Prominent voting rights advocate Stacey Abrams threw her support behind Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) rundown of voting measures he’d support Thursday morning, saying she “absolutely” supports the compromise.
Let’s hope Abrams’ OK corrals both the Noisy Caucus and the Do-Nothing Moderatee Caucus into getting something done that makes the NeoConfederate GQP choke on their rank racism.
Republicans take every opportinty to go on TV, including both Fox Schnooze and televised House and Senate hearings, and scream and cry that every nuanced statement by Democrats or Dr. Fauci is a lie, because the Magabase doesn’t get nuance, or anything else, which is the defining characteristic of the Magabassenvolk.
… anyone who wants to filibuster ought to be required to go to the floor and basically state your objection and why you’re filibustering and also state what you think needs to change that’d fix it, so you would support it,” he added,…
And when the explanation is, ‘because your party and your president proposed it,’ where goes that leave Joe? Where’s the possibility for bi-partisanship then?
'Cause, as MoscowMitch’s made clear, on some legislation, that’s where we’re at now.
Abrams is not giving a “thumbs up” to the proposal, she is merely accepting the inevitability of conservative obstruction and therefore the need for incrementalism; “building blocks” to make the next move easier.
ETA: conservatism is fundamentally about creating institutions, mores and laws that protect but do not bind an in-group while binding but not protecting out-groups. The trick then is to chip away at what defines in-groups and out-groups while pushing institutions and mores application to all. It’s understandable that conservatives are violently opposed to the implications of critical race theory: they clearly are ignorant of its details but intuit that the notion of discrimination built in to society rather than a function of bad actors is not good for their project.
And IMO, the No Labels outfit is ineluctably conservative, probably Manchin too if it comes to that.
This is a good sign for eventual passage of a bill that has a lot that we like.
The rest can be dealt with later, and as @ncsteve pointed out yesterday, this kind of deal-making is why we have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Abrams imprimatur on the compromise should get a lot of support for the deal.
I did not anticipate this. Given her position, status and expertise, it is a boost, for sure.
Leading up to Manchin’s announcement yesterday, I had seen and heard inputs from well-known names representing the people against whom all this racism is directed.
Including Democratic representatives of all ethnic backgrounds.
But it’s all for naught unless there’s a secret deal that changes come with movement on the filibuster, of course.
Maybe you can bring a utility bill or other item- not a government issued ID. The ID’s aren’t free and cost money to get one- poll tax (transportation ect). I’m fine if they can have a compromise. The constitution does not require ID to vote.
Manchin has signaled that he’s okay with updating the rule to put the onus on the filibusterer to keep 41 votes present in the Senate in order to sustain a filibuster.
That’s a huge step forward, and even though it’s not the perfect solution to the problem, it’s a good start on getting there.
This really isn’t all that much. Manchin’s concessions tap dance around the edge of the issue but do not hit it in the gut. Wait some more.
And it blows up the Gops biggest talking point. When Mitch trashes this too, it will fall back onto Manchin’s shoulders. I like the pressure. Good on, Stacey!
One of the things that isn’t in this audio or in Fang and Grim’s observations is the fact that Manchin seems to have no interest in what his Democratic colleagues are thinking and saying — other than being angry about taking heat from them. He’s more concerned about working with McConnell than he is with Schumer. That’s telling all by itself.
So, it appears that America now has two leaders. One is overseas handling foreign policy. The other is in Washington speaking with high level campaign donors about what he plans to do about the peasants…
…Click over to the main article to see all the discussion about campaign money in S.1, which is what all this is really about for these people. Some participants actually seemed to admit to breaking campaign finance laws on behalf of centrists in the last election which nobody will ever do anything about so … whatever.
They also bragged about coordinating with the Chamber of Commerce to leverage votes for big money interests. …
…Maybe Manchin will prevail in getting his buddies on the other side handsomely paid off and we can get a January 6th commission and some puny infrastructure or voting bills. This would be better than nothing. But I doubt very much that Manchin will get what he wants. McConnell has way more juice when it comes to payoffs and he also has a very big orange stick names Donald Trump ready to make any Republican a toxic figure if they vote with the Democrats. I’m betting on the Grim Reaper — but hoping to be wrong.
“That’s one of the fallacies of Republican talking points that have been deeply disturbing — no one has ever objected to having to prove who you are to vote,” she said. “I support voter identification. I reject restrictive voter identification designed to keep people out of the process.”
Totally agree. The problem with Voter ID isn’t Voter ID itself, the issue is about acceptable forms of ID. If utility bills, SNAP, insurance, debit, school ID, and other cards are included then it really isn’t a big deal. It becomes suppressive when you limit ID to forms that nonwhite, young, and poor people are very unlikely to have.
" When pressed about the voter ID provisions of his proposal, she waved off assumptions that she’d be against them. "
I’m so old I remember when National Voter ID cards were as toxic to the MAGAts of the day as vaccines are to today’s MAGAt.
You can’t shame folks if they’re incapable of the emotion. The GOP will proudly put those 41 votes up there.
But will they keep them there 24/7—which would be the requirement—for every single issue that comes before the Senate?
I think not.
Exactly, it makes no sense to do any of this unless there’s some agreement on how to get around the filibuster. I suspect that much like when the Dems reformed the filibuster for federal justices, we won’t hear about it until right before they do it.
Manchin didn’t say he’d go back to the talking filibuster. He’s opposed to that. He’s modifying the gentleman’s agreement the filibuster has morphed into to a slightly more involved process but not near enough to curtail its use.
I was impressed with Ornstein’s impression of this very thing (which is yours) with O’Donnell last nite.