 So, as you probably have heard about by now, President Joe Biden went to Georgia to advocate for voting rights legislation, which his administration considers ground zero for voter suppression, and he'd be correct about that. But he called on the Senate to modify the filibuster so they can at least pass voting rights legislation using a simple majority. CNN's Megan Vazquez explains he had previously expressed his support for making an exception to the filibuster rules in order to pass voting rights legislation, but expressed more flexibility on Tuesday. I support changing the Senate rules whichever way they need to be changed to prevent a minority of senators from blocking actions on voting rights, he said. So basically what he's saying is if we're not going to totally abolish the filibuster and I don't think that even supports that, let's at least tweak it just a tiny bit so we can allow a vote on voting rights, because it's a little bit important if you support democracy. But today, Kirsten Sinema shot that down, saying she really, really, really supports voting rights, but the filibuster is more important. Take a look. I strongly support those efforts to contest these laws in court and to invest significant resources into these states to better organize and stop efforts to restrict access at the ballot box. And I strongly support and will continue to vote for legislative responses to address these state laws, including the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act that the Senate is currently considering. I support these bills because they strengthen Americans' access to the ballot box, and they better ensure that Americans' votes are counted fairly. It is through elections that Americans make their voices heard, select their representatives, and guide the future of our countries and our community. These bills help treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the disease itself. And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country. The debate over the Senate's 60-vote threshold shines a light on our broader challenges. There's no need for me to restate my long-standing support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. And there's no need for me to restate its role protecting our country from wild reversals and federal policy. It is a view I've held during my years serving in both the U.S. House and the Senate. And it is the view I continue to hold. It is the belief that I have shared many times in public settings and in private settings. Senators of both parties have offered ideas, including some that would earn my support, to make this body more productive, more deliberative, more responsive to Americans' needs, and a place of genuine debate about our country's pressing issues. And while this week's hairy discussions about Senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year. So millions of Americans, mostly people of color, will be disenfranchised, but at least we're not getting rid of the filibuster. At least we're not getting rid of this arbitrary rule in the Senate. At least we're not spreading this disease of division. Okay? Now, it's not unusual to have a carve-out for the filibuster. Even though it exists and I think it should be abolished entirely, there are numerous carve-outs already, as Representative Dwight Evans points out. He writes the Senate has already made exceptions to the filibuster at least 163 times, including two last month. The right to vote is our most basic right. It deserves the same treatment. He's right. And guess what? Kirsten Sinema supports one of those carve-outs. As Stephen Spalding points out, Senator Sinema voted 35 days ago to carve the debt ceiling out from the filibuster's 60-vote threshold. Yeah. So if she cared as much about voting rights as she says she does, she would at least support a carve-out for voting rights to pass with a simple majority. But she's not doing that. She's using the filibuster as an excuse. So either she cares more about the filibuster than voting rights, which is problematic, or she doesn't care about voting rights at all. And I'd argue that it's the latter. And even MSNBC hosts who usually try to withhold criticism of Democrats are calling her out. While Donald wrote on Twitter, Sinema delivers the Senate's stupidest speech by a Democrat in an edge-of-tears voice to give childish words a melodramatic effect. And he's absolutely correct. Again, it's not like this is a call for the filibuster to be abolished. They're just asking now for a carve-out, and she won't even accept that. But yet, she's trying to make it seem as if she genuinely supports voting rights and she's just torn between voting rights and her principled stance of defending the filibuster. It's full of fucking shit, and everyone can see right through it. And to put things into perspective, as Jason Campbell writes on Twitter, helplessly watching a generational assault on voting rights because the guy who killed Alexander Hamilton made up a rule. Yeah, apparently that rule is more important than democracy itself. And she wants you to believe that she's genuine in her support for voting rights. It's just truly laughable. It is a fucking joke. Now, one thing that I want to point out here is that back in 2009, she had something very different to say about passing legislation without getting 60 votes. In fact, she unequivocally denounced the individual then who was standing in the Democratic Party's way. Joe Lieberman, take a look. So what does that mean? Well, in the Senate, we no longer have 60 votes. I don't argue that we never had 60 because one of those was Joseph Lieberman, but that's whatever. Yeah, and Nelson too, but really Lieberman. So now there's, I think as a president, so eloquently said on Wednesday, there's none of this pressure, this false pressure to get to 60. So what that means is that the Democrats can stop coutying to Joe Lieberman and instead seek other avenues to move forward with health reform. And so it's likely that the Senate will move forward with a process called reconciliation, which takes only 51 votes. And by the way, it's not unusual. You may recall that before the Democrats took the Senate in 2008, that the Republicans controlled the Senate for quite some time. In fact, since around 1994, they never had 60 votes and they managed to do a lot of really bad things during that time. So the reconciliation process is still quite available and we will use it for good rather than for evil. Interesting. Would you look at that Kirsten Sinema advocating for the disease of division in carving out exceptions to the filibuster in order to get things done. And now look at her. She is the de facto Joe Lieberman, who her entire party is having to kowtow to now you might be saying, well, Mike, maybe she is doing this now because she simply is trying to represent her constituents. Maybe she disagrees with what her constituents want, but she's just representing them because they care that much about some rule in the Senate. But no, she doesn't know what her constituents want. She hasn't held a town hall since 2018. So again, she is full of shit. The theatrics, the fake, you know, somber voice. It's all political theater. She does not support voting rights because if she did, she would support a carve out to the filibuster as she has recently for other issues. And she would allow this to be passed using a simple majority. But she's not because she doesn't support voting rights. Now, expectedly, Republicans are very happy about this, and they immediately praised her after she announced that she's killing democracy. As Jake Johnson of Common Dreams explains, in an indication of who benefits from Sinema's continued opposition to filibuster reform, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was quick to praise the Arizona Democrat speech as a conspicuous act of political courage. Sinema saved the Senate as an institution McConnell gushed. Senator Joe Manchin, another Democratic opponent of filibuster reform, also applauded Sinema's remarks, noting that they hit on the points that I've been making for an awful long time. Quote, we need changes to make the Senate work better, not getting rid of the filibuster Manchin added. Of course, Joe Manchin, another very sincere supporter of voting rights, agrees with Kirsten Sinema here. And I love how they keep saying, look, we need to have rules that make the Senate work better, not worse. The Senate isn't working at all. What have you done? You haven't done jack fucking shit. What have you done, Joe Manchin, to deliver for your constituents? You passed the corporate toll road bill. Do you think that your constituents are honestly going to know how the infrastructure bill benefits them? I mean, there were some benefits to it. Some lead pipes are being replaced. But overall, this is a corporate giveaway. So what specifically is the Senate doing to serve the American people? And the answer is nothing. And that's what he wants. He's serving his corporate donors, as is Kirsten Sinema. So I just, again, I want to remind you how ridiculous this is. Kirsten Sinema, Joe Manchin, supposed Democrats, are choosing a Senate rule over democracy itself. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that if voting rights reform isn't passed, democracy as we know it will be further eroded. And it is already the case that our democracy is fatally flawed. So we have to continuously work to improve democracy, expand voting access, expand suffrage to more people, consolidate democracy, offer more civil rights and civil liberties, but we're going backwards. And at a time where we just need the bare minimum to hang on a little bit longer, Kirsten Sinema is saying, no, fuck that. I support this rule in the Senate over our literal democracy. It's truly disgusting. If you actually live in Arizona, if you're her constituent, her number is 202-224-4521. Give her a call and let her know how dissatisfied you are. Give her a call and let her know that her being a Republican and serving the interests of her corporate donors isn't going to lead to you voting for her. I'm sure that she doesn't care. I don't even think she is worried about a primary challenge. She probably won't even seek re-election. Who knows? I think she's just a sociopath. But I mean, this is truly disgusting. Don't let her make you believe that she supports voting rights. When she's choosing to not even allow a carve-out to the filibuster to pass the bare minimum with respect to voting rights reform, it's disgusting. But I mean, this is really par for the chorus for individuals as corrupt as Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, to be fair.