It's possible that Joe Manchin is the worst person in the world. It's gotta be a close call, since the US Senate breeds vainglorious assholes like fruit flies, but who knows? He might be the worst. Anything is possible.
That said, does anyone think that pissing him off is a constructive thing to do? That it will somehow make him more likely to compromise with progressives? How'd that work out with Susan Collins?
There are some aspects of human psychology that are deep and mysterious. There are others so obvious that kids on playgrounds know them. This is one of the latter. Regardless of whether Manchin is or is not a consummate dick, we need his vote—and a full frontal assault on him is really not the way to get it. Can progressives—who, last I looked, are a minority even within the Democratic Party—please pull their heads out of their asses on this score? Passing legislation is more important than you getting to feel righteous on Twitter.
I 100% agree.
If any of the complainers know of a better democrat who can win West Virginia please do share.
Until then Manchin did give us control of the Senate and that’s not too bad.
Exactly and this is NOT a surprise either:
From puncbowl news (take with a grain of salt if you wish but the truth is there)
“Manchin has been remarkably consistent, and all the major media outlets have reported it time and time again. If you’re surprised by what Manchin is saying now, maybe you’ve been really busy, tied up on other endeavors and haven’t listened to or read what he’s said. That’s understandable. Life moves pretty fast.”
“But if you have listened to Manchin and you’re still surprised by or enraged at his positions, that may be because you’re irrationally hopeful he will change his beliefs, or you’re engaging in wishful and likely unrealistic thinking. Maybe you’re just listening to what you want to hear. But don’t worry, you aren’t alone. Half of official Washington has decided that they’re going to ignore what Manchin says and believe he has a secret set of beliefs he’s waiting to unveil.”
“Here’s what you have to understand about Manchin: He says what he means. When he gets heavy pressure from the left, it helps him back home.”
**************************************************************
This is exactly why I am surprised at how pissed DEMs are getting at Manchin.
He's more consistent than most politicians are.
Get the BBB bill down to about $1.5T in NEW spending. Eliminate the contentious environmental section (for now). Combined with the $0.6T in the BIP new spending that gives us $2.1T which is about what Biden wanted in the fist place.
Like dropping the public option from Obamacre. It passed and is now wildly popular.
Hmm I was with you until the last sentence. Obamacare isn’t “wildly” popular - it’s just more popular than what we had before and more popular than nothing. Mostly because the last round of centrist and moderate Democrats made it really complicated to actually use and really stingy if you’re $1 in income over its cutoffs for help.
I agree taking half or a third or a quarter or whatever crumbs are left after Sinema eats the rest of the loaf/burns down the bakery is better than absolutely nothing. But don’t confuse “better than nothing” for “wildly popular.”
Lolz, you mad???
I don't know what the Puchbowl calls "consistent". Manchin is consistently stupid; other than that he hardly even makes sense. He has not yet brought forward any cogent policy argument.
And BTW the progressives and all but two of the moderates are on board with the bill. Some might ask for some changes but they have expressed a willingness to vote for the thing at the end. Kevin is just wrong when he says the progressives are the minority; they are where the President is and he is the very prototype of a moderate.
Passing imperfect to make progress is often a smart move. Purity ponyism is particular but not sole afflication of the Left.
But how can one forgo the righteous pleasure of Twitterati Very Import Declarations.... (one supposes it's just making Corner Pub Stool Declamations more visible though)
Unless Sinema is lying, she isn't going to pass a reconciliation bill no matter what is in it, unless "her" bipartisan bill gets passed first by the House. And unless House progressives are lying, they are not going to pass the BIF and allow Sinema to decide what, if anything, goes in the BBB bill. Can't say I blame them.
Pelosi needs to bring matters to a head by declaring the BIF dead. Forget the Senate prima donnas for a while and let the House pass whatever it can get the votes for. Send it to the Senate under reconciliation. If it's all going to end as a colossal screw-up, the sooner it's over, the better.
Sinema all but admitted she is not going to pass anything through reconciliation. The entire strategy was always the mini bill then roll the progressives.
Interesting insight.
- Is it your perspective that, if the House passes the reconciliation bill, that Manchin and Sinema just fall in line/sign?
- Or do you believe that voters will reward Democrats for passing the reconciliation bill in the House and it failing in the Senate?
I believe what I said at the end: If it's all going to end as a colossal screw-up, the sooner it's over, the better. Most voters have short memories. They're not going to vote for Republicans to punish Democrats for something they didn't do more than a year previously.
and a full frontal assault on him is really not the way to get it.
Agreed. Nor is it the way to get Sinema's vote.
The "strategy" of holding BIF hostage to the reconciliation bill was a mistake. To an egocentric person like Sinema, it just makes her more intransigent and far more unlikely to compromise on this, or any other legislation.
I think Nancy Pelosi blew it on this one, unless she can find the votes to pass BIF all by itself.
An alternate strategy is to pass a smaller reconciliation bill, and dare Manchin and Sinema to vote against it.
I disagree. I was referring to the lefty vitriol directed at Sinema on Twitter, or people protesting her appearances, office, etc. That's the part I'm not so sure is a winner.
I think it's pretty likely that, had Biden already signed the BIF, the reconciliation bill would already be dead, because Sinema (and maybe Manchin) would've killed it.
Teen & twentysomething fleftists on Twitter are just scared to admit Kyrsten "Naderite" Sinema is their future.
I'm not convinced this isn't kabuki.
Purity uber alles yesterday.
Purity uber alles today.
Purity uber alles tomorrow…
Good cop/bad cop is a standard psychological game. Let the Senate moderates (Manchin and Sinema are NOT moderates, they're conservatives) be the good cops and let the genuine progressives, both inside and outside the Senate, be the bad cops. That's at least as likely to work as any other approach, and has the great benefit of letting everyone involved do what they're best at.
Over-reaching is a fatal political illness that both political extremes practice.
Sinema ran here in Arizona as a progressive. And Kelly won without being a jerk. And Biden won here.
Manchin is not an American. He doesn’t consider the views of people outside of his state to be relevant. So to hell with him.
“This isn't the first time an out-of-stater has tried to tell West Virginians what is best for them despite having no relationship to our state.”
No relationship. To hell with the West Virginia redneck freak show.
Feels good. Accomplishes nothing.
Manchin represents WVa, not the entire country.
Everyone needs off ramps.
Though the frustration with Manchin and Sinema is understandable, we need their votes to move forward.
______________
Biden won't be able to do everything at once. And he can not do evreything by himself. Unfortunately, too many people want to claim he's already failed.
The public gets the government it elects. In this case, it elected a significant right wing faction hostile to all others. I don't think there is a way forward, but this isn't Biden or Sanders failure in my opinion. I am content to see all these bills set aside and left for another day. If that means lots of democrats get upset and decide to stay home or vote for republicans, then that's fine with me too. It's their choice. The party needs to figure out who it is.
And really, none of these proposals will make any difference. We've gotten on fine without them all this time.
One of the provisions is the child tax credit which has been handing out case for a couple of months now.
"https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/budget-and-spending/2021/10/18/child-tax-credit-october-payments-due-to-arrive-tuesday/49271685/
The IRS is handling these deposits, which began in July of 2021 and will continue through the end of the year. Parents should have already received three payments into their bank accounts before this month.
Democrats think this is popular and should be made permanent. If that were the case, why isn't there a huge spike in approval ratings for Biden and democrats? Because no one really cares about it.
Turns out, people really like Obamacare--just maybe not with that moniker. Even when the Republicans were trying to repeal it, people didn't think the provisions that helped them were really under threat.
The child tax credits are being treated the same way.
Not really. I view the child tax credit unpopular unlike Nixon care.....er Reagan care....er Romney care. The problem is by 2010 the economy had been rattled by the debt bomb.....and Democrats were pushing health care reform and pushing trade reform down the TPP hole. Just bad optics. Instead they should have announced NAFTA renegotiation in the summer and infrastructure with the 2010 reconciliation. My guess heavily reduced losses and then push for health care reform. This seemed to be what those unaffiliated voters wanted.
Make a deal with the two pieces of shit. But it will not be half a loaf it will be a crumb. We're in hell.
What these dweebs don't get is 19 Senators don't like the size of the package(with Biden leading in their direction) and 13 Senators don't agree on 1 of the "Climate initiatives" . Yet this board slobbers. Manchin is more a spokesman for them.
You are assuming he wants to help and to make a deal. I am not so sure. He seems content right now to leave things as they are.
Did I wake up in some alternate universe where J. Biden, C. Schumer, N. Pelosi, and members of the progressive caucus in Congress read K. Drum's blog for tips on negotiating etiquette? As far as I know, they are the ones negotiating with J. Manchin. When Drum says "you" in "I don’t care how much you hate Joe Manchin," he assumes powers that his actual readers do not possess.
The chance that Manchin gives a damn what some nobodies say about him at a remote corner of the internet is less than slim. It is zero. If anybody wants to give him hell, they should give him hell. It really makes no difference.
It doesn't really matter what WV voters think either. If I had to guess, what matters to Manchin is protecting the financial interests of himself and his family, and ensuring the viability of a lucrative post-senatorial career after his term is over.
It doesn’t come as a surprise to me that all those pledges and promises from Biden&Co on taking decisive action on climate breakdown was just empty talk.
I did actually predict this situation even before the election.
Mr Drum is correct in saying progressives are a minority in your Congress and nothing else can be expected in a country using “first past the post” especially if one is using it in combination with the most toxic financing of elections one can find in any country claiming to be a democracy.
I wonder how the situation would be if you had a constitution that could handle a multiparty situation?
After all , Sanders, just as one example , has been very successful in your primaries even if they are very unfavorable for a person running as an independent. In a multiparty situation would a “progressive party” probably be very influential ( the definition of progressive is apparently: caring for other human beings and caring for the planet and coming generations)
The elite of the Democratic Party , cheered by “centrist” and “moderate” voters (a paraphrase for conservatives) are telling “progressives” to shut up and fall in line. It’s not smart tactics to introduce socialism (a paraphrase for social benefits found in most other countries) and it’s definitely not smart to spend money on fighting climate breakdown presently, that can wait until later.
Having disastrous statistics on healthcare is your problem, this Swede doesn’t care but climate cannot wait!
A coal merchant financed by a dying industry and voted in by those poor suckers who should be helped to retrain into some other line of work are able to sabotage the climate plan Biden is trying to implement.
(that plan was anyway vastly insufficient)
The United States of America will arrive at the climate meeting in Glasgow with an empty briefcase.
Representatives from the United States of America will just strut around trying to impress , trying to act as if you are leading the fight against climate breakdown.
… but a (Swedish) child will once again reveal that the emperor is naked
A comment from a disillusioned Swede
Something I always wanted to ask her as she pressures governments: what about the people? Australia passed a carbon tax then the populace ellected a party to dismantle it for example. How do you expect governments to deal with the problem when the voters DONT want to make the changes and will punish paeties who do?
It’s about education, awareness.
Fossil fuel companies has been running a whopping disinformation campaign for decades. Politicians connected to fossil fuel companies (financed) has been benevolent to them , especially right wing politicians and this has turned into a right-left issue… sadly. The usual argument from the companies is loss of jobs and abstaining from technology.
If you should care to actually listen to Ms Thunberg should you notice that she is stressing, over and over again, the need of informing oneself on the situation, on science
You hit the nail on the head with terminology
One thing that we forget is that the BIGGEST voting block in the US is neither D or R it's independent or non-affiliated voters
Of the two parties the Progressives make up just a small portion of the D party and uber conservatives make up a small part of the R party.
We are however NOT a democracy in the true sense of the word we are a representative republic - which is the basis for most of our problems. We have a two party system because thats what we're used to.
Back before WWII republicans were considered progressives. Go figure.
There are no easy answers for politics in the US......and disillusion is not limited to an outsider.
Just keep in mind the following
For immigrants immigration is life or death
For poor people healthcare is life or death
For rich people taxes are life or death
For environmentalists climate change is life or death
We can all make cases for or against any of those statements........
Strictly scientific is climate life or death for us all….
You are a democracy, since you are having some kind of elections (even if you are using an outdated version of democracy)
Many Americans are claiming you aren’t a democracy, they are instead using some combination of the concepts of representatives-republic-constitutional, using two or three of them
Why?
Those concepts just means you are having a Constitution (most are) and you are having an elected head of state, it’s not a hereditary title as it is I’m my Sweden…although your head of state is having, more or less, the power of a sovereign monarch from times gone by and representative simply means you are electing representatives to represent you in the National Assembly (anything would be highly impractical in a country with a population exceeding more than a couple of thousand citizens)
Your too late now. Once the automobile, plane fuel decision was made 100 years ago, the endgame was decided.
In parliamentary systems, the roles of head of state (monarch or president) and head of government (prime minister) are separate offices. The US combines the two; POTUS is both head of state and head of government. Given the founding fathers' obsession with "checks and balances", it's a bit surprising they didn't recognize the advantage of having a separate head of state to act as a check on the head of government.
France, as an example, elects both its head of state and (indirectly) its head of government. Generally, elected heads of state have somewhat more actual power than constitutional monarchs; in some cases, such as Russia, the head of state has quite a lot of power. However, even Russia keeps the office of head of state and head of government separated.
Let’s stick to democracies and keep Russia out of it .
The powers of your president is unique in a country claiming to be a democracy. (And is in my opinion an abomination)
Head of state
Leader of the government but contrary to a PM in a parliamentary system is he able to totally disregard the rest of the government and run a one man show
Undisputed commander in chief
Executive orders!
Having the power to override the Congress using a veto and with the help of a few cronies in the Senate able to override the Congress if the Congress tries to override a veto
This reminds me of the power of a sovereign monarch from times gone by
You aren't quite right about who the voters are Vog46 - the unaffiliated voters makeup does fluctuate over time but right now it is mostly three groups the secret partisans, currently a ton of that block is Trump leaning voters but also progressive leaning voters but the other crucial block is the uninterested voter - they don't follow politics closely and don't vote unless someone gives them a compelling reason to do so.
The mush middle doesn't really exist today, the name of the game for elections in the 21st century is turnout plus getting enough of the uninterested voters to turn out to your side.
Republicans as Progressive? Not really - the progressive movement had members in both parties (late 19th century until WWII) but the majority of the party was pro-business.
Totally agree. Why hate Joe Manchin more than the other Republicans in the Senate. He's elected from a typical shithole state, of which there are way too many, with a large Republican lean; of course he's not going to be a very good Democrat. If only we could convince all the loud-mouthed tweeters to be nicer to Joe Manchin, he'd come right around.
Lulz
"If only we could convince all the loud-mouthed tweeters to be nicer to Joe Manchin, he'd come right around."
We need to convince tweeters to be consistent see my post above
Joe hasn't changed a bit
You're so very right, besides revenge is a dish best served cold.
I think one's perspective on Joe Manchin must be put in perspective. Do I like Manchin's proposed changes to the reconciliation bill no but...
- I like Manchin better than the other West Virginia Senator (Republican Capito)
- I sure like Manchin better than some of the GOP idiots like Ted Cruz
- I actually like Manchin better than former West Virginia Senate icon Robert Byrd. As a reminder, early in life, Byrd was very active in the KKK
Byrd did have an extremely troubling history on race early in his career, but, after he entered his 60s, he was a massively superior senator to Manchin.
What about Jay Rockefeller?
Take him over Exalted Cyclops or Boat Boy any day.
I agree with you on the substance. I don't think there's any value in complaining about what people say on Twitter. Even though I am often tempted to do it myself.
I mean, you just can't stop people from talking(1). That's the authoritarian playbook. That's the opposite of how I want things to work.
Amusingly, the public ire from progressives he's experiencing may well be a political positive for him with the voters of WV.
(1) Twitter can, on their platform. I'm not Twitter.
Susan Collins is a very telling example: When it doesn't count she makes all sorts of (stupid) noises about how concerned she is etc. etc., then she votes party line (almost without exception) when it counts. Joe Manchin is the exact opposite. When it doesn't count he is "open" to all sorts of ideas. When they come to a vote he all of a sudden finds (stupid) reasons to be against them. And he votes against them. They both are obviously "vainglorious assholes" but one does much more damage to his party than the other.
Somehow the GOP has a mechanism to keep their Collinses and Snows in line; the Democrats don't.
A propos "vainglorious assholes": I want to be on record with this: There are quite a few senators (mostly on the D side) who are decidedly not "vainglorious assholes".
On the other hand: For Sinema "vainglorious asshole" is insufficient to describe her stupidity and vanity.
A big part of the Manchin:Collins difference up to now has been: the former is more concerned about general election voters; the latter more concerned about primary challenges.
"...you getting to feel righteous on Twitter."
Who are you talking to here? Are there voting members of Congress who are hammering Manchin on Twitter?
If you're talking not talking to them, but to pundits and ordinary rank-and-file progressive Dems, what makes their opinion less privileged than yours?
Somehow the GOP has a mechanism to keep their Collinses and Snows in line; the Democrats don't.
Yeah the US Constitution as structured has a built in advantage for the GOP especially after they jammed through 5 rural states (including the Dakota split) to gain a ton of new GOP senators while at the same time holding up the formation of New Mexico and Arizona.
The US constitution does not give Republicans an inherent advantage with small town/rural voters. The Democrats really need to figure out how to get more of the non-metropolitan vote.
The problem is "How many bites of the apple does Manchin get?" The reconciliation package was 7 trillion over 10 years until he objected and negotiated it down by half. Then he objected to his own negotiated package, and again and again. At what point do you make him draw a line AND step across...?
I used to argue with Republican's that being pro-gun, anti-gay, anti-Mexican and anti-abortion wouldn't win a lot of elections in California.
How did R's solve this problem?
They decided in an open primary that I, and Independent couldn't vote for an R, but I can for a D, because D's didn't close their primary.
Way to win R's. At this point the only way an R is going to win a major statewide office is through a recall.
If you want to win elections, and change policies, you've got to find ways to win elections, and that probably isn't with AOC or Bernie in a lot of these places.
I do think things will change, but it can take generations.
"As a reminder, early in life, Byrd was very active in the KKK"
Wow! Did you know, Lincoln was a Republican?/s
I think it's worth going after him hard. He's in a once in a generation negotiating position for his state, and he's not doing anything to help them. He's not asking for specific call outs for solar factories in WV, or some targeted tax breaks or subsidies he can claim credit for to his constituents, or whatever, just making sure coal execs and the wealthy aren't harmed. Seems like some commercials should be run in his state pointing this out constantly. He could be bringing home bacon, but instead he's bringing it all down for no discernable reason.