 But despite our apparent differences, Senator McConnell and I have forged a friendship, one that is rooted in our commonalities, including our pragmatic approach to legislating, our respect for the Senate as an institution, our love for our home states, and a dogged determination on behalf of our constituents. You know in today's partisan Washington, it might shock some that a Democratic Senator would consider the Republican leader of the Senate her friend, but back home in Arizona, we don't view life through a partisan lens. Arizonans understand that while we may not agree on every issue, we do share the same values. Well, that's one thing that she said that's true actually. That was Democrat Kirsten Sinema speaking at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville after she was invited by Mitch McConnell, a Republican. And just keep in mind that she's chumming it up with the Republican Party leader during an election season. I get that she doesn't align with most Democrats because she's functionally a Republican, but maybe find one moderate Democrat to campaign with, not that they'd want her on the campaign trail stumbling for them because she's very unpopular, but maybe pretend as if you're not batting for the other team. I mean, imagine for a moment that a Republican chose to show up to an event with Chuck Schumer where they both exchange compliments, and they talk about how reasonable the other is during an election season. I mean, Republicans would be outraged, Trump would be attacking them, their career would be over, but for Democrats, apparently this is something that is celebrated by the right, even though Mitch McConnell would never let one of his members do what Kirsten Sinema is doing. And the thing that irritates me the most is the way that she frames this as, you know, she is aligned with Mitch McConnell for altruistic reasons. She is aligned with him because they're both above the fray. You know, this climate of hyperpolarization that he created, it's, you know, something that we don't necessarily have to abide by. But she says this, not just campaigning with any Republican. Again, Mitch McConnell is the individual who exacerbated the hyperpolarized, hyperpartisan state in Washington DC that we see right now. He stole multiple Supreme Court seats from the other party, and we're supposed to believe that Mitch McConnell of all people is above hyperpartisan politics. I mean, it's borderline parody at this point, but that's where we are. She also said that her and Mitch McConnell have a pragmatic approach to legislating a respect for the Senate as an institution and a dogged determination for their constituents. Well, if that were true, don't you think that your constituents would like you more because Kirsten Sinema is very, very unpopular among her own party, among her own constituents. And she made a joke during this event that was a little bit too on the nose. Take a look. Well, at least I'm glad that she knows how unpopular she is. She said, not everyone likes me, but more specifically, nobody likes you because when it comes to every single demographic, she is losing handily. As inside elections analyst Jacob Rubashkin points out, Kirsten Sinema is unpopular among everyone. Sometimes it seems like she's trying to please nobody, and if so, she's succeeding. Sinema is 20 points underwater among Democrats, 10 points underwater with independents, and 18 points underwater among Republicans. I'm going to soak in this poll here. She's unpopular across the board. She's underwater with men, with women, with older men, older women, young voters, old voters, white voters, Hispanic voters. She's universally loathed because she is transparently exclusively legislating on behalf of her Wall Street donors. And this isn't necessarily an uncommon phenomenon with regard to senators, but nobody is as brazen about it as Kirsten Sinema. Even Republicans like Ted Cruz, who are complete sell-outs, they will at least throw out some ostensibly populist things about how Americans can't afford gas, but Kirsten Sinema, she doesn't even try to pretend as if she cares about her own constituents, and part of why she's so unpopular is because of her refusal to get rid of the filibuster and because she refuses to even create a carve-out to the filibuster to do really important things like pass voting rights reform, get civil rights codified. Well, it's causing a lot of pain from her own constituents, and we'll get to that, but that doesn't stop her from condescendingly talking down to her own constituents as if they're petulant children for even daring to ask that she get rid of the filibuster. Take a look at how she responds to a question about the filibuster. First, you touched on this in your talk, but can you expound on why you hold such support for the filibuster, especially when many others in your party have opposing views? That's such a great question, Madeline. You know, Senator McConnell mentioned this in his opening remarks, and I mentioned it in my remarks as well. The danger of eliminating the 60-boat threshold is that the Senate becomes the House, and I remind everyone, I left the House and ran for the Senate for a reason. I remember my early years, I served for six years in the House of Representatives, and I remember being so frustrated during those six years because it felt like every time there was a big bipartisan solution that needed to happen, the Senate just kind of came up with a solution and then gave it to the House and we just ate it. And that's why I ran for the Senate. Yeah. I thought, wait a second, they're doing the work. So when Republicans are in control, they pass a little bit of crazy legislation. And when the Democrats are in control, they pass a little bit of crazy legislation. And the job of the Senate is to cool that passion. You know, there's a saying that the House is the cup of hot tea, and the Senate is the saucer in which you cool that tea. The Senate was designed to be a place that moves slowly, to cool down those passions, to think more strategically and long-term about the legislation before us. The best thing you can do for your child is to not give them everything they want, right? And that's important to the United States Senate as well. We shouldn't get everything we want in the moment. So not only am I committed to the 60-boat threshold, I have an incredibly unpopular view. I actually think we should restore the 60-boat threshold for the areas in which it has been eliminated already. We should restore it. Yeah. Not everyone likes that. So, you know, sometimes you can't give petulant children what they want. So when they ask for things like, you know, voting rights or civil rights, sometimes you've got to, you know, withhold that from them and let them throw the tantrum, but you've got to prove to them that they will not win. Like, the way she's speaking about her own constituents here is just incredible. This is elitism on full display here. And let me remind you that she's not always against Carvouts to the filibuster, considering that this is the same person who created a Carvout to the filibuster when it came to raising the debt ceiling. Now, if Congress didn't raise the debt ceiling, that would be catastrophic for the U.S. economy. It would cause the United States government to default on its debt, which would hurt everyone, but it would also hurt people who are elite, who have a lot of money in the stock market because their stock portfolios would unquestionably be affected by the U.S. government defaulting on its debt. So here, this is something that she and her donors would never want to see happen. And to be clear, none of us want to see this happen. But the problem is that the only reason why she cared in this instance is because it personally affects her. It could harm her too. But when it comes to her own constituents, she doesn't care if the filibuster is hurting her own constituents. So, for example, let me show you what her refusal to get rid of the filibuster or at least create a Carvout to the filibuster at a minimum is doing to her own constituents. As Caitlyn Cruz of Jezebel explains, Arizona can officially enforce a near-total abortion ban that existed more than a decade before it would join the United States as its 48th member. On Friday, a state court judge in a southern Arizona county made an injunction allowing a 1901 abortion ban to go into effect while failing to clarify how this change will interact with dozens of anti-abortion laws already on the books. A version of this law was first passed in the territorial legislature back in 1864 but was amended in 1901. Arizona joined the union in 1912. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, the courts dropped local litigation surrounding the law because of the Supreme Court decision. The law carries two to five years of prison time for anyone who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman. The law's only exception is a very narrow, very vague exception for life of the patient. Literally stating, unless it is necessary to save her life, the ruling will likely be appealed. And just to be clear, this law provides no exceptions for rape and incest. Now, Kirsten Sinema today, she could get rid of laws like this by agreeing to at least create a special carve out to the filibuster so they can codify Roe v. Wade and make sure that women in her state are able to control their own bodies. But she's not doing that. She's saying, nope, sorry, rules are rules. And sometimes, you know, these children, they're going to want their civil rights, but you've got to withhold that from them. This is why she is universally loathed, but she did win the praise of Mitch McConnell who said this about her. I've only known Kirsten for four years, but she is, in my view, and I've told her this, we're the most effective first term senator I've seen in my time in the Senate. She is today what we have too few of in the Democratic Party, a genuine moderate and a deal maker. Yeah, there's too few Democrats, like Kirsten Sinema, according to Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican Party. Again, just imagine during election season, a Republican going to an event like this with Chuck Schumer praising him, praising how wonderful and, you know, pragmatic Chuck Schumer is. It would never happen. But yet, Democrats are expected to not only meet Republicans halfway as they obstruct for years, but be overly reasonable to all of their demands and support their unpopular policies. It's ridiculous. So Kirsten Sinema is a terrible human being. She's opportunistic, and I genuinely hope that she does seek re-election when she's up, because I would like to see her get completely obliterated in a Democratic Party primary. I understand that it doesn't matter because she probably doesn't care about her re-election, and even if she runs and she loses, she's going to become a lobbyist because she is absolutely delivered to her donors on Wall Street. Okay? It'd be nice to feel the satisfaction of knowing that she gets landslided in a Democratic Party primary. So I would absolutely love to see that, but either way, she doesn't care because she's getting what she wants, and Republicans are very enthusiastic about her because she's delivering what they want, and that is delivering an obstruction of the Democratic Party's agenda, and she's learned from the best, like Mitch McConnell, who she calls a friend. Just truly vomit-inducing a Kirste event that I wish I could purge from my mind.