]hatever you think of Sinema, the effort against her..."

".... is... likely to speed up some of the most brutal trends in politics... The Replace Sinema super PAC, by contrast, existed solely to run robust oppo research on, buy ads against, pitch unflattering media stories about and otherwise hound, harry and hector one solitary elected official.... Why raise money to merely spend a year messing with a political rival when you can do it for an entire six-year term? There are a lot of underemployed off-year Washington operatives who could embrace that kind of mission."

Writes Michael Schaffer, in "An Obscure Group Hounded Kyrsten Sinema for Years — and It Worked. Is This a Sign of Things to Come? The Replace Sinema super PAC had the sole goal of ousting the senator — but may inspire a new model of endless campaigning" (Politico).

"What’s next for Sinema after her Senate term runs out this year?... A vanity presidential campaign from corporate-backed No Labels...?"

That's a quote from an article I found when I was looking for discussion of whether Kyrsten Sinema will be the No Labels candidate for President.

It's in The New Republic and, for the most part, it's not the sort of thing I was looking for, as indicated by the really inflammatory headline: "Kyrsten Sinema Is Resigning in the Most Sinema Fashion Ever (Delusional)/Farewell to the 'independent' Arizona senator who did nothing but screw over all her constituents, along with the rest of the country."

"Those lunches were ridiculous.... I’m not caucusing with the Democrats.... Old dudes are eating Jell-O, everyone is talking about how great they are..."

"I don’t really need to be there for that. That’s an hour and a half twice a week that I can get back.... The Northerners and the Westerners put cool whip on their Jell-O and the Southerners put cottage cheese.... I spend my days doing productive work, which is why I’ve been able to lead every bipartisan vote that’s happened the last two years."

Said Kyrsten Sinema, quoted in "Sinema Trashes Dems: ‘Old Dudes Eating Jell-O’/The Arizona senator courts GOP donors by ridiculing her former Democratic colleagues" (Politico).

Phoniness is inherent in the nature of the enterprise. The real question is whether she has chosen the best way to play the game.

Kyrsten Sinema just exudes phoniness pic.twitter.com/rLQ2ta6iVe

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 11, 2022

"In Sinema’s 2009 book... she described giving up shrill partisanship, which was making her unhappy, for a vaguely New Age ethos..."

"... that prized inner tranquillity. One chapter was called 'Letting Go of the Bear and Picking Up the Buddha,' with the bear representing fear and anger. 'Picking up the Buddha (becoming a super centered political actor) makes you a stronger, more effective you,' she wrote. 'To be your most fabulous political self, you’ll need to learn to recognize the bear and learn to let go of it in your work.' Transcending fear and anger is an excellent spiritual goal. But becoming a more centered and fabulous person is a political project only when it’s directed toward aims beyond oneself. With Sinema, it’s not remotely clear what those aims might be, or if they exist. (Another chapter in her book is 'Letting Go of Outcomes.')"

Writes Michelle Goldberg in "Kyrsten Sinema Is Right. This Is Who She’s Always Been" (NYT). 

I had to look to see if Sinema is a Buddhist. She's not, so I'm giving this post my "cultural appropriation" tag. "Picking Up the Buddha" — is that an expression, some New Age cant? Or did she come up with this image of picking up and putting down entities that are not, if real life, picked up and put down?

 

Here's a NYT article from 2012, "Politicians Who Reject Labels Based on Religion"

Although raised a Mormon, Ms. Sinema is often described as a nontheist — and that suits the activists just fine....

But a campaign spokesman rejected any simple category for Ms. Sinema. “Kyrsten believes the terms ‘nontheist,’ ‘atheist’ or ‘nonbeliever’ are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character,” the spokesman, Justin Unga, said Thursday in an e-mail. “Though Sinema was raised in a religious household, she draws her policy-making decisions from her experience as a social worker who worked with diverse communities and as a lawmaker who represented hundreds of thousands.”

Furthermore, Ms. Sinema “is a student of all cultures in her community,” Mr. Unga said, and she “believes that a secular approach is the best way to achieve this in good government.” In rejecting not only religious labels but irreligious labels, too, these politicians resemble the growing portion of Americans who feel that no particular tradition, or anti-tradition, captures how they feel about God, or the universe, or what the theologian Paul Tillich called “ultimate concern.”

She waited until Warnock won, but Kyrsten Sinema just left the Democratic Party.

CNN reports. 

"We have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights, we provide an exception for this, or an exception to the filibuster for this action."

Said President Biden, quoted in "Biden, Chiding Court, Endorses Ending Filibuster to Codify Abortion Rights/The president called the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade 'destabilizing' and said Congress needed to act to codify it into law" (NYT).

It was only the second time Mr. Biden has urged Congress to scrap its rules on the filibuster. In January, he called on lawmakers to make an exception to pass legislation to add voting rights protections. Speaking at a news conference in Madrid... Mr. Biden lamented the impact of the court’s decision on a woman’s right to have an abortion, calling Roe a “critical, critical piece.”

A critical, critical piece of what? I'm sure he left it hanging. The NYT would not edit him into less articulateness. Here's the full statement at the White House website: "Remarks by President Biden in Press Conference/Madrid, Spain."

Ah! An entire press conference. Interestingly, Biden had already used the phrase "critical, critical." Earlier in the press conference, a NYT reporter asked him "How long is it fair to expect American drivers and drivers around the world to pay that premium for this war?" He said:

"Whoever thought we’d see the day in American politics when a senator could be openly bisexual but a closeted Republican?”

Quipped Trevor Noah, about Kyrsten Sinema, at the White House Correspondents' dinner, quoted in "Trevor Noah roasts lawmakers on both sides of aisle in correspondents’ dinner remarks" (The Hill).

"Unless Sinema wigs out..."

Unless Sinema wigs out, that's it. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be joining the Supreme Court. The only question is whether Collins, Murkowski, Romney and maybe a couple of others will do the right thing. https://t.co/y1ig82BLvZ

— Dan Kennedy (@dankennedy_nu) March 25, 2022

"Some senators get so whacky in the national spotlight that they can’t function without it."

"Trump had that effect on Republicans. Before Trump, Lindsey Graham was almost a normal human being. Then Trump directed a huge amp of national attention Graham’s way, transmogrifying the senator into a bizarro creature who’d say anything Trump wanted to keep the attention coming. Not all senators are egomaniacs, of course. Most lie on an ego spectrum ranging from mildly inflated to pathological. Manchin and Sinema are near the extreme. Once they got a taste of the national spotlight, they couldn’t let go. They must have figured that the only way they could keep the spotlight focused on themselves was by threatening to do what they finally did last week: shafting American democracy."

Writes Robert Reich in "Where egos dare: Manchin and Sinema show how Senate spotlight corrupts" (The Guardian). 

Is it "whacky" or "wacky"? The author of "Common Errors in English Usage" says:

"Sinema reiterates opposition to eliminating filibuster, probably dooming Democrats’ voting rights push."

WaPo reports.

And:

[T]he circumstances in which she reiterated it — as Senate Democratic leaders prepared to launch a decisive floor debate and less than an hour before President Biden was scheduled to arrive on Capitol Hill to deliver a final, forceful appeal for action — put an exclamation point on her party’s long and fruitless effort to counter restrictive Republican-passed state voting laws.

We're told that she wore "purple, a symbol of Washington bipartisanship." There's always interest in what this Senator is wearing. So here — you can look at her as she stands in the breach:

"The form-fitting dresses and retro color palette that Sinema favors are a way of broadcasting her bona fides as a middle-class politician and thus someone in step with middle-class values."

"One might laugh at how literal this sounds as political stagecraft, but consider that almost all people in this country think of themselves as middle class, regardless of how much (or little) money they have. It is our cultural default, and we see it as normative. We use 'middle-class' interchangeably with other powerful nationalist signifiers like 'citizen,' 'voter' and 'American.' And, though my progressive comrades may balk at this comparison, if you compare Sinema to some of Congress’s best-known female politicians, her style is easily the most accessible to her constituents. I know enough about fashion, and how much it costs, to know that few American women can afford to dress like, for instance, the preternaturally turned-out Nancy Pelosi. In fact, part of what makes Sinema’s style performance so uncomfortable for many of us is how middle-class it is: She doesn’t seem to be trying to do better. But that does not mean her style story lacks aspiration.... [Her] presentation reads like 'someone who’s got a catalog budget but is trying to imagine what that high-end editorial looks like, someone who aspires to be cool and edgy.' One dimension of class in Sinema’s sartorial performance is that it is basic but aspirational, not in power, but in coolness."

Another article about Kyrsten Sinema's clothing in the NYT. This one is "How Kyrsten Sinema Uses Clothing to Signal Her Social Class" by Tressie McMillan Cottom, who is "an associate professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Information and Library Science, the author of 'Thick: And Other Essays' and a 2020 MacArthur fellow."

"Senator Sinema began her Washington career... reveling in... eye-catching, idiosyncratic and colorful clothes speckled with flowers and zebra stripes..."

"... the kind that are not unusual in civilian life, but stand out like neon lights under the rotunda of the Capitol; the kind that maybe call to mind an uninhibited co-worker with a zest for retail therapy at the mall. But that the senator continued to do so as she ascended the political ranks... made her nationally recognizable.... and it placed her at the forefront of a social trend at a time when dress codes of all kinds are being reconsidered.... And, it made it clear she just wasn’t going to apologize for enjoying shopping. She clearly does a lot of it. So what? As far as she is concerned, she can have her stuff and substance too. In other words, all those seemingly kooky clothes that Ms. Sinema is wearing aren’t kooky at all. They’re signposts. And the direction they are pointing is entirely her way."

From "Decoding Kyrsten Sinema’s Style/Sometimes a dress is just a dress. Sometimes it’s a strategy" by the NYT fashion critic Vanessa Friedman.

Friedman is being awfully nice here, perhaps because it's dangerous to take shots at a woman's appearance these days. One of Sinema's clothing items is a shocking pink sweater with "DANGEROUS CREATURE" written across the chest. That caused Mitt Romney to tell her she was "breaking the internet," and, we're told, she answered, "Good." 

I don't know if she thought it was good because she'd like to see the internet broken or because she loves attention per se or — I'll go with this — she wants a lot of people to contemplate her dangerousness. Everyone with political power is dangerous, so it functions as a warning label, and warning labels decrease dangerousness. We potential victims can, perhaps, take care.

And Friedman does take care. What are the dangerous things that could be said about Kyrsten Sinema's clothes? Well, for one thing, they're in bad taste, and many times, they're unflattering. They're very tight... But don't talk about that. It's dangerous!

"2 senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want."

Tweeted Bernie Sanders, quoted at Newsweek. 

Who's doing the "allowing"? All 100 Senators were elected in their state and each holds 1/100 of the power. It's not 2 against 48 but 52 against 48. There's no "allowing" going on, just an accumulation of total votes. The 2 are most certainly allowed to vote the way they choose, representing their state, and it's offensive to speak of not allowing them. 

Speaking of Sanders, here's something from Axios: 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) withheld support for a joint statement condemning last weekend's protests against Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) because it also wouldn't include a rebuke of her political views, Axios has learned.....

An email exchange between Senate Democratic leadership aides, obtained by Axios, reveals Sanders withheld his name from a joint statement declaring protesters who followed Sinema into a bathroom — and filmed her while using the restroom — as "plainly inappropriate and unacceptable."

Was Sinema filmed using the toilet? I thought she'd retreated into the space to get away, but find it hard to believe she'd use the toilet under this pressure, unless she had a physical emergency. I realize it is possible in most public bathrooms for someone outside the stall to hold a camera over/under the wall/door of the stall and photograph a person inside. Did that happen to Sinema?

Back to Axios:

"Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., is unhappy that a group of progressive activists followed her into a bathroom over the weekend."

"Leaving aside that Sinema doesn’t get to set the terms of how her constituents hold her accountable, you know who would have likely applauded those activists’ tactics? A young Kyrsten Sinema, the one who didn’t mind calling out Democrats who are more interested in obtaining power than in using it to advance their values.... "

From "Kyrsten Sinema's bathroom protest was a long time coming/The Kyrsten Sinema of 2003 would have been among the activists protesting her at Arizona State University" by Hayes Brown (MSNBC).

There's a big difference between "calling out" politicians and hounding them physically until they retreat into the dead-end space of a bathroom stall. That's a nightmare, and anyone who's proud of doing that to her ought never to claim to understand the problem of violence against women. Not that it's acceptable to treat a man like that. But getting trapped in a small, interior space by people who are yelling at you and coming at you is a woman's nightmare.

"Some Democrats scoffed at the notion that the GOP would ever be able to deliver 10 votes needed to clear the filibuster. As of Wednesday night, they were at 11 — a number that appears likely to grow."

From "POLITICO Playbook: The inside view from the West Wing on infrastructure."

NUMBER OF THE DAY: 21. That’s how many senators now support the bipartisan infrastructure framework proposed by Sens. KYRSTEN SINEMA, JOE MANCHIN, ROB PORTMAN, BILL CASSIDY, MITT ROMNEY and the other members of their centrist group. This is big....

What does this do to the Democrat side of the equation? The fear that Sinema and Manchin will oppose a larger reconciliation package stuffed with the left’s top priorities is real.

Essentially, Democratic leaders are letting their centrists eat dessert without the veggies....

What is the dessert and what is the veggies? Seems to me the Sinema/Manchin set have a bill with just the veggies and they're saying no dessert for you lefties.

Metaphor is challenging!

She's not like other Senators.

Kyrsten Sinema, the Senate’s most colorful member, posts a pic of herself on instagram rocking a “F*** Off” ring & sipping what looks like Sangria pic.twitter.com/ec6AkEPUiE

— Melanie Zanona (@MZanona) April 18, 2021

Post headline is a reference to the "not like other girls" meme: