Because no Republicans support it.

No mention of how the GOP is working overtime to make it harder to vote.

This is one of the more bizarre op ed's I've read in a while.

Twisted logic.

[www.wvgazettemail.com]

Bizarre, indeed. I can’t follow his logic. Perhaps he’s been bribed.

Republicans are going to vote down everything. Does that mean he’ll side with them?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2021 08:50AM by S. Pupp.

I am beginning to think a moderate Republican might be better than Manchin, that way Dems don't have to worry about him. Get someone reliable in another state.

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

What are the odds of him winning his next term? I believe them to be very low, and probably not dependent how Republican he votes. Maybe he think's he's a sea change. I think he's a fluke. The best thing he can do is deal for as much benefit for WV, in both justice and pork, as he can get in exchange for his vote. Then he might save his seat, and even if he doesn't, he has at least served his state and the country.

Is Manchin a Democrat?

---

Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.

Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.

If you read through, he says he's in support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act although he seems to indicate that he wouldn't get rid of the filibuster to pass it.

I think he's making a foolish mistake, essentially allowing the GOP to continue to play on a tilted playing field and continue to further tilt it in his favor.

Its MUCH better to have him as a Dem than not...but holy hell, this is frustrating.

---

Quote
mattkime
If you read through, he says he's in support of the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act although he seems to indicate that he wouldn't get rid of the filibuster to pass it.

I think he's making a foolish mistake, essentially allowing the GOP to continue to play on a tilted playing field and continue to further tilt it in his favor.

Its MUCH better to have him as a Dem than not...but holy hell, this is frustrating.

Great point about the 2 separate bills. We need both of them, they are not the same. For the People includes campaign finance reforms that might make Manchin queasy.
More info on that

"So why do we need both the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act? 

Well, the answer to this question is pretty simple. The two bills really depend on each other. While the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act will protect the right to vote, which is absolutely crucial as state legislatures across the country are creating new barriers to voting, the For the People Act will also move the ball forward by creating new national standards that expands the freedom to vote and makes our elections more accessible. Without the For the People Act, the Voting Rights Act would only combat current voter suppression efforts. 

Both the For the People Act and John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act can combat efforts by Republican state legislators to restrict the right to vote (like the outrageous bill recently passed in Georgia). The For the People Act sets national standards so that every voter, regardless of our zip code, race, or background, has equal access to the ballot box. Likewise, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act includes checks and balances on state efforts that may suppress voting rights. 

The reason Congress may pass the For the People Act first is because in order for the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to be effective, Congress needs more time to hold more hearings and gather evidence of contemporaneous voter suppression for the record to back up the provisions in the bill. This will put the bill on the soundest footing.

We need both to protect the right to vote and expand it to make our elections more accessible, safe, and fair with national standards for all voters. That’s why Congress needs to pass both the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act."

[www.commoncause.org]

---

DINO.
Trying to save his seat I'd say, but that is unlikely to happen.
At least he'll have the memory of his time in the Senate as ... uh .... mmmm .....
Cecil Turtle McConnells boy toy.

---

!#$@@$#!

proofraed by OwEn the c@t.

With Democrats like that, who needs Republicans?

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late

I read his op-Ed. Democrats are in the wrong simply because Republicans won’t support Democrats. Forget about what’s in the Bill; that curiously doesn’t matter.

I realize he’s very good at ignoring history, but today’s “bipartisanship” is just yesterday’s “Fair and Balanced.”

It gives credibility and weight to bad ideas merely because they exist. Notice that he doesn’t actually criticize what’s in the Bill. He’s not voting against the legislation but how it would passed. He’s better suited for other work.

Republicans will vote against everything. Mitch has his Senate firmly back. These mythical 10 Republicans need never show up.

We must defend Warnock and Kelly's seats and try to flip Toomey's Penn seat, maybe Rubio's seat (Val Demings is planning to challenge), Ron Johnson's Wisconsin seat and Roy Blunt and Richard Burr's seats. 3 of our Senate seats were flipped last November. That hurt.

Quote
vision63
We must defend Warnock and Kelly's seats and try to flip Toomey's Penn seat, maybe Rubio's seat (Val Demings is planning to challenge), Ron Johnson's Wisconsin seat and Roy Blunt and Richard Burr's seats. 3 of our Senate seats were flipped last November. That hurt.

More basically, we need to challenge all the new laws Republicans have been passing to make it harder for people to vote, including all the redistricting, etc. Not only are these laws absolutely unAmerican, they're aimed at eroding the very bedrock of our democracy. Republicans know at this point that they can't win fairly otherwise.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB

Quote
vision63
We must defend Warnock and Kelly's seats and try to flip Toomey's Penn seat, maybe Rubio's seat (Val Demings is planning to challenge), Ron Johnson's Wisconsin seat and Roy Blunt and Richard Burr's seats. 3 of our Senate seats were flipped last November. That hurt.

More basically, we need to challenge all the new laws Republicans have been passing to make it harder for people to vote, including all the redistricting, etc. Not only are these laws absolutely unAmerican, they're aimed at eroding the very bedrock of our democracy. Republicans know at this point that they can't win fairly otherwise.

Yes, exactly. In fact, they have no choice but to cheat (or change, ha).

But no matter what the laws are, we still have to simply vote and not be deterred because of all the obstacles. We can do it. Whatever it takes. They can't outlaw voting.

Quote
vision63
. They can't outlaw voting.

Giving it the old try though.

Manchin and Sinema are basically only good for one thing for the Democrats anymore - keeping McConnell from being majority leader. That's definitely a good thing, but that's about it. Although they might go along with a straight line party vote on the next reconciliation bill (that is not subject to a filibuster), I wouldn't count on it.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Ted King
Manchin and Sinema are basically only good for one thing for the Democrats anymore - keeping McConnell from being majority leader. That's definitely a good thing, but that's about it. Although they might go along with a straight line party vote on the next reconciliation bill (that is not subject to a filibuster), I wouldn't count on it.

Hundreds of bills are passed each Congress. The ones that people are frustrated with regarding these two are basically just a handful. If those seats were Red it would be disastrous.

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ted King
Manchin and Sinema are basically only good for one thing for the Democrats anymore - keeping McConnell from being majority leader. That's definitely a good thing, but that's about it. Although they might go along with a straight line party vote on the next reconciliation bill (that is not subject to a filibuster), I wouldn't count on it.

Hundreds of bills are passed each Congress. The ones that people are frustrated with regarding these two are basically just a handful. If those seats were Red it would be disastrous.

How do those hundreds of bills get past the filibuster?

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Ted King

Quote
vision63

Quote
Ted King
Manchin and Sinema are basically only good for one thing for the Democrats anymore - keeping McConnell from being majority leader. That's definitely a good thing, but that's about it. Although they might go along with a straight line party vote on the next reconciliation bill (that is not subject to a filibuster), I wouldn't count on it.

Hundreds of bills are passed each Congress. The ones that people are frustrated with regarding these two are basically just a handful. If those seats were Red it would be disastrous.

How do those hundreds of bills get past the filibuster?

Democrats have relied on the filibuster much much more than Republicans in recent years. If we lose the Senate in '22 (very possible even without any tampering) we'll need it. Republicans could have ended the filibuster too, but they didn't. Even with Trump demanding them to (being the dumbass he is, he didn't know it wouldn't impact bills that impact the budget like the ACA). Yeah, it creates gridlock, but the senate bodies are reluctant to throw out a tool that could potentially take them completely out of power long term.

The Senators clamoring to ditch it all have safe seats. The ones trying to keep it, don't. We the people want to break gridlock.

Back to why we desperately need federal voting rights protection...The Texas AG admitted that if he had not blocked mail ballot applications in Harris County, Trump would have lost the state.
[www.newsweek.com]

It might not be as bad as it seems. This might be Manchin's display of seeking bipartisanship. We'll see where he lands in the end.

---

Manchin is a classic case of the Peter Principle. He has risen beyond his core competency. I say that in the spirit of greatest respect. He is a successful person who managed to find his way to national leadership in the same state as Senator Byrd.

Paraphrasing from the past, however - Mr Manchin, I've worked with many in WV during Senator Byrd's time. You sir are no Senator Byrd.

Mr. Machin even admits to not liking the limelight.

Senator Byrd would have used this key negotiating tactic to squeeze every single political gain he could get for WV. And there is no question he would want to keep his seat in the next Senatorial election. That means finding a way to get the voting rights law passed, infrastructure $$ to WV, and leveraging the GOP too.

What is Manchin doing? Well, this thread shows how he is. He's the wrong person for our political time. Or, with no 51 Dem Senator, we are only as strong as the weakest link. I sure wish someone would put a photo of Senator Byrd in Mr Manchin's office to get him to stop being Charlie Brown.

Quote
sekker
Manchin is a classic case of the Peter Principle. He has risen beyond his core competency. I say that in the spirit of greatest respect. He is a successful person who managed to find his way to national leadership in the same state as Senator Byrd.

Paraphrasing from the past, however - Mr Manchin, I've worked with many in WV during Senator Byrd's time. You sir are no Senator Byrd.

Mr. Machin even admits to not liking the limelight.

Senator Byrd would have used this key negotiating tactic to squeeze every single political gain he could get for WV. And there is no question he would want to keep his seat in the next Senatorial election. That means finding a way to get the voting rights law passed, infrastructure $$ to WV, and leveraging the GOP too.

What is Manchin doing? Well, this thread shows how he is. He's the wrong person for our political time. Or, with no 51 Dem Senator, we are only as strong as the weakest link. I sure wish someone would put a photo of Senator Byrd in Mr Manchin's office to get him to stop being Charlie Brown.

Robert Byrd absolutely demolished his competition in West Virginia. Destroyed his competitors by massive margins (in a solidly Democratic West Virginia). Manchin barely won his last election in a rapidly shifted now blood red West Virginia.

I can't imagine how a comparison to Robert Byrd would work. The general public can't even get Sen Byrd right. He's just a @#$%& Grand Wizard to those idiots.

He needs to produce 10 Republican senators. For anything. He keeps saying that's his line in the sand. Does he introduce or sponsor legislation? That might help.

The problem is as I've stated above: He doesn't know what they want because he doesn't know what they don't want/what they'll accept. That seems just a touch ineffective to me. He's not interested in talking about issues, which is dangerous.

Quote
deckeda
He needs to produce 10 Republican senators. For anything. He keeps saying that's his line in the sand. Does he introduce or sponsor legislation? That might help.

The problem is as I've stated above: He doesn't know what they want because he doesn't know what they don't want/what they'll accept. That seems just a touch ineffective to me. He's not interested in talking about issues, which is dangerous.

He's interested in surviving (which is just as dangerous). But at least that would be addressing the actual reason for his stances. Everybody speculating about his ego etc., or that he's a white supremacist or racist (all over twitter today) isn't it. It's simple survival.

Manchin is a waste of space and a giant ass ache. Oh, how I wish he'd fly away to some tropical isle and never return.

---

Quote
vision63

Quote
deckeda
He needs to produce 10 Republican senators. For anything. He keeps saying that's his line in the sand. Does he introduce or sponsor legislation? That might help.

The problem is as I've stated above: He doesn't know what they want because he doesn't know what they don't want/what they'll accept. That seems just a touch ineffective to me. He's not interested in talking about issues, which is dangerous.

He's interested in surviving (which is just as dangerous). But at least that would be addressing the actual reason for his stances. Everybody speculating about his ego etc., or that he's a white supremacist or racist (all over twitter today) isn't it. It's simple survival.

Manchin's history is that as Governor he interceded with the University of WV to get his daughter an MBA. Once she was appointed as CEO to a big pharma outfit and the press investigated that MBA, it turned out she never did the work and ultimately after a coverup attempt the university acknowledged she never did earn the degree and she then stopped claiming it.

Later the big parma company she headed increased the cost of their patented EpiPen ® 400% while increasing her compensation by 600%.

That entire family would probably be a better fit with the GOP.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2021 10:09PM by RgrF.

Quote
RgrF

Quote
vision63

Quote
deckeda
He needs to produce 10 Republican senators. For anything. He keeps saying that's his line in the sand. Does he introduce or sponsor legislation? That might help.

The problem is as I've stated above: He doesn't know what they want because he doesn't know what they don't want/what they'll accept. That seems just a touch ineffective to me. He's not interested in talking about issues, which is dangerous.

He's interested in surviving (which is just as dangerous). But at least that would be addressing the actual reason for his stances. Everybody speculating about his ego etc., or that he's a white supremacist or racist (all over twitter today) isn't it. It's simple survival.

Manchin's history is that as Governor he interceded with the University of WV to get his daughter an MBA. Once she was appointed as CEO to a big pharma outfit and the press investigated that MBA, it turned out she never did the work and ultimately after a coverup attempt the university acknowledged she never did earn the degree and she then stopped claiming it.

Later the big parma company she headed increased the cost of their patented EpiPen ® 400% while increasing her compensation by 600%.

That entire family would probably be a better fit with the GOP.

When I brought all that up earlier, crickets.

None of that matters. It's just how leftists mine for grab handles on that which they oppose and are basically besides the point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2021 03:55AM by vision63.

Quote
$tevie
Manchin is a waste of space and a giant ass ache. Oh, how I wish he'd fly away to some tropical isle and never return.

He could be Shelly Capito. If he was, we wouldn't have the ACA.

We didn't have to be here. A 50/50 Senate. i can get granular with how "we" screwed the pooch.

This all reminds me of the last stages of passing the ACA. There was a senator from Nebraska as I recall who was the last vote Obama / Biden needed. In the end, he got what he wanted in pork.

Would we be better off with a transactional Senator? Absolutely. I think there is an easy middle ground. End the legislative filibuster, and find out what Manchin wants for his last vote.

Manchin has said he’s fine with the Mr Smith Goes to Washington filibuster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2021 08:19AM by sekker.

[nymag.com]

Be careful of what you wish for. If there would have been no filibuster, then the ACA would have been gutted in seconds.

---

The arts are not luxuries but assets that give way more than they cost.
--Ronald Tucker on YouTube

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
--Frank Zappa

Quote
AllGold
[nymag.com]

'In sum, the Founders did not create the filibuster. It emerged accidentally, was changed repeatedly, and was not “designed” for any purpose, and most certainly not to give the minority party a veto. It’s no more true than George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. It’s a story people made up to rationalize a system that nobody invented because nobody ever would create a system like this on purpose.'

Quote
Sam3
Be careful of what you wish for. If there would have been no filibuster, then the ACA would have been gutted in seconds.

Maybe, keep in mind that Richard Nixon was blocked from starting a single-payor system when he was a GOP President.

If we end the filibuster and get to keep voting rights, I think that's a fair exchange.

Without voting rights, we do not have a democracy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2021 04:12PM by sekker.

Quote
Sam3
Be careful of what you wish for. If there would have been no filibuster, then the ACA would have been gutted in seconds.

They didn't need a filibuster, ACA was gutted before it passed.