General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDurbin and Shaheen voted Yes to cover for Other Dem Yes Votes
Durbin and Shaheen are retiring. They have no particular reason to vote yes for the CR. Durbin especially spends most of his days sending out messaging about how he's opposing this and opposing that, standing up to Trump on various issues. And he should be hell bent for leather: the Trump administration is currently laying siege to the city of Chicago and environs, arbitrarily arresting people, tear gassing neighborhood, running a filthy transit camp and generally going Super-Fash all over Chicagoland.
So what gives? Durbin and Shaheen voted to cover other Dems who were perhaps more vulnerable - to either primary challenges or a complete collapse of support in the midterms. I would have thought one could be Slotkin, who has been all over teevee the last few days trying to soften the Dem constituency for this vote, but of course, she's in office for the next six years, so she was also taking a hit for others.
I suspect some of this will come out eventually, but it was definitely more of the Dem caucus than just these eight who were for the deal: two retiring, nobody up for reelection next year, King not even available for a primary? There was horse-trading about who the eight to play ball would be, but nobody tell me it was just these eight and the no votes were hard no votes. Thune had ten Dems at a minimum, and probably many more.
LonePirate
(14,308 posts)Nanjeanne
(6,480 posts)FHRRK
(1,302 posts)Disgusting and a waste because Chucky is DONE.
Prairie Gates
(6,797 posts)Two retirees; five not up for 2026 election; one non-Dem (also not up).
Thune had at least two other Dems on the hook (covered by Durbin and Shaheen)
FHRRK
(1,302 posts)That makes him an ignorant POS if he is covering for another POS.
I call bullshit and fuck him no matter the reason.
Celerity
(53,014 posts)Silent Type
(11,959 posts)Prairie Gates
(6,797 posts)Silent Type
(11,959 posts)RockRaven
(18,349 posts)What is the reason for it:
Are those hiders aware their desired vote would not be acting in the public interest? If so, whose interest are they acting in?
Do they think themselves unable to convince the public that their desired vote is the correct one? If so do they lack faith in the public's abilities to understand, or the public's values/priorities?
Do they believe their "no" position previously was a mistake but cannot admit as much? If so what other errors do they knowingly persist in?
Yes, yes, doing what is necessary to win the next election is important. But it is also rather unseemly, or exposes something unseemly.