3 ms·

My read is she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it I’m not saying this is incorrect. But it’s politically incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  They don't need a monument, just a re-election slogan. "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine The allegation is Cantwell is bombing these bills so she can keep claiming to her constituents that she's fighting to pass them. If she straight up came out and changed her mind on privacy, sure, that would resolve the conundrum, but that sidesteps the dilemma instead of solving it.
- freddie_mercury 3y ago
  "Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents." I don't understand this claim. No matter how I parse it, it seems wrong. If by "national bill" you mean legislation, then lots of non-Presidents get bills named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_... If by "national bill" you mean money, then 28% of bills are for non-Presidents. https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 What "personal national bill" are you referring to?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    With very few exceptions, legislators don’t get a bill that they single-handedly draft and pass that has national implications. On occasion, for totally local issues, they’ll have the power to ram something through. But if it has national implications, it will be the work of many. Cantwell tanking bills just because it has co-sponsors doesn’t make sense.
joe_the_user 3y ago
There are a non-negative number of compromise bills that are worth less than nothing. There's no way I was able to tell from the article's text whether Cantwell was blocking things that were legitimately valuable or complete garbage (ie, use the word "privacy" offer only block stronger privacy guarantee, etc). Statement like, "Again and again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against colleagues’ efforts and not empowering her staff to fully negotiate." say nothing at all.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  As an addendum, it occurs to me that the article's authors could have looked up the public statements that these aids these were referring to and so have given the reader an idea what bills she was opposing as contrasted with what bills she favored. But I could find no mention of this in the article.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  I would hope that her own aides would choose a more positive phrasing if they believed she was doing good work by holding out against worse than nothing bills.
  - joe_the_user 3y ago
    The one clear thing is that the unnamed aids are complaining about Cantwell. The article gives no real details which one could use to determine what the criticism is about exactly, never mind who is right. Vaguely I guess that if they had criticism that would resonate with people, they say it and so I'm vaguely skeptical of these aids. But my main reaction is "wow, here's an article about nothing that people actually read as stiff criticism"
  - nyokodo 3y ago
    > her own aides would choose a more positive phrasing if they believed she was doing good work Because it’s not a quote in context the phrasing belongs to the journalist not the aides.

> she needs to be known as the one who saved us. Compromise has too many names on it I’m not saying this is incorrect. But it’s politically incoherent. Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents.

jvanderbot 3y ago
They don't need a monument, just a re-election slogan. "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > "I blocked the doomsday bill" works fine The allegation is Cantwell is bombing these bills so she can keep claiming to her constituents that she's fighting to pass them. If she straight up came out and changed her mind on privacy, sure, that would resolve the conundrum, but that sidesteps the dilemma instead of solving it.
freddie_mercury 3y ago
"Nobody gets a personal national bill except Presidents." I don't understand this claim. No matter how I parse it, it seems wrong. If by "national bill" you mean legislation, then lots of non-Presidents get bills named after them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_a_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_named_for_... If by "national bill" you mean money, then 28% of bills are for non-Presidents. https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 https://www.thoughtco.com/faces-on-us-currency-4153995 What "personal national bill" are you referring to?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  With very few exceptions, legislators don’t get a bill that they single-handedly draft and pass that has national implications. On occasion, for totally local issues, they’ll have the power to ram something through. But if it has national implications, it will be the work of many. Cantwell tanking bills just because it has co-sponsors doesn’t make sense.

joe_the_user 3y ago

There are a non-negative number of compromise bills that are worth less than nothing. There's no way I was able to tell from the article's text whether Cantwell was blocking things that were legitimately valuable or complete garbage (ie, use the word "privacy" offer only block stronger privacy guarantee, etc). Statement like, "Again and again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against colleagues’ efforts and not empowering her staff to fully negotiate." say nothing at all.

joe_the_user 3y ago
As an addendum, it occurs to me that the article's authors could have looked up the public statements that these aids these were referring to and so have given the reader an idea what bills she was opposing as contrasted with what bills she favored. But I could find no mention of this in the article.
tedunangst 3y ago
I would hope that her own aides would choose a more positive phrasing if they believed she was doing good work by holding out against worse than nothing bills.
- joe_the_user 3y ago
  The one clear thing is that the unnamed aids are complaining about Cantwell. The article gives no real details which one could use to determine what the criticism is about exactly, never mind who is right. Vaguely I guess that if they had criticism that would resonate with people, they say it and so I'm vaguely skeptical of these aids. But my main reaction is "wow, here's an article about nothing that people actually read as stiff criticism"
- nyokodo 3y ago
  > her own aides would choose a more positive phrasing if they believed she was doing good work Because it’s not a quote in context the phrasing belongs to the journalist not the aides.