Manchin's hometown paper - Sen. Manchin: Pass the Freedom to Vote Act

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.timeswv.com/opinion/editorials/sen-manchin-pass-the-freedom-to-vote-act/article_246f889e-755f-11ec-ba1f-c3beffbf5289.html

Had Martin Luther King Jr. not been gunned down in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968, while visiting that city to try and help sanitation workers obtain a livable wage, he would turn 93 years old on Jan. 15.

His legacy of nonviolent resistance, fighting for civil rights and equality for what he termed “Black and Brown people” is a fight that continues to this day.

One of the key bills he fought for is no longer valid, struck down June 25, 2013, by a right-leaning U.S. Supreme Court in a ruling now commonly referred to as Shelby Co. vs. Holder. In that ruling, the court sent forever to the history books important guardrails that had been created by passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Voting Rights Act required Southern states that had historically used Jim Crow tactics since Reconstruction to limit Black and Brown citizens’ access to the voting booth to obtain pre-clearance from the U.S. Justice Department for any changes in their state elections laws.

With a growing number of misled Americans believing the 2020 presidential election is invalid, many states have rushed to enact laws that will make it even more difficult for minorities to vote.

*snip*

[lapucelle]

1. Joe Manchin is one of the seven original co-sponsors of the Freedom to Vote Act.

Not only does Manchin already support the Freedom to Vote Act, but he will also he vote for it. Surely his home town newspaper knows that.

The editorial board should have been more forthright and accurate in its headline. It could have had the courage to explicitly argue for either a carve out or an end to the filibuster rule. This is no time for empty gestures by journalists.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2747/cosponsors?r=52

[Salviati]

2. They explicitly call for it in the conclusion of the editorial:

All the public keeps hearing about is protecting Senate rules, which speaks of plain and simple politics, not governing, not advancing America forward, which is every lawmakers’ job. It’s time the conversation shifts to protecting democracy — plain and simple.

What you do, Sen. Manchin, speaks so loudly we cannot hear what you say.

Stand up for America, not some contrived thing called the filibuster.

[lapucelle]

3. The editorial board references the filibuster in the last sentence,

but the editorial is about the bill itself and what it seeks to restore. It is an argument supporting a piece of legislation. The editorial board, in effect, buries the lede.

It would have taken courage and greater skill to argue the point that really needs to be made, and the newspaper chose to go the easier route. That's unfortunate.

[ShazzieB]

5. "Stand up for America, not some contrived thing called the filibuster."

Did you read the whole article. That's the final line in the editorial, and I think it's a fitting conclusion.

Yes, the headline could have been a lot better, but headlines are usually written by copy editors, and they're usually worded so as to attract attention above all else. Which kind of stinks, but for that reason, it's not fair to assume that the headline on this (or any other newspaper article) is always going to be an accurate expression of the intent of the article.

Could this piece have been better? Sure, but that doesn't make it an "empty gesture." It gives plenty of credit to Manchin for his contributions to the bill, then concludes as follows:

All the public keeps hearing about is protecting Senate rules, which speaks of plain and simple politics, not governing, not advancing America forward, which is every lawmakers’ job. It’s time the conversation shifts to protecting democracy — plain and simple.

What you do, Sen. Manchin, speaks so loudly we cannot hear what you say.

Stand up for America, not some contrived thing called the filibuster.

An empty gesture? No, I really don't think so.

[MyOwnPeace]

7. THANK YOU!!!!

What a clear, concise argument defending what I believe the editorial was saying: "Do the RIGHT thing!"

[lapucelle]

8. Of course I read the whole thing.

That final sentence should have been the headline. That's the only thing many people do read.

[SheltieLover]

4. Good!

[colorado_ufo]

6. Yeah . . . like he cares.