Some day Manchin is going to need something from the majority party. As a Democratic Senator from a red State he needs to keep his constituents happy. So he brokers his votes and frequently gives D’s a case of hard looks and tight jaws.
Any filibuster reform needs to make it so painful that it’s not used as a go to for the opposition. Make them think about whether it is worth the cost of using it.
One way to make the filibuster more difficult, in addition to making a talking requirement, would be to require a quorum be present at all times. That way the bulk of the minority would have to be present.
I’m cursed with being too much of a literalist.
I’m going to continue to support the filibuster. I think it defines who we are as a Senate.
He says that as if it’s something to be proud of.
Only the best criminals…
The dude was in the State Department, you know, the branch that does diplomacy…
Though, in fairness, it was under Pompeo.
Ok, this is better than the usual sharp stick in the eye.
hahahahaha Yeah it is. I’m surprised myself.
I’ll just add this.I saw he was going to be on CNN with Jake Tapper,so with the heads up I didn’t watch but
he (Manchin) wasn’t fooling many.He still voted for Grenell and Sessions during Trumps tenure and denied Neera Tanden time to shine for OMB.
I think Manchin should consider the fact that with respect to the voting rights legislation passed by the House and now pending in the Senate, a minority of Republican senators will–by virtue of the filibuster–preserve the ability of a minority of voters to disrupt the will of the majority of voters in this country. Republicans don’t care if that is “painful”, they only care about preserving their stranglehold on our democracy.
Yeah but Joe has been in politics since winning his first state rep seat in WV in 1982. He knows better, he better know better, if you know what I mean.
He continues to believe his Republican colleagues are persuadable They are not but he opened the door to fixing the filibuster, this is progress.
He lives in a state that went for Trump by a wide margin. I’ve been critical of Manchin at times, but he does have to live with reality on the ground. He does have to recognize how tight his margin is in WV. I don’t know how persuadable he thinks Republicans actually are. He might be couching his comments carefully, remaining open to things while helping Biden when it counts. The passage of the pandemic recovery package was a nice step in the right direction, even with Manchin’s tweaks. He won’t ever be over on Sanders’s wing but we already knew that. I am now wondering if they can get Infrastructure passed. Much needed.
Would you support this when Democrats are in the minority?
It has been useful a time or two in the past.
(I should clarify that I know that this particular vote was a majority-vote situation, but couldn’t pass up the opportunity to relive one of those delicious moments when Mitch takes it in the shorts; but McCain’s criticism of the filibuster steamrolling approach used was in fact one of his stated reasons for opposing it.)
Fred’s mother sure didn’t know much about Frederico’s police record.
Fred’s politics burn a little hot, she told Politico," which first reported the arrest, “but I’ve never known him to violate the law.”
This is a key exchange in Manchin’s interview with Chuck Todd on MTP, where he basically announces his support for passing a Voting Rights Act.
Sure. Bring back the stand there and jabber filibuster, but with a few caveats: Use the same rules that apply in the Republican-run Texas Legislature, you know, the ones Wendy Davis were subjected to when she attempted to head off draconian abortion legislation in the Senate there:
No food, drink, or any physical support. No sitting, leaning on the desk/podium, taking any breaks or going off-topic.
Rethugliklans love rules like these.
“but I’ve never known him to violate the law.”
Yeah there’s always a first time.
One way to make the filibuster more difficult, in addition to making a talking requirement, would be to require a quorum be present at all times. That way the bulk of the minority would have to be present.
I think this is well addressed by the requirement to have 40 votes to sustain a filibuster. It also lets the majority off the hook a little in that they don’t have to be present nessasarily.
Good lord.