The Squad was right to vote against infrastructure bill Part 4: Manchin "starts over" on BBB

[wellst0nev0ter]

Once again, the good senator from West Virginia has erased all his commitments on negotiating Biden's signature domestic agenda and has gone back to square one. We are not dealing with a good-faith negotiator.

He doesn't need to do anything in good faith anymore, since we gave up all our leverage when we passed the bipartisan infrastructure deal.

Before that, we had a real chance of bringing him toward the middle. As I have said repeatedly, Manchin was way too invested in BIF to abandon the bill: he even cut campaign commercials about what he was delivering for West Virginians.

The BIF was also Sinema's pet project to prove that the bipartisanship pony still works. The two Manchinemas would be risking too much to blow up the whole thing.

The Squad has been pilloried on this board and elsewhere for not supporting the infrastructure bill and for aligning themselves with the goops. What their vote actually means is that they wanted to hold on to the BIF until they extract firm commitments on BBB from Manchinema.

This whole negotiating process was a pageantry of what NOT to do when dealmaking. You use BIF as a bargaining chip. You don't fall for the bluff and give away the whole farm while securing nothing in return.

We should have treated Manchinema as single votes needed to pass the BBB: no more, no less. That means giving them one-fiftieth of the pound of flesh they are owed, then making them vote up or down on the bill they don't think is perfect but they are able to live with.

You do NOT give them line-item veto power.

Manchin is not switching to the goop party, unless he wants to end his political career. He voted to convict the former guy twice, and that is a dealbreaker for the trumpanzees. His only political future is with the Democrats, and we should have made him fall in line.

When the Democratic leadership decided to split the bills, progressives said this would happen.

When Manchinema dragged out the process for months on end, progressives said this would happen.

When the Democratic leadership decided to pass BIF by itself, progressives said this would happen.

Maybe it is high time we start listening to progressives.

Link to tweet

Some people here think it is savvy to break all the rules in dealmaking and leave trillions of dollars on the negotiating table. Those people are now deservingly and thoroughly discredited, and they should work toward doing everything to salvage Democrats' chances for the midterm instead of blaming progressives or the Squad for this mess. They can start by doing full-court pressure on Manchinema based on the demand laid out by Tlaib, and no less.

[Scrivener7]

1. .

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. Indeed, there is no room for rebuttal

The detractors of the Squad have been thoroughly discredited.

[Scrivener7]

3. .

[FoxNewsSucks]

46. Progressives told us this would happen.

Too bad they weren't listened to. Shameful, that it's OK to some for conservadems to torpedo Biden's agenda.

[DLevine]

4. K&R. nt

[msongs]

5. one suspec ts manchin's final stance was always going to happen nt

[JohnSJ]

6. "some people here"? Do you know what a 50-50 Senate means? Instead of focusing on attacks

against Manchin and Sinema, it is much prudent to look to gaining more seats in the Senate for the midterms to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant

They are not irrelevant now because we need them for the majority.

Why is that important? JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

Also, there are other legislative things that can be done still, and that includes breaking down the BBB

[wellst0nev0ter]

13. "We were unsuccessful, keep voting for us" is never a winning campaign message

[Demsrule86]

64. Really? I suppose putting Republicans in office would move progressive policies along.

I think that has been tried before and led to dreadful consequences...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

58. Remember when people said that it had to be Biden because he could work across the aisle?

I remember that. I remember asking what Biden was going to get passed without 60 Dems in the Senate and i was assured it would b fantastic.

Remember when progressives said negotiating on this bill was stupid? I also remember that.

[JohnSJ]

65. That was the illustrious media. I never heard anyone here believe that we could get anything passed

with 60 votes.

However, I would like to remind you that the Bipartisan infrastructure bill DID PASS with 10 republican votes, something that hadn't been done in quite a while.

Another thing that some either don't realize or forgot, is by gaining the majority we were able to make judicial appointments, and President Biden was able to get 42 judicial nominees through in his first year, in spite of major delay tactics by the repugs, and that was WITH both Manchin and Sinema voting for those judicial nominees. They are probably the most diverse judicial nominees that we have had. That is a big deal, and will continue to be so through at least 2022. In addition, I believe that is the most judicial nominations a President has done in their first year.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-12-22/bidens-judicial-nominations-diversity-federal-courts

As for your statement: "progressives said negotiating on this bill was stupid", I assume you meant the BBB. That was NOT because of the republicans, but because of Manchin and Sinema. What you are characterizing as "progressives", I assume you mean the progressive caucus, which by the way, that caucus was NOT uniformly opposed to the negotiations, because they realized in order to get something passed, with a 50-50 Senate, and two Democratic Senators who were obstacles to that legislation, this might be a way to move them.

It didn't work out, and now they will try to break that bill up to see if we can get things passed in separate bills.

This is the environment we are in, and in order to remedy that, the midterms will be critical.

While the talking heads, and cynics say there is no way we will gain seats in the midterms, because history tells us that, and we will even lose seats because of the polls, and people decide not to vote because of that, then we will lose for sure.

Hopefully, people have learned their lessons from 2016 and 2020, and we will come out in force, in spite of the voting suppressions being implemented in several critical states

[cinematicdiversions]

7. Yes we would be much better off with nothing...

Should I do the eye rolling thing as well.

Here is my two cents Force the republicans to vote against hearing aids and dental for seniors... seriously force the vote get them on record.

[wellst0nev0ter]

10. We were able to pass the Rescue Act

Because we didn't budge from Manchinema and we exacted leverage.

[betsuni]

20. No. Unemployment benefit had to be cut from $400 to $300 and the period shortened and

other compromises to get Manchin's vote. It took a lot of effort.

"'Joe,' Biden said, 'you wanted the unemployment smaller. We did that. You wanted certain dates' for the supplemental unemployment benefit. 'We addressed that. You wanted checks targeted. We did that. You know, this is basically it. You need to come along. ... 'Joe,' Biden said, 'if you don't come along, you're really fucking me. I need you on this. Find your way to yes on this.'" (From "Peril" )

[wellst0nev0ter]

21. We gave him his pound of flesh while standing firm

We didn't give away the farm while getting nothing in return.

That's how dealmaking is done.

[betsuni]

23. But you said "we didn't budge." There was budging, as usual. That's how dealmaking is done.

Last edited Thu Jan 20, 2022, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

All or nothing is a populist thing that never works.

[George II]

55. We were able to pass it because it got more Yea than Nay votes. Manchin and Sinema voted for it.

[JustAnotherGen]

8. I haven't seen it - and don't like the 'Squad' moniker

I think if you voted no - you shouldn't be pushing it as a 'yes' vote. There's no 'we' - there's -

They voted for it.
It benefits you.
Here's why I did not vote for it.

Tlaib has a strong challenger in her new district - and she needs to keep that in mind as she messages this.

Honesty works with the Democratic Party base.

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. She has explained her "no" vote already

And everybody who has eye and can see what is happening agrees with her. It is not "savvy" to leave $3.5 trillion on the table.

[JustAnotherGen]

19. She's going to have to

In her campaign

[TexasTowelie]

48. If someone has to explain their vote then that someone has already lost the war.

Explanations don't work well in contemporary politics consisting of 15 to 30 second sound bites.

[betsuni]

49. This?

[wellst0nev0ter]

60. Wrong squad member

[George II]

66. Notice most of them explained their "no" votes AFTER their "no" votes. Fact is, in life....

....AND politics, "no" means "no".

[Cuthbert Allgood]

59. I find it ridiculous

that support exists for Manchin doing what he has to do to keep his seat but there is no support from those same people for The Squad (I'll use that "moniker" because it is what they have called themselves) for doing what they did. What they did DID NOT stop passage of the bill.

[brooklynite]

90. What indication is there that their constituents demanded an all or nothing position?

[onecaliberal]

9. In other news water is wet. Manchin is working with Republicons to block the Biden agenda.

[PortTack]

31. The Dems should ignore manchin. just another cruel time wasting stunt that will come to nothing

[onecaliberal]

32. Someone is paying him to do it.

[PortTack]

35. No doubt!

[budkin]

11. Only those with their head in the sand thought otherwise

It was more than obvious, which is why it was done that way.

[tirebiter]

14. Don't need suicide squads

They overplayed their hand.

[George II]

15. It's "right" for members of Congress to vote against the interests of their constituents? Two...

...voted against repairing and capping the Cross Bronx Expressway, and protecting the health of their constituents, and also protecting subway stations from being flooded, like this (just a month or so before the vote):

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. We already discussed what BIF will allocate to MTA

It's not even enough to cover annual maintenance.

[George II]

26. I was in college at the northern end of the Bowery in the late '60s.....

I'd get stopped by "bums" (the 1960s nomenclature for today's "homeless&quot just about everyday, and was asked for 25 cents or 50 cents or whatever.

More often than not, since I was just a struggling college student, I had to give them less than what they asked. Not ONCE did any of them say, "nah, I need 50 cents so I'll pass."

But since you bring up the MTA (which doesn't maintain highways in NYC, by the way), their annual budget is roughly $18B, 25% of which goes to maintenance.

The MTA's share of BIF is about $10.5B, which would be at least TWO years' maintenance costs, much more than "not even enough to cover annual maintenance".

It's an INFRASTRUCTURE bill, not an operating expenses bill.

[Budi]

45. Geez They voted NO on THIS ⬆️.

But but...they were right!
Go back to NY and convince those people devastated by a failing infrastruture.

Thank the House members who voted YES.

[Emile]

17. Manchin still trying to blow smoke up our asses!

[FrankBooth]

18. The squad didn't push hard enough to kill BIF

I mean, if they were so adamant about their principles at the time they could have applied "full-court pressure" on other Dems to kill BIF. Instead, they cast meaningless 'No' votes, fully aware when they did so that BIF had the votes to pass without them. So now they have another chance to stick to their guns and insist on "the demand laid out by Tlaib, and no less." I'm sure that'll work out quite well.

[JustAnotherGen]

28. This

[WHITT]

22. Yep

The Progressive Caucus had Manchin over a barrel, as he desperately needed the BIF to backup all his bragging to WV, and then the Corporate Dems pulled the rug out from under them.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

24. And by corporate Dems

You mean every Dem except them?

[WHITT]

27. Obviously Not

The House Progressive Caucus is far and away the largest caucus.

[Cha]

25. Why are you trying to

insult Dems like Adam Schiff and Pramila Jaypal and Many More with "Corporate"?!

[WHITT]

30. You're Confused

Pramila Jayapal is CHAIR of the Progressive Caucus.

[Cha]

33. I Know that.. and she voted

with Biden.. she's not in the "squad".

you still haven't answered the Question.

[WHITT]

34. Yes

She voted with Biden, the Corporate Dems did not.

WHO claimed she was in the Squad?

I answered your question, you're confused.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

36. The only no votes were the Squad

But keep attacking the rest of the party.

[Cha]

38. TY!

[WHITT]

50. You're Thoroughly Confused

[Cha]

37. All you have are

insults.

[WHITT]

51. Sorry

Pointing out your confusion is a fact, not an insult.

[George II]

54. What exactly constitutes a "corporate dem"? You've used that term a few times now.

[WHITT]

70. Ah

We've been there, done that. How soon you forget I provided a site for you that tracks corporate dough and corresponding votes, but that's merely conformation.

If you can't tell from their words and votes, you're just not paying attention.

[George II]

74. Where, and when? Reminder - NO elected officials can receive "corporate dough". It's illegal.

[WHITT]

76. That Hoop Is Retired

Check you're own past posts.

[George II]

77. I have over 67,000. Not going to bother checking them, especially since the "corporate dem"....

....attack and definition appears to be a moving target.

And THAT is precisely why I asked in the first place.

Thanks.

[WHITT]

80. Interesting

you're once again leaping to their defense, to once again attempt to distract. The problem however, is the same as the last time. I never claimed it was illegal, I merely pointed out which members ask, HOW HIGH?, when Korporate Amerika says, JUMP!

[George II]

40. What exactly constitutes a "corporate dem"? Seems it's a moving target sometimes.

[NurseJackie]

29. Ridiculous.

[Silent3]

39. It might be better in the end that we got something instead of nothing, but...

...the suspicions the progressives had that the likes of Manchin and Sinema would betray them if the two bills weren't linked were spot on.

Many people here on DU said we shouldn't distrust other (so-called) Democrats like that. Their trust was unfounded, and the cynicism of people like me was accurate.

I'd much rather have been wrong, however.

[George II]

41. But the bottom line is that six House Democrats voted against BIF anyway.

[Silent3]

43. They knew the bill would pass without their votes...

...and, as it turns out, that was a well-justified act of protest.

[Wanderlust988]

42. The Squad was wrong...Manchin doesn't give a fuck about infrastucture!!

Do you all really think Manchin gives two fucks about infrastructure? He wouldn't have supported BBB whether we passed infrastructure or not. HE ONLY CARES ABOUT HIMSELF. So it was stupid and fruitless to hold back money for roads and bridges to put pressure on Manchin. He doesn't give a damn. He was never gonna back BBB, so why punish the whole country just to try to make a political point that didn't even matter?

[betsuni]

47. +1

[WHITT]

52. Then

you didn't see all the bragging he did in WV, or back to WV tv interviews.

[George II]

53. One of the members of the House who voted against BIF appeared with Roy Blunt to brag about....

....the a project funded by BIF.

You didn't see that?

[WHITT]

71. Before, Not After

[George II]

73. Before, not after what? The Representative I referred to appeared with Blount after BIF was passed.

[WHITT]

75. Exactly

Manchin, before, BIG TIME

Your reference, after. Meaningless. S.O.P. Repub.

[George II]

78. What was Manchin bragging about "before" BIF passed? Remember, he voted FOR it, so any bragging....

....he may have done (which so far is unspecified here) about it helping constituents at least was warranted, unlike those who voted against it bragging about it helping constituents.

[WHITT]

81. Missed The Point Once Again

Of COURSE he voted for it, he DESPERATELY needed it. That's why the Progressive Caucus had him over a barrel, until the Corporate Dens pulled the rug out.

[George II]

82. Could you explain that to me step by step please? So six progressive members of the House voted....

...against BIF in order to put Manchin "over a barrel" and force HIM to vote for it in the Senate out of desperation?

Is that the point? If not, and I'm missing the point, why not explain the point. Weren't you talking about "hoops" a little earlier?

[WHITT]

83. I'm Afraid You Took The Wrong Exit Ramp

[betsuni]

84. Why not explain?

[WHITT]

86. Posted It Three Times Already

[betsuni]

87. Where? Something about Manchin DESPERATELY needing infrastructure?

His whole point in voting for infrastructure was that it was bipartisan. He keeps repeating "bipartisan" in his ad for it. BBB wouldn't get any Republican votes, he'd never vote for it. There was no leverage.

[WHITT]

91. Bullshit

Try watching his interviews with local tv.

[betsuni]

92. Could you post some links?

I Googled but no local tv interviews came up.

[WHITT]

94. Links To What?

My relatives live in Eastern Ohio and can get WV tv. They had either streamed me local news interviews or played them for me off their dvr by video linkup.

[betsuni]

96. You told me, "Try watching his interviews with local tv."

I tried.

So Manchin made promises about infrastructure on tv. Politicians do that.

[WHITT]

97. Swing And A Miss

[George II]

93. Again, can you explain this to me? If you don't want to, that's okay.

[WHITT]

95. Couldn't Be Any Simpler

If there was no leverage, as some insist, then why did Korporate Amerika spend an enormous amount of money and exert an enormous amount of pressure to get the Corporate Dems to pull the rug out from under the Progressive Caucus? They could have just let the BBB die of it's own accord.

The Progressive Caucus had Machin over a barrel, he desperately needed the BIF to get enacted because of all the promises he made back home.

Korporate Amerika and the wealthy, which are WOEFULLY UNDERTAXED, forcefully wanted to scuttle the BBB, so they wouldn't have to pay their fair share of taxation.

So, where did we end up? Korporate Amerika and the wealthy got their BIF which is jam-packed with Corporate Welfare, and Korporate Amerika and the wealthy scuttled the BBB.

It went down exactly as the Progressive Caucus warned it would if the two bills were de-linked.

[lame54]

69. All the other republicans did that too

[WHITT]

72. After, Not Before

[Nixie]

61. +1000. It was a very bad idea to hold back the BIF,

and you’ve stated it perfectly why.

[Budi]

44. Omg. No. They wasted all summer fking around with a BBB that was never going to pass

Rather than allow those months to be used to negotiate or change before the Jan deadline approached.

It was a political stalling move to damage the entire BBB & BIF, as was evident in what they didn't consider worth a crap to constituents enough to even put their vote of support on when voting for BIF.

Remind Congress to never again put a bill of such urgency to American citizens, in their hands.

They knew by Manchin's hardlining that BBB wasn't going to pass. Yet they stalled it for months & voted against everything the generous BIF offered.

The rest is called 'covering your ass', politics
Give it up. They showed America who they were for, & who they were not.

[Nixie]

62. Excellent analysis. The daily visuals of fighting wound up

damaging Biden’s poll numbers. The fight was supposed to be about the American people, not brand building for various politicians. To put the BIF at risk for political narratives was a huge exercise in futility. Never again, and thanks to Pelosi for pushing forward and delivering for Americans. They didn’t need to wait just to watch that useless spectacle.

[Hortensis]

56. For shame to all who didn't and don't commit to passing it.

Especially the LW "anti-establishment"/anti-Democratic extremists who claim to be more "progressive" than anyone else but always find ways to betray and try to sabotage what Democrats are trying to accomplish.

Believe what they do, not what they claim. If it was about the millions of people this bill is meant to help in so many ways, they'd be passionately on board.

[Ursus Rex]

57. Thorough and generally *excellent* analysis.

I lean toward the Progressives for practical reasons, not just purely ideological ones, and this is a very apt explanation of one reason why. I tend to think the Progressives are less invested in the Beltway status quo and are in fact more in tune with actual public sentiment, rather than what they imagine it to be. Unfortunately for them and the Republic, there IS an Establishment that at least guides, if not controls, the way things go in DC.

GOTV!

[Budi]

67. They Voted Against the needs of their own States.

Hope they all wear that No Vote as loudly as their 'protest vote' come election time.
It was a fking disgraceful show of "Nothing's better than something".

That No Vote was regressive for their States. Nothing about it was "progressive".

[Demsrule86]

63. Nope, they were wrong. We would have nothing. The Child tax credit and paid family leave are

non-starters with Manchin and probably Sinema. So take it out and pass the bill...lots of good stuff in that bill other than the above. And go back and get more after we elect more Democrats. And I would suggest you look where our opportunities lie and ask yourself with new Senators coming from conservative and purple states what can we pass...we can move the needle but if you think we will enact a huge sweeping progressive agenda. It won't happen.

I do believe we can get the child credit, some version of paid leave and make real improvements to the ACA after we elect some Democrats in 22 and maybe 24. We have to win elections and hold the seats we have including Manchin and Sinema's.

[Voltaire2]

68. No shit.

Once again the obvious is just stunningly obscure to our party’s leaders.

[radius777]

79. Exactly, the left was correct on this one. Manchinema lied

to House Dems as well as Biden.

Dems as a party need to get tougher and the left/Squad is correct on this point.

The outdated softball methods don't work... the younger gen's get this intuitively. Go hard or go home.

[betsuni]

85. What does "get tougher" mean, exactly?

What "softball methods"?

[George II]

88. How (and why) should they get tougher? They voted against the Infrastructure bill.....

What's "tougher" than that, challenging them to a duel?

How did Democratic Senator Manchin and Democratic Senator Sinema "lie"?

[malaise]

89. Correct

Rec