No, Progressives Didn’t “Make” Sinema Leave the Party

On Friday morning, Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema bravely announced she is now a registered independent, rejecting the “partisan process” in favor of “solving problems and getting things done.”

Already, pundits are arguing that this is a situation where “progressives chase a moderate out of the party.” In the coming days, there will be even more arguments about how the Democratic Party is so radical it pushed out a key senator.

But this notion infantilizes one of the most powerful people in America and downplays Sinema’s own track record.

In reality, Sinema has a long history of obstructing the Democratic agenda. And whenever Sinema has blocked legislation, she has typically served the interests of the few.

Yes, there’s her stubborn support for the filibuster in lieu of pushing forward democratic reform. But there’s also the time Sinema stopped Congress from eliminating a tax loophole that served rich financiers. Or her opposition to raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, reining in drug prescription prices, and spending even a fraction of what’s necessary to support the climate—ultimately sinking the Build Back Better agenda. And lest we forget Sinema’s infamous let-them-eat-cake thumbs down to giving working people a $15 minimum wage.

All this while Sinema has enjoyed massive hauls of cash from the pharma industry, payday lenders, and the financial sector. Doesn’t sound so “independent,” does it?

Progressive did not direct any “ire” at Sinema for no reason. Her own actions prompted it. When “solving problems” and “getting things done” is just in favor of the few, it’s only natural that she’ll alienate voters from her own party.

Let’s not conflate “free thinking” with an unaccountable one.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema may have thought that switching political affiliation Friday would help her get reelected, but in fact, she is deeply unpopular in Arizona across party lines—which is unlikely to change anytime soon.

FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver tweeted a graphic from an AARP poll conducted in September showing low support for Sinema among Arizona voters.

Only 37 percent of all likely voters viewed her favorably. Among Democrats, 57 percent viewed her unfavorably. Even among independents, her new team, 51 percent said they viewed her unfavorably.

In a reply to someone else’s comment, Silver estimated that Sinema would have had a 40 percent chance of winning her primary as a Democrat, and then about a 60 percent chance of winning the general election.

But now that she’s an independent, he put her chances of winning at only 25 percent.

Another poll, conducted in July by Data for Progress and the local Arizona news outlet The Copper Courier, found that Sinema had only a 42 percent approval rating among state residents. Only 34 percent of Arizona Democrats viewed her favorably.

Sinema’s abysmal approval levels should come as no surprise. Since being elected to Congress, she seems to have undergone a massive ideological transformation.

A former Green Party activist, Sinema had protested the Iraq War with the left-wing social justice group Code Pink and warned against the dangers of capitalism. But once she reached Capitol Hill, she swung much more moderate.

Most notably, she voted with a flippant thumbs-down against increasing the minimum wage—despite previously being vocal in support of raising it.

The Arizona state Democratic Party had censured Sinema in January for opposing the removal of the filibuster. The group similarly did not hold back in response to Sinema’s party change, charging that she had failed to stand up for her constituents in key areas such as voting rights and holding major corporations accountable.

“Senator Sinema may now be registered as an Independent, but she has shown she answers to corporations and billionaires, not Arizonans,” the party said in a statement. “Senator Sinema’s party registration means nothing if she continues to not listen to her constituents.”

Kyrsten Sinema seems unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge the potential consequences of changing parties just days after the Democrats secured a 51-49 majority in the Senate.

The Arizona senator announced Friday that she was changing her political affiliation from Democratic to independent, a major blow to her now former party. But when she was asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper about how her move will affect Democrats’ power in the Senate, she dodged.

Sinema insisted that concerns about 51 versus 50 seats was “kind of a D.C. thing to worry about” and said she was more focused on sticking to her values and those of her voters.

Except, the difference between 51 and 50 set votes for the Democratic Party is not a “D.C. thing.” It has massive implications for national legislation and the future of the country.

There’s a reason that Senator Raphael Warnock campaigned so hard during the Georgia runoff. Even though Democrats already had 50 seats in the Senate, his victory would have given them far more influence in the chamber.

Fifty-one seats meant that Democrats would control committees and could more easily approve judicial appointments. They could block dangerous legislation or investigations from the Republican-controlled House.

And crucially, 51 seats meant that if a Democratic senator stonewalled—usually Sinema herself or Joe Manchin—then major legislation would no longer automatically tank. Now, Sinema’s decision has thrown all of that up in the air once more.

Sinema has not said if she will run for reelection, but she told Politico she also would not caucus with Republicans. She said she intends to vote the same way she has for the past four years.

Her spokeswoman told reporters that Sinema “intends to maintain her committee assignments through the Democrats. She has not ever and will not attend caucus messaging and organizational meetings.”

But considering her history, there would seem to be small comfort in that.

Friday started out with an undeniable political bombshell: Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the former-Green Party-turned-conservative-Democrat, has decided to once again switch parties and become an Independent. She’s making this announcement through embargoed news interviews and an op-ed in The Arizona Republic. She also taped a short two-minute video:

Sinema throughout the Biden administration has been a thorn in Democrats’ side. She managed to leverage her way into countless one-on-one meetings with President Biden as she dangled her support for the Biden administration’s Build Back Better set of proposals. There were always rumors floating around that Sinema would leave the party and maybe, just maybe, even join the Senate Republican caucus.

Turns out Sinema was in fact toying with leaving the party. She says she’s going to continue to caucus with Democrats and get her committee assignments. Her announcement, conspicuously, comes after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was reelected majority leader and after Senator Raphael Warnock won reelection out in Georgia. Democrats’ majority is not in full jeopardy. She told Schumer of her decision on Thursday.

At the same time though, when Sinema says “nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” Democrats should be forgiven for not taking much solace in that. Sinema has established herself as a Democrat open to bucking the party. She may not be a Republican now, but her decision to shrink the actual Democratic majority back to 50 seats scrambles the dynamic, gives Senator Joe Manchin more power, and opens Sinema up to doing pretty much what she’s always done: whatever she wants.

In a round of snap interviews with some top Democratic Senate staffers Friday morning, one predicted to me that Senate Democratic leadership will continue to engage with her the way they have: “not an automatic vote on tough issues.” That’s been the status quo up until now but given the opportunity to make things slightly easier for the Democratic Party, Sinema, once again, opted to go in a different direction.

Her future is unclear. She won’t say whether she will run for reelection. It’s up to Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to decide whether it will provide air cover for her if she does or let an extended Democratic primary in a purple state sort itself out. Congressman Ruben Gallego, a potential candidate for Sinema’s seat, is already interviewing consultants, according to Politico. What’s clear in terms of that 2024 race and the Democratic Party’s agenda now is that it all just got a little more chaotic.

On Thursday, thousands of airport workers from at least 15 American airports rallied to call for better working conditions. In three airports—Boston Logan International, Chicago’s O’Hare International, and Newark Liberty International—workers went on a full strike, calling attention to unfair labor practices by their employer, Swissport USA and Swissport Cargo, including poor working conditions and improper payment and wage theft.

The workers are pushing Congress to pass the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act. The bill would introduce national wage and benefit standards, setting a $15 minimum wage for all airport service workers (including those working at vendors like restaurants or retail stores) and baseline benefit standards for paid time off and health care.

Introduced in June by Representative Jesús “Chuy” Garcia and Senator Ed Markey, the bill holds 15 Senate and 89 House co-sponsors. There has been little Republican support for the bill, even as Republicans last week pretended to care about America’s rail workers.

Senators Markey, Blumenthal, Schumer, as well as Representative Garcia and D.C. House Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton appeared alongside workers on Thursday in Washington, D.C., lobbying for the bill’s passage.

Resonance with the rail workers’ struggle can’t be missed. “We don’t get enough paid time off. We’re supposed to get a week of paid sick days. But we’re so short-staffed they make it almost impossible for you to take a sick day,” said Omar Rodriguez, a ramp agent and cabin cleaner employed by Swissport USA, in a statement provided by the SEIU. “We get blamed for delays, but we’re only given a few minutes to clean and don’t have enough people to do the work.”

“No one wants to stay because the pay and benefits are not enough for what we do,” he added.

The House of Representatives passed the behemoth $858 billion annual defense bill on Thursday in a 350–80 vote. Among its many provisions is one aimed at improving security for federal judges, which became part of the final bill despite some criticism from judicial watchdog groups.

The provision, known as the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2022, would generally forbid the unauthorized disclosure of a judge’s personal information or that of an immediate family member. It would cover home addresses, phone numbers, license plate details, and information about next of kin’s workplaces, schools, and daycares, and similar data.

The bill is named after the son of Judge Esther Salas, whose New Jersey home was targeted in an apparent assassination attempt in 2020. The gunman killed Daniel and wounded Salas’s husband before fleeing the scene. Local police later identified the assailant as Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer against whom Salas had previously ruled on a procedural matter. He died by suicide before he could be apprehended. After her son’s death, Salas advocated for stronger security protections for federal judges. New Jersey’s two senators, Cory Booker and Bob Menendez, introduced the bill that eventually became part of the defense budget package this week.

Attacks on the federal judiciary are relatively rare in the United States but not unheard of. Three federal judges were assassinated in the twentieth century and a fourth, John Roll, was killed when a gunman attacked an event held by then–Arizona Representative Gabby Giffords in 2011. In 2005, Judge Joan Lefkow’s husband and mother were murdered in a targeted attack in suburban Chicago. The U.S. Marshals Service, which is charged with protecting judges and courthouses, has told Congress that the number of threats has increased in recent years.

The bill’s breadth nonetheless drew some criticism in recent days from judicial transparency advocates and from some journalists. The Free Law Project, a nonprofit group that tracks the federal courts, said the bill was “unconstitutional” and warned that it would lead to censorship against them. “If this bill becomes law, we’ll have to fight it in court or take down vital accountability information from our site,” the group wrote on Twitter on Wednesday night. “This is not OK.” Fix the Court, a Supreme Court–oriented watchdog group, also described it as “clearly unconstitutional.”

Much of the criticism centered on provisions that would allow immediate members of a judge’s family to take down information about their employers. “Lawmakers have just added a provision to the National Defense Authorization Act protecting Supreme Court spouses from having to reveal any outside employer, in the name of security,” Jane Mayer, a New Yorker staff writer who has written about the Supreme Court justices, claimed on Wednesday. “If it passes, Ginni Thomas’s professional entanglements would effectively be state secrets.” Thomas, who is married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has come under intense scrutiny over the last two years for her ties to groups that sought to overthrow the 2020 election.

If signed into law, the bill could face legal challenges from websites and publishers that decline to take down information about judges’ families. Those challenges would then have to survive the scrutiny of federal judges who have watched with concern as the number of threats against them grew in recent years. Any lawsuit would also likely face the ultimate test before the Supreme Court, most of whose members saw protests outside their homes after the court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade earlier this year. Persuading them to make it easier to disclose private information about their family members might be a tall order for any lawyer.

On Thursday, Representative-elect Maxwell Frost, who will become the first Gen Z member of Congress, said he was denied an apartment in Washington, D.C., due to his “really bad” credit. He also lost his application fee.

Such an outcome is familiar to many. After all, housing nationwide seems to only get increasingly expensive, as landlords and rental companies enjoy the mountain of fees they rake in from renters desperate to find a home.

The ridiculousness of it all is only heightened while individuals elected to serve in the nation’s capital can’t even afford to live there.

Like Frost, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a member who, upon arriving in D.C. in 2018, had trouble finding housing before receiving her congressional salary of $174,000.

Frost explained that his credit worsened after he ran up debt while campaigning over the past year and a half, noting he did not make enough money driving for Uber.

“It isn’t magic that we won our very difficult race,” Frost wrote. “I quit my full time job cause I knew that to win at 25 yrs old, I’d need to be a full time candidate. 7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. It’s not sustainable or right but it’s what we had to do.”

The amount of money a candidate has is important—particularly if you are a challenger like Frost or Ocasio-Cortez, whose races required all the more time and effort to win.

How difficult it is for someone to get involved in a country’s politics tells you something about said country. Especially if that country purports to be a “representative democracy.” Frost offers yet another example of how America really does not encourage working people—who perhaps need the most advocacy in halls of power—to get involved.

Here are the representatives who voted Thursday against the Respect for Marriage Act, which protects same-sex and interracial marriage. All 169 are Republicans.

1. Robert Aderholt
2. Rick Allen
3. Mark Amodei
4. Jodey Arrington
5. Brian Babin
6. Jim Baird
7. Troy Balderson
8. Jim Banks
9. Andy Barr
10. Cliff Bentz
11. Jack Berman
12. Stephanie Bice
13. Andy Biggs
14. Gus Bilirakis
15. Dan Bishop
16. Lauren Boebert
17. Mike Bost
18. Mo Brooks
19. Vern Buchanan
20. Ken Buck
21. Larry Bucshon
22. Ted Budd
23. Tim Burchett
24. Michael Burgess
25. Jerry Carl
26. Buddy Carter
27. John Carter
28. Madison Cawthorn
29. Stave Chabot
30. Ben Cline
31. Michael Cloud
32. Andrew Clyde
33. Tom Cole
34. James Comer
35. Connie Conway
36. Rick Crawford
37. Dan Crenshaw
38. Warren Davidson
39. Scott DesJarlais
40. Mario Diaz-Balart
41. Byron Donalds
42. Jeff Duncan
43. Neal Dunn
44. Jake Ellzey
45. Ron Estes
46. Pat Fallon
47. Randy Feenstra
48. Drew Ferguson
49. Brad Finstad
50. Michelle Fischbach
51. Scott Fitzgerald
52. Chuck Fleischmann
53. Mike Flood
54. Mayra Flores
55. Virginia Foxx
56. Scott Franklin
57. Russ Fulcher
58. Matt Gaetz
59. Bob Gibbs
60. Louie Gohmert
61. Bob Good
62. Lance Gooden
63. Paul Gosar
64. Kay Granger
65. Garret Graves
66. Sam Graves
67. Mark Green
68. Marjorie Taylor Greene
69. Morgan Griffith
70. Glenn Grothman
71. Michael Guest
72. Brett Guthrie
73. Andy Harris
74. Diana Harshbarger
75. Vicky Hartzler
76. Kevin Hern
77. Yvette Herrell
78. Jody Hice
79. Clay Higgins
80. French Hill
81. Richard Hudson
82. Bill Huizenga
83. Ronny Jackson
84. Bill Johnson
85. Dusty Johnson
86. Mike Johnson
87. Jim Jordan
88. David Joyce
89. Fred Keller
90. Mike Kelly
91. Trent Kelly
92. Young Kim
93. David Kustoff
94. Darin LaHood
95. Doug LaMalfa
96. Doug Lamborn
97. Bob Latta
98. Jake LaTurner
99. Debbie Lesko
100. Julia Letlow
101. Billy Long
102. Barry Loudermilk
103. Frank Lucas
104. Blaine Luetkemeyer
105. Tracey Mann
106. Thomas Massie
107. Brian Mast
108. Kevin McCarthy
109. Michael McCaul
110. Lisa McClain
111. Tom McClintock
112. Patrick McHenry
113. David McKinley
114. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
115. Dan Meuser
116. Carol Miller
117. Mary Miller
118. John Moolenaar
119. Alex Mooney
120. Barry Moore
121. Markwayne Mullin
122. Greg Murphy
123. Troy Nehls
124. Ralph Norman
125. Steven Palazzo
126. Gary Palmer
127. Greg Pence
128. Scott Perry
129. August Pfluger
130. Bill Posey
131. Guy Reschenthaler
132. Hal Rogers
133. Mike Rogers
134. John Rose
135. Matt Rosendale
136. David Rouzer
137. Chip Roy
138. John Rutherford
139. Maria Salazar
140. Steve Scalise
141. David Schweikert
142. Austin Scott
143. Joe Sempolinski
144. Pete Sessions
145. Adrian Smith
146. Chris Smith
147. Jason Smith
148. Lloyd Smucker
149. Victoria Sparts
150. Pete Stauber
151. Michelle Steel
152. Greg Steube
153. Van Taylor
154. Claudia Tenney
155. Glenn Thompson
156. Tom Tiffany
157. William Timmons
158. Jefferson Van Drew
159. Beth Van Duyne
160. Tim Walberg
161. Randy Weber
162. Daniel Webster
163. Brad Wenstrup
164. Bruce Westerman
165. Roger Williams
166. Joe Wilson
167. Rob Wittman
168. Steve Womack
169. Rudy Yakym

Thursday morning, the Biden administration announced that Phoenix Mercury star Brittney Griner would be released from Russian detainment, in a one-for-one prisoner swap with former Russian military officer and arms dealer Viktor Bout.

Afterward, the right wing wasted no time inciting outrage about the freeing of an American detained in Russia for 294 days.

Some weren’t even trying to feign logic and were instead outright racist and homophobic:

Prisoner swaps do not lend themselves well to “ideal” scenarios. But there are basic facts here that these outrage-drivers simply have no interest in. They act as if Biden unhesitatingly made the deal and has not been trying to rescue other American detainees, like former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan. But according to a senior U.S. official, Whelan is being treated as an espionage case. The Russian government gave the U.S. a choice over who to free: “one [Griner] or none.”

Meanwhile, Paul Whelan’s family is sharing much more grace than the right-wingers fomenting outrage over their loved one, acknowledging both the good news of Griner’s release and still the urgency to free Whelan:

Griner’s wife,  Cherelle, said they both are committed to working to help free those left behind in Russian detention, including Whelan:

But right-wingers have no interest in nuance or the facts undergirding such a difficult situation.

In the meantime, Griner’s restored freedom warrants rejoicing. And an urge to support all who are imprisoned—especially those on inane charges like less than a gram of cannabis oil—ought to be maintained. As Dave Zirin wrote, “There is no politics more basic than solidarity with the imprisoned.”

The House of Representatives voted 258–169 Thursday to approve a historic bill enshrining the right to marriage equality.

The Respect for Marriage Act will now go to President Joe Biden to be signed into law. The bill, which applies to both same-sex and interracial marriage, would require that two people be considered married so long as their marriage was legal in the state in which it was performed. The act also repeals a 1996 law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, which has remained on the books despite being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Many civil rights activists have warned that after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, same-sex marriage may be next on the chopping block.

During debate beforehand, Republicans accused Democrats of overreacting, insisting that the 2015 Supreme Court ruling ensuring equal marriage would continue to stand. Two Republican representatives, Vicky Hartzler and Bob Good, went so far as to claim the bill discriminated against religious institutions—despite being backed by most major religious organizations—and threatened heterosexual marriage.

The Senate voted 61–36 last week to pass the bill.

The act had already passed the House over the summer, although 156 voted against it—including a shockingly hypocritical “nay” vote from Representative Glenn Thompson, who attended his son’s same-sex wedding just a week later. Thompson again voted no on Thursday.

Critics of the bill say, though, that it does not go far enough with LGBTQ protections. Part of the amendment says that religious organizations do not have to marry same-sex couples, which would allow groups to continue to be homophobic, and the bill does not require all states to actually issue same-sex marriage licenses.