Manchin just said the divide started when Dems passed ACA w/ "ONLY" 60 votes

[GusFring]

God, I hate this guy. Really, all of the problems in congress started because of democrats?

Video
http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/sen-manchin-to-gop-leader-mitch-work-with-us-953122883934

[Goodheart]

1. I like him.

[still_one]

52. what do you like about him?

[pnwmom]

62. I like him just like I like any DINO. We need some of them to have

control of either House of Congress. When we lost most of our DINO's is when we lost control of both houses.

[still_one]

77. pnwmom, this was in context of the OP implying suggesting that according to Manchin the ACA was

forced down the republicans throats, and that this is just payback

What I am saying has nothing to do with Manchin being a blue dog, or if you prefer a DINO, it has to do with a complete distortion of what happened, and when the person I was responding to said "I like Manchin", in that context, I take exception to that.

Not just on the ACA, but everything the Democrats tried to do with the republicans, they refused to work with him. Perhaps you might recall the words of Mitch McConnell at the time:

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

or when House Leader John Boehner said in regard to the ACA:

"This is not the time for compromise"

This re-wrting and double standard of history, unacceptable, no matter who it comes from, and frankly that Manchin is just spewing republican talking points is beyond disgusting.

Sorry but Manchin is a slimy worm. His daughter, CEO of Mylan labs, increasing the price of epipens 500%, and his wife pushing its use through the schools, one has to wonder if there are conflicts of interests going on?


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/09/20/family-matters-epipens-had-help-getting-schools-manchin-bresch/90435218/

I recognize the fact that there are areas in the country where some Democrats will have more Conservative views on the issues, but Manchin has gone way beyond that

[c-rational]

79. Completely agree.

[still_one]

85. Thanks. he is a perfect example of what profiles in courage is NOT about

[Moostache]

53. Do you also like festering sucking chest wounds?

Just wondering....what the fuck is there to like about this guy?

[c-rational]

80. My sentiments exactly

[JDC]

96. I don't. He can count on a Primary challenge

[yardwork]

2. I guess it would have been better to do nothing?

[Goodheart]

3. I saw the interview. He didn't blame Democrats for anything.

[GusFring]

18. What were you watching? He specifically said "WE" made a mistake. Learn from our mistake. He said

That

[bresue]

4. I saw interview too

please backup your post with a link. I did not hear him say that.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Here's the deal

He was governor when the ACA was going through the sausage-making and final passage. Both WV Senators Jay Rockefeller and Robert Byrd (who was his predecessor) voted for it. Byrd died later that year in 2010 and Manchin eventually ran for that seat, coming in office during the 2010 anti-ACA "wave"... the "anti-" being due to a massive campaign of disinformation coupled with the creation of the astroturf Koch-funded teabaggers.

If anything, his is one of the states that needs it the most. Bershear in his neighbor state (KY) managed to redirect the narrative on it to get KYnect in place (as long as it wasn't called "Obamacare&quot , but even that state was unable to overcome the continued onslaught of bullshit, and they elected an extremist as governor, who is systematically dismantling KYnect.

However slowly but surely, the tide is turning, but it will take some time and getting the right people elected in this next election.

[Goodheart]

6. Well, in this interview he said he's urging McConnell to drop talk of repeal

and go instead with fixing Obamacare.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. Right

I saw another thread going on the interview and I agree they need to fix it.

It'll be hard when you have Ryan betting his entire farm on their bullshit "promise" to repeal and replace with his crap.

[Demsrule86]

10. What interview...I heard him say ACA needs fixing which it does...but not repeal.

I did not hear the 60 vote comment...hopefully the OP will put a link in because this can't stand without one IMHO.

[hatrack]

47. Well, that's nice . . .

Considering that NO Democrats are even being permitted to participate in the Senate discussions on this POS bill.

[Demsrule86]

8. A big who cares...he is a warm body in our quest to retake the Senate and a no

vote for Trumpcare...any WVA GOP would vote for Trumpcare.

[NurseJackie]

11. Thank you. Unfortunately the "vanity purists" among us aren't so thoughtful or practical.

I honestly believe that they'd PREFER to lose West Virginia to the GOP ... and they'd be boasting about how they "didn't compromise" and acting as if it was some big accomplishment to have FEWER seats in the senate.

[Demsrule86]

21. Sadly, I think you are right...we should not take advice from this segment of

of our party unless we want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[JCanete]

66. I thought in another thread you were pretty unforgiving of his Gorsuch support. Did I misremember

that? If so, apologies.

I'd also be very interested to know what is actually practical about wondering what we're going to get from this man and what we can count on.

[NurseJackie]

68. There are many thing for which to fairly criticize him.

(Excerpt)================
I'd also be very interested to know what is actually practical about wondering what we're going to get from this man and what we can count on.
================

Is that what bothers you? The wondering? The uncertainty? Would you feel better with the 100% certainty that a GOP Senator in his place would support Trumpcare? Or is it the certainty that a GOP Senator in his place means that the Democrats would need TWO additional senate seats to get closer to (or gain, or keep, should we be so fortunate) a majority.

I guess I'm just puzzled by the "logic" of those who think it's preferable to run in his place a fringe liberal candidate who'd lose to the GOP candidate. I see no value in replacing a Democrat with a Republican (no matter how "warm and fuzzy" it makes people feel for putting forth a vanity candidate who doesn't stand a chance of winning).

[JCanete]

70. I'd feel better about promoting a better candidate. We are artificially setting limits on what is

possible. We "need" Manchin because people say we need him. Why are you so certain that "fringe" liberals would lose? Listen to the candidate running against him and see if she sounds like she's not grass-roots to you.

You know what would help these candidates stand a chance? DNC support.

[NurseJackie]

71. LOL

(Excerpt) =====================
Why are you so certain that "fringe" liberals would lose?
=====================

[JCanete]

72. Hey if you have actual thoughts here, feel free to share them. I won't bite your head off. No need

to disengage for fear of looking foolish.

[NurseJackie]

73. LOL! I did share them already!

(Excerpt) ======================
I won't bite your head off. No need to disengage for fear of looking foolish.
======================
Ah, the "challenge" and veiled insult game. LOL! Sorry, not falling for that. I may not be the most intelligent person on this web site, but I'm a lot smarter than you apparently think I am.

[JCanete]

74. you didn't respond to what I said. You wanted the last word with a LOL. That's passive aggressive

and not super brave of you.

[NurseJackie]

75. I did respond. I think you're just frustrated because it's just not the response you wanted.

It appears that you dislike my sense of humor. (Oh well.)

And now a round-about way you're suggesting that I'm a coward for not being willing to play your little game. (That's kinda funny too!)





PS: L-O-L!

[JCanete]

76. bullshit. It is entirely legitimate to decide a discussion is getting nowhere.

When you decide to cap a discussion with a LOL, you are being passive aggressive. I've ended posts with people because they weren't getting anywhere, but there is no justification for the way you like to respond to posts, except that you intend to suggest, without any specificity--because then you'd have to commit--that there is something ludicrous about what I or somebody else just said.

So I'll stand by what I said, having actually said something to stand by. You can stand by your ambiguous LOL.

[NurseJackie]

78. You're overreacting. I'm simply amused. (And, FYI: Someone finding clever ways to skirt the rules...

... in order to suggest that I'm is a coward is what I'd call being "passive aggressive".)

There was nothing "ambiguous" at all about my amusement. I looked up-thread and re-read that post, and it made me laugh again. It was funny. (Intentional or not, it was funny. Whether or not someone else is able to see the same absurdity that I do is irrelevant.)



PS: L.O.L.

[JCanete]

83. that wasn't the intention, and I don't know the rules very well, because i did say "cowardly" first

but changed it because I thought it was overly dickish and over my own line, and far further than I thought was justified or wanted to accuse you of. If you think the language I settled on was essentially the same thing, I didn't, or wouldn't have changed it.

FYI when you lol to my post, you know Im not going to get the laugh right? Because I'm the one making the assertions with a straight face, and I'm making more than one point at that. So your intention is clearly not to enlighten me or others you respond to this way when you do this. It's clearly not to laugh, because that's done without the assistance of a keyboard. The only value then is to either send it out to others who might share in a laugh at that posters expense without letting that person in on the joke, or to give that poster the impression that you think that person just said something laughable, without bothering to point out what. Hell, you should be a pundit on FOX or CNN with that kind of talent. Why tackle something when you can laugh at it?

[NurseJackie]

90. Ah... yet another cleverly veiled insult by telling me I should be on FOX News. Hardy-har...

... aren't you the clever one? But, as you say... at least you have your own line. The actual location of that line is rather questionable, and I've seen little evidence of it as of yet, but I'm perfectly willing to take you at your word when you assert that there is indeed a line which you will not cross. After all, it's entirely subjective, isn't it? When it comes to being "overly dickish" (as you say) the actual location of "the line" for you will likely differ when it comes to my perception of whether or not you're being "overly dickish" (again, your words). Kinda like how two people can have totally difference senses of humor, right?

Anyway, at least (based on your own words) you're inclined to re-think and self-edit before totally stepping it a pile and tracking it through the house. But now that you've brought it up, it makes me wonder what your original version of the "Fox Pundit" insult was. I'm sure it must have been a real hum-dinger.

(Excerpt)======================
FYI when you lol to my post, you know Im not going to get the laugh right?
======================

Actually, I know no such thing. There are many people who have a self-awareness with regard to the things they say, how their words can be interpreted, or perceived. There are even many people who have the ability to laugh at themselves.


(Excerpt)======================
It's clearly not to laugh, because that's done without the assistance of a keyboard.
======================

I can roll my eyes without the assistance of a keyboard too. But when it's my intention to let others KNOW that I'm laughing or rolling my eyes... then I say so with text or emojis or gifs.



PS: How do you feel about the "waving-smiley" emoji? Is that too passive-aggressive for you? Does it creep you out? Does it suggest that I'm being overly friendly in an unwelcome way that encroaches on your personal space?

Hey! LOL!

[JCanete]

91. what was veiled about that? I"m saying it is an actual tactic, used frequently by corporate pundits

to laugh things off as if they are beyond the pale rather to engage them. I didn't insinuate that you were doing the same, I said you were doing the same. What I didn't say was that it was your actual intention to be like them. It was a fairly pointed appeal.

[NurseJackie]

93. I'm sure I don't need to spell it out for you.

You'll still gasp, deny and feign innocence. ("Who? Moi?) But I can tell you that your efforts to insinuate that I'm conservative, or a "corporatist" (or that I'd fit-in at Fox news) are not going unnoticed. There are many ways to cleverly insult someone without actually saying the words and having to be "overly dickish" about it (to use your phrase). I see what you're doing, and I laugh at it. It's funny.

(Passive aggressive waving.)

[JCanete]

94. I didn't say those things, nor insinuate them. I actually used an example from the real world that

I thought we would both agree on, was not a desirable thing to emulate, but I was directly accusing you of at least unintentionally doing so. I'm sorry, that is pretty unveiled in my book. Contrast to me still having no idea what it is specifically that you found so humorous. I have no idea. You have no interest in enlightening me, which means you responded to my post with the intention, not of speaking to me(unless you meant to imply but not expressly state or prove in any way, that my post was foolish), but to others on your wavelength alone.

[NurseJackie]

95. LOL

[JCanete]

58. I care about him supporting Gorsuch more than I care about him saying stupid, albeit damaging, shit

like this. I care about many of his confirmation votes. Sure, there are a couple people he voted nay on. I want to know why he's a good bet for us. At best he's a wild-card. Would he be a boon if we controlled congress and the presidency, or would he be a drag on our possibilities? Because every time we have to water down our offerings we do damage to our brand when their fruits are less than stellar. We're still in this mess with Obamacare because we couldn't make it as unassailable as it should have been. We couldn't cap prices. We couldn't offer a public option. And that was Dems who stood in the way. Not one Republican was courtable anyway.

[MiddleClass]

63. Scrumbag Joe Lieberman killed the public option

Democrat from Connecticut, all the insurance companies are based in Hartford, Connecticut, obviously that's where he got all his blood money from.

Public option/Medicare for all would've made Obama care settled law

[JCanete]

64. Yes, and Lieberman is another one we tried to primary, and prominent Dems rallied behind him, from

Biden to Boxer(I put Durbin on here but that looks like I misremembered thankfully, sorry Durbin). They went out and campaigned for him. And when he lost, he fucked us royally by running anyway, and while our own Dems apparently couldn't see it?, the GOP certainly could and they barely mounted a candidate, instead noting their approval for Lieberman and allowing him to take the race in the GE. Lieberman is a prime example for why we should also dump those like Manchin in favor of people we can count on to not give bipartisan cover to Republican bullshit, and to help us pass the best legislation possible when we are in charge,rather than to scuttle or poison it.

[MiddleClass]

67. I remember that.

Republicans allowed him to become a willful Manchurian candidate.

But the main problem is when people like Susan Sarandon and her Burners go against the Democrat candidate for somebody like Susan Stein.

Susan Stein won more votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, I don't remember Florida or Ohio, was the same, Stein won more votes in the state than Donald Trump's victory over Clinton

But, those first three it was game over, electoral vote loss for Hillary.


Classical: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

[JCanete]

69. I don't get the Stein vote. I get abstaining though. I personally DID NOT. But there are legitimate

arguments for blaming even the existence of a Trump candidacy on our broken political system, which is very much the establishment's fault. Dems, since they are the ones who are actually supposed to be fighting for the people and not for the rich oligarchs, have continued to let this broken system fester by not calling it out...by ignoring or giving feint protest to some of the very biggest issues.

The whole thing is quite rigged against Dems and liberals in particular, but you can't play in that rigged system by those rigged rules and expect to change anything. Somebody has to be bringing the real issues to the people so that there is a groundswell of pressure to make fixes.

That all said, I was hopeful of a Clinton Presidency, but ONLY because she and the DNC, under that pressure, tacked left to accommodate messaging that the political discourse has been ridiculously bereft of for far far too long. I chose to be less cynical given that. I can understand others remaining cynical and thinking that a Trump catastrophe now rather than a worse Trump later, would be a good wake-up call for Americans while we can still wake up. That is by the way, the actual rationale. Most people don't actually think there's no difference between Trump and Clinton...they think Clinton was too cozy with the powers-that-be who like things the way they are for obvious reasons. They think Trump is an artless buffoon who is dangerous, but only due to his incompetence and willingness to sign on to any piece of shit legislation the GOP offers up.

That he can't do any of that effectively though, is a point in these voter's favor. They may be wrong, and Trump may ultimately destroy us...he is certainly making lives harder quickly...and his incompetence could actually undermine our stability and safety at a breakneck pace.

...but they may be right, and his Presidency might make our party take more note of populist dissatisfaction, and Americans of all stripes take note of just how dangerous Trump and the GOP are. Nobody is happy with what they are proposing, and more and more people are actually paying attention to it.

Anyway, I'm sure you disagree with my assessment and that's fine. That's me voicing understanding for people like Sarandon in this case, not necessarily agreeing with her. There was a point though, where I admit I was uncertain myself about whether or not I was going to cast my vote for President. At the time though, I just didn't want to contribute to a Clinton platform mandate(since her platform was fairly unimpressive to me), but I was certainly not interested in helping Trump get into the White House, and was more certain than anything I've ever been certain of that he had no chance in hell. In retrospect, I was very wrong about that.

[Lotusflower70]

82. Hmmm

I think for some the Jill Stein vote was out of spite. Sad but true. There was a lot of anger at the DNC and understandably so. I don't understand the vote for her but some people want to give 3rd party more of a voice. Although in reality, we are a 2 party system regardless of the extra candidates on the ballot. I think young people were taken for granted and a lot of them did not want Hillary. So there is work to do there. Young people were engaged but it was a missed opportunity by the Democrats.

[MiddleClass]

60. Exactly, West Virginia is now a Republican state

For years they were a classic Democrat state.

Until the one-two punch of Clinton intern shenanigans and the first black president.

I guess they are susceptible to well-placed $$$ and talking points, but that's their choice.

Let Joe do what he has to, he did say exactly that on morning Joe, remember he is talking to West Virginia, he knows how to talk to West Virginians, to get elected in West Virginia, he's got to accept accepted alternative facts in West Virginia. That's democracy.

Just remember that Jill Stein voters who refused Hillary are the reason we have this shit show

When Joe is talking to his home state, let him talk in a language they can agree with, remember West Virginia, mountain mama, take me home country roam.

[Demsrule86]

9. You need a link because I could not find where he said this...another and I looked carefully...put

up a link or take it down. If it was said on a show name the show and send a link.

[MiddleClass]

65. That didn't take long, far right wing website Newsmax

It's the third question.

[link:http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/joe-manchin-mitch-mcconnell-democrats-help/2017/05/25/id/792356/|

[Thrill]

12. Same old Same old from this guy

YAWN

[Demsrule86]

25. I did not hear Manchin say that...I asked for a link and it has not been provided.

[QC]

13. Be careful...he has quite a fan club around here. n/t

[disillusioned73]

16. Hehehe...

Not surprising..

[QC]

17. Not at all, sadly. n/t

[disillusioned73]

19. I'd love to see..

fair & impartial coverage of "the coal miners daughter" that has challenged him - that is also a Democrat, but sadly that won't happen here..

[Demsrule86]

24. She would lose a general...and should never have run during a time we are trying to take back

the senate. Any WVA GOP would be a disaster especially with GOP control.

[disillusioned73]

28. I bet the same was said about..

Christine Pellegrino in NY - if Dems continue to run people out of fear, progress will never be made.

[George II]

37. She was running for a seat in the state legislature, not a state-wide Senate seat. Big difference.

[Demsrule86]

43. I doubt it that is New York ...way different voters.

She will never win an election...and My hope is that Manchin is still able to win the election after the foolish primary.

[disillusioned73]

48. "Foolish primary"?? Huh..

So do we live in a democracy anymore or are we ruled by kings & queens now??

"She will never win an election" - that is presumptuous of you..

[Demsrule86]

97. We live in a democracy under threat from Trump...who is a fascist at heart in

a center left country in my opinion. We need to at least hold onto our Senators and maybe just maybe take the Senate back and stop the Trump court packing...those are very important issues and primarying Manchin risks that effort. Swearengin who is similar to Sen.Sanders in ideology can not win an election in WVA...look at the results out of Montana this morning...consider that a centrist Democrat beat the Republican just last year for governor...had we run a candidate suitable for the state, we might have won.

As for you "presumption' talk, this is an website where we voice our opinions...all are welcome within TOS and calling people names is not by the way. I am so not sorry you objected to my opinion.

Also, I would like to say that if we lose in 18 add 20 (God forbid), it will be because of groups like Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress and WeWillReplaceYou.org who insist on attacking sitting Democratic elected instead of fighting Trump and the truly evil Republicans who would destroy our country.


"Swearengin has the backing of Brand New Congress, a group formed by former Bernie Sanders campaign staffers and volunteers to support primary opponents against Democrats and Republicans in 2018. She also has the support of Justice Democrats, a group whose mission statement is to run “congressional campaigns that lead to a progressive and un-bought congress in 2018” and WeWillReplaceYou.org, a group that says it is “dedicated to challenging establishment Democrats unwilling to resist Trump’s agenda.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/joe-manchin-bernie-sanders-primary-challenge-west-virginia-senate-2018/525918/

[disillusioned73]

98. A Berniecrat.. (yes, that is what he was)

Spending a pittance of what the Repub just came within 6% after an election that Trump won by 20%.. and you want to proclaim that if we would have run a "suitable candidate" (whatever that means) would have won?? I think Quist was the perfect candidate to expose the problems in Montana and for that matter all of our elections.. these elections are being bought.. that is what the American people need to realize..

Someone posted a great breakdown - thanks L.Coyote
[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029118458|

Oh, and as far as primary opponents are concerned - I say what are incumbents afraid of?? State your positions and the people of your state will decide if you deserve to stick around (or the $$$ interest will decide - one or the other).. again, these are elected officials not Kings & Queens..

[Demsrule86]

99. A moderate spending a pittance of what the GOP spent might have won.

I am afraid of allowing the GOP to get more Senate seats ...incumbents are much more likely to win. We have no power...now is not the time to play purity politics...and the groups I mention are part of the reason we are where we are.

[disillusioned73]

100. Groups that you mention..

are a net result (not reason) of where we are at.. people are tired of the same old same old - the old playbook obviously hasn't worked thus far.. I guess we'll have to wait & see how things go in all these seats & races.

[Demsrule86]

103. Well people can enjoy the misery they will surely cause...

and if they help elect more Republicans...they will have blood on their hands.

[JCanete]

87. why would she lose a general? Why are you so certain? Are you saying we need Manchin because

he has the support of big business in his state? Is that not a big problem already? Is that not why we can't get things done and can't count on these people to do the simple decent thing and not vote for a man like Gorsuch to sit for LIFE on the Supreme Court, giving that man what the GOP can now claim, bi-partisan support?

If that's not what you're saying, then why would she lose? What actually makes Manchin popular with the voters at home? What's his magic sauce that you know she doesn't have?

[mvd]

38. I think that might make her a strong challenger

Being a coal miner's daughter, maybe she can change the narrative that has been given by the coal companies.

[NurseJackie]

27. LOL!

[QC]

32. Cheers!

Here, have an iverglas...um...a glass of bubbly.

[NurseJackie]

40. LOL

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

30. Seriously, needs to be replaced with a REAL Democrat... pronto.

[a la izquierda]

101. And I'd venture to say that none (or most) of his fans...

actually know a goddamned thing about West Virginia. I've only lived in the state for going on 5 years (and I cannot wait to get out), but many of my friends are political activists and scholars of WV politics. So...I'll take what they say over some DINO supporting keyboard commandos.

[QC]

104. That's usually they way it works.

Things are really very simple when people don't know anything about them.

It's like the Glibertarians in my local commenting about how if people hadn't gone to college years ago and studied something that isn't in demand now they wouldn't be having trouble paying off their loans DAM SNOWFLAKS!!1!!1!!

[vi5]

14. The problem with someone like Manchin only comes into play

When we have 59 to 61 Senate seats. Then the party becomes his and his alone because he ends up having de facto veto power and essential control of progressive Democratic legislation.

When Dems are in the minority he is inconsequential, and when we have more than 61 seats he's inconsequential. Let him vote how he wants and let him yap all he wants to appeal to his constituents.

But the problem is that when he's a key vote then the entire party is held hostage to the whims and wants of "his constituents", and rather than playing hardball with someone in that position, our Democratic leadership always chooses to bend over backward giving that person what they want.

[OnDoutside]

15. Is there any other solution for Dems in those type of Red states ?

Obviously the best answer is to replace the likes to Toomey and Collins with Democratic Senators.

[vi5]

20. Yes, that would be better.....

But I do know that the solution is not be to shape Democratic party legislation to the needs of the Senator a small red state.

[OnDoutside]

33. I agree, but isn't that usually swung over by a little pork barrel ?

[vi5]

36. Look at the ACA....

...Look at how that was neutered by 2-3 Red State Dems. They were basically handed full control and veto power over the law, and are the ones responsible for a lot of the crap that people ended up hating about the law.

[mvd]

45. I agree. But I'd still rather have Manchin than a Repuke

Say we get a progressive Democratic President in 2020. He or she would still be able to do more having the numbers in the Senate.

[vi5]

49. So it's an either/or situation?

I don't believe it is. But that Democratic president and a Democratic Congress can't then start from the Joe Manchin position, just as President Obama and the Dem Congress started from Max Baucus/Blanche Lincoln positions. If some concessions need to be made then yes obviously. And if they don't get on board then there need to be consequences and limitations to the amount of power they have over the caucus as a whole.

[mvd]

50. We're in agreement

I just don't want to lose the seat. But yes, people like Lieberman had too much power to torpedo the public option and things like that.

[vi5]

56. Honestly....

....I think it's less a matter of the conservadems and more a matter of the strength and resolve of our leadership. As great as Obama and Reid could be, at best they were far too trusting in a lot of factors (the media, the repugs, the American people) and at worst were just giving up too much before they even started. Folks only get away with what they are allowed to get away with without consequences and the blue dogs/conservative dems knew they could get away with a lot.

[MyOwnPeace]

88. vi5

You NAILED it! President Obama (LOVED the guy!) and the Democratic leadership gave up too much in their starting positions every time! They were honorable men thinking they were dealing with "honorable men!" HA! Terrible negotiating processes.

[Demsrule86]

22. Absolutely...the Dems can be be expected to vote with us most of the time...

you want a majority, you need a big tent party.

[OnDoutside]

34. Exactly ! Increase the tent of dependable Democratic Senators, without having to be concerned

about guys like Manchin.

I would also like to see the Democratic Party get their candidates for 2018 to sign up to a set of core principles that they will adhere to if elected.

[Demsrule86]

42. You miss my point...we can't win the majority without guys like Manchin...

no one else could WVA. And we have to be the big tent or remain in the minority forever.

[GusFring]

23. Updated w/ video

[Justice]

26. I've got news for him. The divide started with Clinton's impeachment

Particularly when everyone knew Newt was having an affair with a staffer.

[Historic NY]

29. Who now is his wife

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-11-11/news/9911110139_1_callista-bisek-georgia-republican-house-speaker-newt-gingrich

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Talk about a hypocrite!!

[StevieM]

57. Not a bad hypothesis but let me suggest a slightly different starting date.

When Bill Clinton first became president the GOP immediately rejected the legitimacy of his presidency. This was the first time that the Republicans lost the presidency since the Reagan Revolution.

Republicans changed during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years. By the time they were over the GOP felt absolutely entitled to the presidency. They were convinced that they were "the real Americans." In fact, Rich Bond, the GOP party chairman, said at the 1992 Republican Convention "We are America. These other people are not America."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/02/opinion/rich-bond-right-but-late.html

[karynnj]

35. I guess no one told him of the months Baucus worked with

A bipartisan group of Senators. In fact, Olympia Snow voted for it in committee, saying she did not want to be on the wrong side of history. Then she voted against it in the full Senate.

What is clear is that the bill was close to bills that went nowhere that Snowe, Hatch, Collins etc even Co sponsored. Where Machin is right is that the Republicans made this a partisan vote, which no Republican bucked the party to vote for.

One person I know made the point that the current Republican dilemma is that the Obama bill really is designed to be a compromise with the Republicans.

If they were smart, they could simply correct the problems - some caused by SCJ Roberts and Rubio.

[ProfessorGAC]

39. While I Know, In Context, That's Not Exactly What He Said. . .

. . .it's still a silly statement because logic would suggest that the divide began when ZERO republicans voted for something now proven to be an improvement over the prior system.

Moreover, the divide began when all the R's in congress decided they weren't letting the black guy get anything done.

[GusFring]

41. Did you watch the vid? In context? He made it seem like it was Democrats fault for not getting repub

Votes.

[ProfessorGAC]

54. Did You Read My Post?

I said it was a silly comment because it's so easily turned around. And, i did watch the vid. I don't take what he said as literally, and found it to be an observation not well thought through. If he had thought it through, he would know how silly it sounds.

[Initech]

44. They should just say it and get it over with already.

The only reason why they want to get rid of ACA is because they hate liberals. That is the only reason.

[Demsrule86]

46. Watched the video...I think fixing the ACA is the best approach too...

and the context in the statement was 'we need to work together' in order to fix the ACA. Keep in mind, he was not in the Senate when the ACA was passed...I have heard even Democrats say we had 60 votes for single payer and all sorts of things that were not true. But he is a no vote for Trump care...so I think you are wrong to pillory the best guy we can get in a red state.

[JCanete]

59. why are you making judgements about the best guy we can get? How do you know that to be the case,

when these are the only candidates we put up? We need to give the voters more than personality to vote on, like a real alternative on policies. We need to stop hamstringing our outreach, which is what we do when we stand behind and fund candidates who aren't hammering home liberal ideals. Its no wonder liberalism remains so alien to the people in these states...we aren't putting it into the discourse at the local level.

[House of Roberts]

51. Hard to think of a now unfunded 'risk corridor'

that needs pre-existing conditions to be covered worse than the 'black lung belt' of coal country. Manchin ought to be ashamed of himself.

Since he wasn't there he must not realize that Cons filibustered every move the Senate made from day one in 2009, even to the point of refusing unanimous consent to do their jobs each day!

[doc03]

55. I heard him this morning he called the Democratic party the Democrat party

just like the Republicons do.

[dawg]

61. How dare the Democrats pass a Heritage Foundation health care plan ...

and then try to make it work. How utterly partisan of them.



(Disclaimer: I think the ACA was pretty much the best policy that was politically feasible at the time.)

[still_one]

81. Exactly dawg. Manchin is rewriting history as I explained in my post above

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9116063

and that is what is what is pathetic to me about Manchin. Not that he is more conservative, a blue dog, or a Dino, but that he voted for the ACA, and now that the republicans control Congress, he conveniently sides with who he believes is the "winning" hand. It sure isn't a reflection of profiles in courage

[JHan]

84. yep +++++++++++

[Lotusflower70]

86. True that

But even though he is a DINO, we need all the dems we can get. Plus the dems are different in different areas of the country because there are regional considerations.

[alarimer]

89. "Only"? That seems pretty damn good for anything.

Were they supposed to get 100? Or did he misspeak because I thought it was closer to 50.

Anyway, shut up Joe. We need you for the time being, but you fucking suck. So sit down, shut up and vote against Trump.

[wiggs]

92. Dems couldn't get any votes for a veteran's suicide prevention bill either. What was one of the

first bills passed when gop took over congress? Suicide prevention bill. The gop just wouldn't vote for anything that might reflect well on dems, even if important issue.

[arthritisR_US]

102. With "friends" like Manchin who needs enemies? nt