Paging Joe Manchin

[EarlG]

"I think we'll come together. You have to have faith there's ten good people," he added, referring to the 10 Republicans that Democrats need to reach the 60-vote threshold.

https://www.axios.com/manchin-filibuster-jan-6-commission-senate-3b46fd81-2d30-4446-992d-ce7d8a2c989c.html

That was Joe Manchin yesterday.

Well Joe, there's not going to be a bipartisan 1/6 Commission now because 35 out of 100 Senators didn't want one, overruling the 54 Senators who did.

Any further thoughts on the filibuster and on "having faith that there's ten good people?"

[Takket]

1. I hear Pollyanna just called Manchin

She told him to get a grip on reality already.

[SoCalDavidS]

2. There Are Probably At Least 5 Democrats Against Eliminating Filibuster

Manchin just happens to be the most prominent, since nobody realizes how many there are. He's giving them all cover, but I assure you that he's not the only roadblock.

[EarlG]

4. Certainly that's the case

Perhaps if he could stop giving them cover, it might be easier to get the others on board.

I actually think that Manchin probably is a principled guy, even if I don't always agree with the positions he takes. I think he probably really is disgusted that the Republicans don't want to have a 1/6 Commission. But I also think that his unwavering fealty to the filibuster is bizarre, and now that his argument that "there must be ten good people" has been blown out of the water, I'm curious to know his reaction.

[LenaBaby61]

6. "I actually think that Manchin probably is a principled guy."

Friends from West Virginia who fled that place when he came to power would vehemently disagree with you.

[EarlG]

11. Fair enough (nt)

[Haggard Celine]

8. It sort of reminds me of the story of

the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lott asked God if he would give up his plans to destroy the cities. He asked God if he would save Sodom if he could find 10 good people. Lott couldn't find them. It's like Joe Manchin trying to find 10 good Republicans. So much for saving the Senate.

[TwilightZone]

15. Why does he get all the blame?

I find this attitude on DU to be, frankly, mind-boggling. Does anyone really think the rest of them would just fall in line if only he would reconsider? Sinema? Feinstein? Sure.

DU almost as a whole insists that he's the sole roadblock to everything. That's nonsense. Feinstein is at least as adamant that the filibuster remain, and yet outside of an occasional blurb, her position is almost entirely ignored.

At least Manchin has an excuse - he is filling the role that his constituents want him to play. It's why they elected him. Of course, we only care about one's constituents if they agree with us most of the time. Otherwise, screw 'em.

What's Feinstein's excuse?

Sinema is even more extreme - she wants 60 votes on *everything*.

Ah, but it's all Manchin, all the time. The excuse seems to be that he's the most public, which is certainly true, but at least we know where he stands and why he takes the positions he does. Feinstein hides in the weeds and then proclaims that she had no clue that the topic was even up for discussion, even though she's made several statements (in opposition) in the past. Which is worse?

The funny thing is...we could get Manchin on the filibuster and almost assuredly nothing would change. Then what?

[EarlG]

17. There are different -- legitimate -- reasons to complain about each, I'd say

FWIW I've defended Manchin on DU before. My feeling about him is that a great deal of what he says is directed at the specific constituency he caters to in West Virigina. I don't really have a problem with anything that he says, as long as he's not DOING things to hurt Democratic causes. He voted for the ACA, and to convict Trump post-impeachment (twice). He's typically steady when it comes to needing his vote on key issues.

In this particular case he's the person who most vocally supports keeping the filibuster, for reasons which -- in light of this recent partisan 35-54 victory for Republicans -- just don't hold up. If he's going to publicly defend the filibuster as a tool to improve bipartisanship, or that there are ten good Republicans who will stand up and do the right thing, then he should probably explain himself after today's vote.

[TwilightZone]

25. I think we're looking at it entirely from the wrong direction.

The assertion that Manchin provides the others cover, in my opinion, is exactly the opposite of what is true. While Manchin knows - and he quite certainly does - that there are other holdouts, he has exactly zero motivation to change his position. Why should he? As I noted, at least his reasoning is sound, from the perspective of his constituents, even if we strongly disagree with it. That can't be said of some of the others.

What we should be doing is focusing on the others. If Manchin was then the only holdout, Dems would have much more leverage in getting him to cross the line.

Sinema didn't even vote today.

[EarlG]

32. Fair points

I'm not sure Manchin has zero motivation -- certainly from a political perspective it's unlikely to hurt him in WV if he doesn't change his opinion on the filibuster, but going on record repeatedly to talk about how he has faith in Republicans to do the right thing, only to get clowned over and over again, may eventually cause him to feel some personal measure of affront. Maybe not though.

That's kinda why my OP was about Manchin specifically, because I do wonder how he feels about today's vote. Going by his statement yesterday, he does feel strongly about having a Jan. 6 investigation.

Link to tweet

But yeah, if we want filibuster reform it's not just Manchin who needs to be brought around.

[iemanja]

30. Feinstein gets a lot of heat around here too. nt

[lagomorph777]

31. WV elected Manchin to help the GQP steal their democracy? To defend the Filibuster?

What percentage of the electorate has ever even heard of the Filibuster?

It makes no sense at all that they elected him so he could hurt them.

[brush]

16. 54 votes for it, including 6 republicans, seems to point to 48 Dems and/or Ind....

accounted for. We know Sinema skipped the vote, along with 10 others, so with Manchin voting for it indicates one or two other Dems may be against it. Difi is probably one of them. Who else is suspect?

[Ilsa]

3. Hey Senator Manchin:

[dalton99a]

5. Faith that pigs can fly

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Such a surprise, considering that "there are good people on both sides". nt

[SoonerPride]

9. Hey Joe, NAME THE 10 GOOD REPUBLICANS

Name them.

Can’t?

Then stop saying this insane shit.

[Nanjeanne]

10. When the 34 votes against become more meaningful than the 54 votes for - we have a disfunctional

Senate - an absurd process for getting anything done and a useless Congress. Why not a simple majority? How does 34 votes win? I am so freaking tired of the inanity of our government rules.

[EarlG]

13. No doubt

Not only that, but a BIPARTISAN majority wanted to debate the bill, and a PARTISAN minority killed it. Not only is this not even close to the way democracy should work, it's the opposite of what Joe Manchin et al say they believe is the purpose of the filibuster -- to improve bipartisanship and foster unity.

[brush]

18. Yep, minority rules. That's not democracy. The filibuster is just a republican tool...

to always have control whether they are in the majority or the minority in the Senate.

[Moostache]

27. See, that is where you're wrong...

54 votes to 35 votes = Democrats lose (January 6th commission)

54 votes to 45 votes = Republicans win (Gorsuch)
52 votes to 48 votes = Republicans win (Comey-Barrett)
50 votes to 48 votes = Republicans win (Kavanaugh)

Difference?
Filibuster rules for judges was nuked by the turtle.

Our side?
Ask that fucking traitor Joe Manchin how concerned he is now...

[erronis]

29. Thanks for that list. Succinct and to the point. nt

[gulliver]

12. Hopefully he just needed Republicans to officially cross the red line.

Now he knows Republicans will cover up even an assault on the United States Capitol by their people. If that's not "destroying the government" more than eliminating the filibuster, I don't know what is.

[ZonkerHarris]

41. I say he won't do a damn thing. He's happy today.

[librechik]

14. Manchin, party of 10? Manchin? Damn I hate these no shows.

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. Pelosi will create a HSC to investigate January 6; meanwhile, pressing Manchin is top priority

Watch video to learn how folks can put pressure on Manchin, Sinema and any other democracy-hesitant Dem senators to end the filibuster and pass HR1:

[msfiddlestix]

24. I'm not sure I can put my finger on why exactly,

but somehow I just don't think ole joe manchin will be persuaded with this message.

I could be wrong, though.

[world wide wally]

20. Somebody explain to me how this preserves democracy?

I thought democracy was synonymous with majority rules.

[BGBD]

34. No

Pure majority rules democracy just allows for tyranny of the majority. The filibuster is why we still have things like ACA and the department of Education. Otherwise Republicans would have just done whatever they wanted with unified control.

[msfiddlestix]

21. Well Done!

[Joinfortmill]

22. Vote. It's up to us.

[Autumn]

23. We did vote. In fact we won the Senate and House majority. Odd how the Republicans could get

whtever they wanted passed with 50 votes and we need more. 54 votes for it and 34 against. The 34 NAYS have it.
Tht is the most absurd thing I have ever seen.

[BGBD]

35. What

things did they get passed? The first two years when Trump had control of congress, he got one piece of his agenda passed and that was through reconciliation. He couldn't get his signature legislation, ACA repeal, infrastructure, or anything else.

[Autumn]

37. One? Not true, Mitch passed 442 bills into law. Shitty bills, knowing the pukes, but more than one.

Between its inception in January 2017 and its final day on Jan. 3, the GOP-led 115th Congress enacted 442 public laws, the most since the 110th Congress (2007-09).

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

[BGBD]

40. so a bunch of junk bills?

One piece of Trumps actual agenda got through. We aren't talking about extending the Farm Bill or a bill to enact a War on Terror memorial here.

Democrats were able to block basically everything that Trump campaigned on doing from getting through congress, which is why he had to use so many executive orders, and why Biden has been able to reverse so much of what Trump did.

[Autumn]

42. No one was talking about Trumps agenda, Trumps campaign was all bullshit. Mitch passed the

bills that that he wanted. Like the tax bill, that wasn't junk, Schumer called it "awful legislation" for one.

[BGBD]

43. No he didn't

There were lots of bills Mitch wanted and couldn't pass.

What did he pass with 50 votes, as the above posted claimed?

[Autumn]

45. There were a lot Mitch wanted that he did pass using simple majority.

During Trumps admin Mitch passed 442 bills into law, a far cry from the 1 you said he wanted. In 2017, the Senate, led by Mitch eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I parphased from this
https://indivisible.org/resource/congress-101-filibuster

[BGBD]

46. We eliminated

The judicial filibuster first.

What did he pass with 50 votes other than tax reform?

[KS Toronado]

26. Kept hearing we needed a 60 vote threshold

Well we had 89 Senators vote and 54 voted for a commission, 54 of 89 is .6067%
Is this not good enough? It's just over sixty percent.

[turbinetree]

28. Hey Joe......now what...your quote:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) blasted his GOP colleagues Thursday for their opposition, writing in a statement, "There is no excuse for any Republican to vote against this commission since Democrats have agreed to everything they asked for."

"Mitch McConnell has made this his political position, thinking it will help his 2022 elections," the conservative Democrat observed. "They do not believe the truth will set you free, so they continue to live in fear."

Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.

https://americanindependent.com/republicans-senate-block-january-6-capitol-riot-commission/

Now what Joe?

[Imallin4Joe]

33. well said! recd

[Crunchy Frog]

36. Careful. You might get alerted on for "attacking Democrats".

[BlueNProud]

38. There's zero good people over there Joe.

[dlk]

39. Someone should ask Manchin

How would changing or eliminating the filibuster “destroy our government”? Currently, we have minority rule. Who does that serve?

[WarGamer]

44. I'll take DINO Joe every day of the week

Rather than party switcher Joe that makes Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley Majority Leader.

But yeah, it's frustrating... but I don't see an option.

[Nexus2]

47. I find myself agreeing with Mehdi Hasan just said on All In (extended show tonught)

which isn't something I often do. Joe Manchin comes across as not very bright, at least not fully aware of what's going on or the importance of it.

As Hassan pointed out, he did say at one time that "the American people should vote on a Constitutional amendment" and that's not quite how it works... :-/