BREAKING: Stunning news about Colin Powell, who died this morning of complications of COVID. He was 84.
RIP, an American hero.
We need to talk about scary new Chinese missiles, the deplorable Claremont Institute, and the culture war over paternity leave. But’s let start off with the latest developments involving Manchinema.
You may have noticed the tone of the coverage of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, both of whom are getting a heavy dose of strange-new-disrespect from the media.
Suffice it to say that they are not getting the John McCain-maverick treatment for failing to fall in line with their party.
But, while Manchin is taking his hits, much of the snarkiest coverage is reserved for Sinema who is frequently portrayed not merely as elusive, but also as narcissistic, a bit nutty, and more than a bit corrupt (all those campaign dollars). Progressive social media is targeting the moderate Arizona senator with the sort of zeal usually reserved for actual conservatives, and schemes for revenge are already afoot.
What’s often lost in this sort of coverage, though, is any sense that either Manchin or Sinema might actually have principled reasons for taking their contrarian positions.
Manchin has been relatively transparent — writing several op eds about his reservations over spending and his compromise proposals on voting rights. But Sinema has been less forthcoming, and is therefore a juicier target for speculation.
We don’t know what makes her tick. Or do we?
This piece in the NYT by Michelle Cottle suggests that we may be getting Sinema all wrong — and that the consequences could be dramatic.