Joe Manchin: Why I'm voting against the For the People Act

[demmiblue]

The right to vote is fundamental to our American democracy and protecting that right should not be about party or politics. Least of all, protecting this right, which is a value I share, should never be done in a partisan manner.

During my time as West Virginia’s secretary of state, I was determined to protect this right and ensure our elections are fair, accessible and secure. Not to benefit my party but all the people of West Virginia. For example, as secretary of state I took specific actions to establish early voting for the first time in West Virginia in order to provide expanded options for those whose work or family schedule made it difficult for them to vote on Election Day. Throughout my tenure in politics, I have been guided by this simple philosophy — our party labels can’t prevent us from doing what is right.

Unfortunately, we now are witnessing that the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized. Today’s debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.

As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/op_ed_commentaries/joe-manchin-why-im-voting-against-the-for-the-people-act/article_c7eb2551-a500-5f77-aa37-2e42d0af870f.html

Link to tweet

[joetheman]

1. NO WORDS!

[Blues Heron]

2. Well Im sure Mitch will be happy to hear this.

your own party - not so much.

[ChrisF1961]

3. He should be stripped of all committee assignments

[tritsofme]

40. Oh, do you think Manchin would vote for a resolution that stripped his committee assignments?

[ChrisF1961]

58. He doesn't have to vote for it

Schumer can do it.

[tritsofme]

61. Yes, Manchin would have to vote for it. No, Schumer can't just "do it"

Schumer just can’t boot Manchin off of committees or strip him of a chairmanship by fiat, the whole Senate would need to pass a new organizing resolution. This is normally a perfunctory task, but Republicans could deny cloture to the new resolution, and Manchin has no incentive to be an instrument in his own punishment.

Further, if Democrats really tried to move forward, Manchin could simply flip to the Republicans, where McConnell would surely promise him that chairmanship or whatever else he wanted.

[ChrisF1961]

62. You're wrong

A new organizing resolution doesn’t need to be passed. The current one gives Schumer the power to make democratic committee assignments.

[tritsofme]

63. You are absolutely wrong. The current organizing resolution gives no such power.

It spells out all committee assignments and chairs. Any changes require a new resolution, that is subject to cloture.

This isn’t very complicated.

[ChrisF1961]

64. Nope

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-resolution/27?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22S.%20Res.%2027%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

[tritsofme]

65. That's not the right resolution...here you go.

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/sres28/BILLS-117sres28ats.pdf

[ChrisF1961]

66. That's a subsequent resolution

Not the primary organizing resolution. The subsequent ones are submitted by the leader of each party whenever committee assignments are changed. They are passed by unanimous consent. Schumer has the power to kick Manchin off of all committees.

[tritsofme]

67. Right...and that resolution is subject to cloture. Manchin or any Republican could object to

unanimous consent and force Schumer to find 60 votes to kick Manchin off his committees.

Surely you remember just a couple months ago, Republicans obstructed these resolutions for weeks, and during that time Republicans retained the gavels, and new members lacked any committee assignments? These resolutions aren’t automatic.

Do you really think Manchin would be a willing participant in his own punishment? Give me a break.

[ChrisF1961]

69. No the Republicans obstructed the primary resolution

not the subsequent ones. The subsequent ones are always passed by unanimous consent. There is no upside for republicans to obstruct a revision to committee assignments because democrats could retaliate if and when they need to change committee assignments. It is solely up to Schumer.

[tritsofme]

71. I would absolutely agree with you, before the last few years.

Republicans could play all sorts of games with this vote to make it painful for Democrats, and we should assume they would. And it ignores the simple fact, that before it ever got this far, Manchin could just flip to the Republicans.

Schumer has no real leverage, there’s no point in pretending he does.

[ChrisF1961]

72. Again

there is no upside for republicans to do that. If one of their Senators resigns or dies they would need to submit a new resolution for committee assignments and democrats could obstruct it in retaliation. And if Manchin became a Republican he would be slitting her own throat. He voted for Trump’s impeachment twice. He would be challenged in a Republican primary and lose.

[Buns_of_Fire]

4. Correction, dear Senator: Protecting the right to vote

should never HAVE to be done in a partisan manner. It looks like that's the way it's lining up, though.

Since you've apparently chosen to align yourself with your Good Friends from Across the Aisle, I suppose we have a fundamental problem here.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Translated: in 2022, we need 52-53 Democrats in the Senate as we can

write off Sinema and Manchin -- assuming that Republicans don't buy off the extra 2-3 Dems needed to pass the Voting Rights Act.

[temporary311]

32. Thanks to Manchin,

we won't have the house by then, so even if we do gain more Senate seats (which Manchin has all but guaranteed we won't,) the only thing coming from the Republican HoR from 22-24 will be endless impeachments.

[Progressive Jones]

68. I believe that Manchin and Sinema are playing both sides of the street.

They're both shitting on the voters and the party that allowed them into the Senate.

I know that Manchin has voted reliably Dem so far, but he's backing off when it comes to legislation that actually matters.

I don't know what Sinemas' problem is, but she doesn't seem to want to dance with those who brought her. She's from AZ, so maybe the Short Bus Militia threatened her.

[Bettie]

6. So, to recap

he's totally 100% cool with all of the voter suppression bills in multiple state legislatures, but finds it to be "partisan" to ensure that people have a fucking right to vote.

[Bucky]

9. If you stand up to a bully, don't you become a bully too?

Manchin is why people say Democrats are weak.

[Bettie]

10. Yep. That covers it

I am so done with this asshat.

[bamagal62]

20. I said this the other day and people jumped all over me.

Fu$k him.

[Bettie]

25. Yeah, they usually do that

to everyone.

Honestly, I suspect that his most ardent defenders aren't up yet. I'm sure that we'll see the deluge of "Well, he is a good Democrat anyway".

[Efilroft Sul]

26. They'll be along to Manchinsplain any minute now.

[Phoenix61]

39. Yes he is. nt

[Johonny]

56. Yes, the fact the GOP is passing partisan voter suppression bills doesn't affect his thinking at all

And he seems totally oblivious to the fact the GOP has no intension of a bi-partisan voter rights bill because they're actively passing partisan ones.

And no, the current bill is not partisan. He's just an *. It's that simple. He has no respect for us. We see what's happening. He thinks we're stupid.

[Scottie Mom]

12. Twice!

😡😡😡

[Bucky]

8. I just read this and posted in the Editorials board

Because he's worried about Democrats trying to rule with "absolute power," he's allowing McConnell to block everything with absolute power.

If I thought he meant this sincerely, I could forgive him for being just plain dumb. I still don't know his reasons, but Joe Manchin is not dumb. Maybe he really thinks he's holding the nation together. Maybe he thinks he and Lisa Murkowski can pull a rabbit out their hats.

But his methods right now are co-dependent on Republican abuse of black, brown, poor, elderly, and college-age voters.



Do you want to know why people think Democrats are weak? It's Joe Manchin right now. He's knuckling under to McConnell's bullying.

[pwb]

11. When we win more Senate seats Manchin will be dog shit.

Who needs spoilers like No Joe in a progressive party.

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. He'll be dog shit if we LOSE Senate seats, too.

A subtlety I don't think the boy has fully processed yet.

[Ace Rothstein]

29. Nah. He doesn't care if the Republicans have the majority.

[Buns_of_Fire]

43. True, but if he thinks his "Good Friends" are going to *continue*

being his "Good Friends" when he's a back-bencher in the minority party...

So, he could just follow his heart and switch parties. Fine. But once he's served his purpose as their useful idiot, he won't have any juice there, either.

[Boydog]

17. I think it's ok. His status as a Dem is questionable.

[3Hotdogs]

13. I am going for my first hide of the month,

I SOUNDLY CRITICIZE THIS DEMOCRAT !

[questionseverything]

14. Maybe no senators should be seated with out 60 percent of the vote

He complains about “securing elections “

Exactly what does he want secured that isn’t?

He is echoing McConnell who comes from a state that still has paperless voting machines, nothing could be less secure

[StarfishSaver]

16. When every Republican refuses to vote for something, it tends to be "partisan"

So he's saying that as long as Republicans refuse to do the right thing, he won't do the right thing, to either.

Real statesman you got there, West Virginia.

[Alien Life Form]

18. Lincoln could have taken a page from Manchin

and said he will not end slavery until he gets bipartisan agreement with the slave holders!


Same nonsense!

He will not weaken the filibuster but he will weaken the vote!

TOTAL BULLSHIT masquerading AS PRINCIPLES!!

[bamagal62]

21. If we find another democrat to run against him,

I will give lots of money. I hate him.

[Scrivener7]

44. No other Democrat would win against him, and then we'd get the republiQan. What we

need is for him to stay and do whatever shenanigans he's going to do, and flip more Senate seats.

His presence is one more number that gets us the control of the Senate. West Virginia is never going to vote for Democratic things, but as long as he has a D in front of his name, he helps us as much as we can get help from West Virginia.

So we need another D Senator from more purple states.

[bamagal62]

46. How's that D next to his name working for us so far?

[Sympthsical]

22. It's one thing to leave the filibuster, but to actively vote against?

So as long as Republicans offer absolute obstruction, Manchin will throw in with it against the Democratic Party.

I can find no other way to interpret his stated attitude here.

[sop]

23. "During my time as West Virginia's secretary of state..."

West Virginia was once a staunchly Democratic state. It's now Republican, and by a wide margin. Their governor switched parties; he's now a Republican, but still more progressive than Manchin. I suspect Manchin will switch party affiliation before long.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

24. If I say it, I'll break several forum rules.

Many others wish to say it as well, I'm sure.

[bamagal62]

34. Say it! And then I'll hope I'm asked to be on the jury!😂!

[Polybius]

42. Don't say it

Multiple posts have already been removed.

[uponit7771]

27. Put it up to vote anyway and get his vote on cloture etc on record

Last edited Sun Jun 6, 2021, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[Takket]

28. then it's over

there will be no stopping the waves of voter suppression in red controlled states. we can forget about Warnock getting reelected in Georgia, there will be no turning Texas blue... etc etc

the only glimmer of hope is that Mark Elias can get the voter suppression laws thrown out in the courts but even then all these lawsuits will inevitably be appealed to SCOTUS, where we only have 3 of the 9 votes.

[superpatriotman]

30. And there's your answer

Is there any chance of changing some forum rules for this case?

[edhopper]

31. In other words

we must find a way to stop Bank robberies with both the Police and Bank Robbers working together.
I won't support a solution where the Cops just stop and arrest the Robbers.

[roamer65]

33. DC statehood NOW!!!!

[bamagal62]

35. This!

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Manchin: Republicans can take away your rights, and I don't care (nt)

[dawg]

37. Joe is the best we can expect out of West Virginia.

Let's buckle down in 2022 and gain at least two more Senate seats. Then we can have this conversation again.

[aocommunalpunch]

47. What conversation?

Two sides are not talking with each other here. One side says there's nothing that can be done about him and the other side says they want him to suffer SOME form of consequence. There is no compromise to be had, thus where is the conversation? This is just a ridiculous dance.

[dawg]

50. The conversation about passing this legislation.

Let's have it again in 2022 when, hopefully, we have 52 or more Democratic Senators and no one will have to give a shit about what Joe Manchin thinks.

[Mr. Sparkle]

38. He hates been in the majority and having to work for a living!

[Goodheart]

41. Let's face it. Manchin believes in self-preservation over actually doing things for people.

It wouldn't be fair to call him a fool, because he's found his cushy spot.

[uponit7771]

45. I don't see how he preserves his seat by removing access to vote for mostly democrats

[Goodheart]

48. Well, he obviously gets and counts on lots of crossover votes.

[Buns_of_Fire]

49. And while the Trumplicans are already discouraging their *own* voters

by the constant "it was rigged" / "bamboo ballot" BS...

[dalton99a]

51. The homeowner and the arsonist must learn to get along. Compromise, please!

A possible solution:

Homeowner: Promise not to call 911 when the arsonist burns down your house

Arsonist: Try and avoid burning the house when the homeowner is in bed

[Happy Hoosier]

52. Holy Fuck. NT

[UCmeNdc]

53. This is why the Democratic party cannot ever bury the Republicans....

Too many Democratic Politicians fail the average voter when they ask for their help when needed.

Now a lot of voters are going to stay home next time around simply because of Joe manchin's stubbornness.

[In It to Win It]

54. I think he's mentioned before that he wouldn't vote for the FTP act

But he would support the John Lewis Voting Rights Act

[Lancero]

55. And this is what the people who defend Manchin support.

[Volaris]

57. '...protecting this right.. should never be done in a partisan manner..'

Ok now THATS COMPLETE bullshit. If one of our parties not only has decided NOT TO protect it, but is actively working to undermine and marginalize it for their own benefit, it for damn sure SHOULD be protected on a solely partisan basis.

Hey joe!, you know who USED TO UNDERSTAND THIS?
The goddamn REPUBLICAN PARTY.

So much so, that 150 years ago, THAT PARTY enforced voting rights via the straight-up Union Army, with federally-funded rifles wielded by american soldiers ON AMERICAN SOIL, AGAINST THIER OWN FELLOW CITIZENS and the opposing party had to LITERALLY give up control of the federal government for a time in order to get it to stop.

I was completely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for as long as I could. But THIS ARGUMENT is utter trash.

[JCMach1]

59. This F'ing asshat wouldn't know a fascist from a hole in the ground.

Enough already

[tonedevil]

60. He just has a soft spot in his heart...

for good old-fashioned white supremacy.

[budkin]

70. GET IN HERE MANCHIN DEFENDERS!

Talk to us again about how great it is that Manchin is a Democrat and we have the majority.

[Nexus2]

73. The motivation for his stance seems really clear to me

Manchin is a coward who knows that if he votes for it to overturn the filibuster he will be defeated in the next election. He values his career over his country. There's nothing more complicated to it than that.

IMO, this is a wide spread outlook among elected officials Many politicians really seem to value their jobs over their country and even the lives and well being of their constituents.