"I've seen the pro and con. I am concerned. That is a factor. It's one of the reasons I'm hesitant."
Silly me. Until I heard this sweeping Collinsesque rhetoric, I actually believed that filibuster reform was a great idea. I figured that whatever risks it entailed, they were worth taking to secure voting rights and pass legislation that was, you know, popular and beneficial.
But now that Feinstein has explained that there is a pro and a con, I see how unimportant the rights and well-being of the people who vote for her are compared to the privilege of a few senators to take the easy way out. I mean, why wouldn’t a senator from California put the prerogatives of Lindsey Graham ahead of the interests of her own constituency?
Perhaps I’m unfair. It may be that the 87-year old Senator who graduated from college the year I was born is taking the long view. The day may come when a 102-year old Feinstein, halfway through her second decade as a member of a permanent minority party, tells senate majority leader Marjorie Taylor-Green that “enough is enough. I’ve tried to be nice. I worked with you when you wanted to reduce the top income bracket to zero. When Sen. Ocasio-Cortez wanted to go the mattresses on that one, I worked diligently behind that poor deluded girl’s back to find a compromise. I think we can all agree that 3% is much fairer. But appropriating funds to build a giant lever that will force California into the ocean? You leave me no choice other than to lead my first filibuster.”
You can’t be too prepared, right?
Confidential to Joe Manchin: It’s the majority who needs protection.