As a centrist, I find Joe Manchin's continuing naiveté that he is the only savior of the "middle" nauseating. Even after he decided not to run for Senate again, it continues. He decided he can't choose between Harris and Trump because, get this; she is against the filibuster. What a conscience! But hey, at least he won't be on Trump's retribution list like Romney, Biden, Obama, Hillary and Liz.
As a centrist, I find Joe Manchin's continuing naiveté that he is the only savior of the "middle" nauseating. Even after he decided not to run for Senate again, it continues. He decided he can't choose between Harris and Trump because, get this; she is against the filibuster. What a conscience! But hey, at least he won't be on Trump's retribution list like Romney, Biden, Obama, Hillary and Liz.
Posted something like this on Chris Cilliza's Substack yesterday on his post titled "CHRIS CRUCIAL: The filibuster is on life support"....
Note that Harris talked about eliminating the filibuster “for Roe”, by which I assume she means a carve-out for only this issue. This would follow the examples set by Harry Reid for non-SCOTUS federal judges, which Mitch McConnell then extended to SCOTUS nominees (for Gorsuch in 2017). At some point, we got rid of the filibuster for all federal appointees requiring Senate confirmation. The filibuster also does not apply to Budget Reconciliation measures … Byrd rule or something?…. (which I think has a limit of 3 per year or something). In that sense, the filibuster has been slowly getting eroded.
I guess the concern is that if the filibuster is eliminated just for “freedom of reproductive choice” matters by the Dems, then the GOP will similarly eliminate it for one of their own pet issues down the road when they control the Senate.
A better measure than a filibuster would be requiring non-Reconciliation legislation and Senate confirmations to be passed with at least one vote from a Senator who caucuses with the minority. Would that work in general - what do you guys think? It would certainly work for reinstating Roe legislatively because of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
I'm not sure but I think the limit is 2/year. I recently have been more against the filibuster for reasons I stated previously. Whether it it Democrats or Republicans who are in the majority, (it doesn't matter) bring back accountability. Originally it was used as a delaying the vote tactic to get legislators to think; holding the floor by speaking
"I find Joe Manchin's continuing naiveté that he is the only savior of the "middle" nauseating."
That was exactly my reaction. I am so tired of hearing what Joe Manchin thinks about ... literally ANYTHING. "The filibuster is the cornerstone of democracy" Huh? Get a clue, Joe. Go buy a boat and a Trump flag with some of the millions you pocketed from the coal industry.
I like Joe Manchin. A lot. He's not wrong about the filibuster. It's the one thing in Washington, DC that forces bipartisanship. And why in the world do the Democrats want to get rid of it when they are almost certainly going to be the minority party in the Senate come 2025 and maybe for several elections moving forward? Think about it. The one thing Trump and Harris agree on is getting rid of the filibuster. The filibuster saved the Democrats when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate and House after Trump won in 2016.
Harris proposed an exception to the filibuster for reproductive rights legislation, not getting rid of it altogether. There are already exceptions, including the one that allowed Trump's 3 Supreme Court nominees to be approved so that they could gut said reproductive rights. So there'd be a teeny bit of filibuster karma if this happened.
Actually I agree with Manchin on most issues. But I really get tired of his same old act he espouses with he comes off as a middle go between between Democrats and Trump. Someone should tell him; Joe, you voted with Biden 89% of the time. It is not a close call! I have always gone back and forth about the filibuster. The one thing it prevents is accountability. One can always hide behind it to avoid big issues votes.(Mitch McConnell) Look at it this way, if there wasn't a filibuster ( up and down 50/50 in the senate) and in case of an unpopular issue, it makes it easier for voters in the next election. (accountability)
Because the filibuster is abused by contrarians trying on purpose to grind the Congress to a halt. "the 110th Senate (2007–2009) passed a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced, a 66 percent decrease from 2005–2006 and a 90 percent decrease from 1955–1956. "
I read she wants to drop it for voting rights and reproductive rights only . I like Joe as well despite his ego.
I'm not clear on why Harris comments angers so much: Senators can ignore her even as a new party leader. It's a smart play for her to keep progressive happy in a generally centrist platform.
As a centrist, I find Joe Manchin's continuing naiveté that he is the only savior of the "middle" nauseating. Even after he decided not to run for Senate again, it continues. He decided he can't choose between Harris and Trump because, get this; she is against the filibuster. What a conscience! But hey, at least he won't be on Trump's retribution list like Romney, Biden, Obama, Hillary and Liz.
Posted something like this on Chris Cilliza's Substack yesterday on his post titled "CHRIS CRUCIAL: The filibuster is on life support"....
Note that Harris talked about eliminating the filibuster “for Roe”, by which I assume she means a carve-out for only this issue. This would follow the examples set by Harry Reid for non-SCOTUS federal judges, which Mitch McConnell then extended to SCOTUS nominees (for Gorsuch in 2017). At some point, we got rid of the filibuster for all federal appointees requiring Senate confirmation. The filibuster also does not apply to Budget Reconciliation measures … Byrd rule or something?…. (which I think has a limit of 3 per year or something). In that sense, the filibuster has been slowly getting eroded.
I guess the concern is that if the filibuster is eliminated just for “freedom of reproductive choice” matters by the Dems, then the GOP will similarly eliminate it for one of their own pet issues down the road when they control the Senate.
A better measure than a filibuster would be requiring non-Reconciliation legislation and Senate confirmations to be passed with at least one vote from a Senator who caucuses with the minority. Would that work in general - what do you guys think? It would certainly work for reinstating Roe legislatively because of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski.
I'm not sure but I think the limit is 2/year. I recently have been more against the filibuster for reasons I stated previously. Whether it it Democrats or Republicans who are in the majority, (it doesn't matter) bring back accountability. Originally it was used as a delaying the vote tactic to get legislators to think; holding the floor by speaking
"I find Joe Manchin's continuing naiveté that he is the only savior of the "middle" nauseating."
That was exactly my reaction. I am so tired of hearing what Joe Manchin thinks about ... literally ANYTHING. "The filibuster is the cornerstone of democracy" Huh? Get a clue, Joe. Go buy a boat and a Trump flag with some of the millions you pocketed from the coal industry.
The only people who respond positively to such a claim know nothing about our democratic, Constitutional republic. You know, 8O% of the electorate.
He already has a boat that he lives in.(in DC))
Good I'll send him a Trump flag for his birthday and he's all set.
I like Joe Manchin. A lot. He's not wrong about the filibuster. It's the one thing in Washington, DC that forces bipartisanship. And why in the world do the Democrats want to get rid of it when they are almost certainly going to be the minority party in the Senate come 2025 and maybe for several elections moving forward? Think about it. The one thing Trump and Harris agree on is getting rid of the filibuster. The filibuster saved the Democrats when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate and House after Trump won in 2016.
Harris proposed an exception to the filibuster for reproductive rights legislation, not getting rid of it altogether. There are already exceptions, including the one that allowed Trump's 3 Supreme Court nominees to be approved so that they could gut said reproductive rights. So there'd be a teeny bit of filibuster karma if this happened.
What did it save Democrats from? What legislative priority did Republicans miss out on by the existence of the filibuster?
Maybe the filinuster used to foster bipartisanship (I have my doubts) but it's pretty laughable to think it continues to foster bipartisanship today.
What bill in the last couple of Congresses has been passed after the filibuster worked its bipartisan magic?
Actually I agree with Manchin on most issues. But I really get tired of his same old act he espouses with he comes off as a middle go between between Democrats and Trump. Someone should tell him; Joe, you voted with Biden 89% of the time. It is not a close call! I have always gone back and forth about the filibuster. The one thing it prevents is accountability. One can always hide behind it to avoid big issues votes.(Mitch McConnell) Look at it this way, if there wasn't a filibuster ( up and down 50/50 in the senate) and in case of an unpopular issue, it makes it easier for voters in the next election. (accountability)
Well said, Dave: "The one thing it prevents is accountability."
Thanks! Manchin got my dander up with his continued sanctimoniousness.
Because the filibuster is abused by contrarians trying on purpose to grind the Congress to a halt. "the 110th Senate (2007–2009) passed a record-low 2.8 percent of bills introduced, a 66 percent decrease from 2005–2006 and a 90 percent decrease from 1955–1956. "
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/case-against-filibuster
I read she wants to drop it for voting rights and reproductive rights only . I like Joe as well despite his ego.
I'm not clear on why Harris comments angers so much: Senators can ignore her even as a new party leader. It's a smart play for her to keep progressive happy in a generally centrist platform.
Harris wants a filibuster carve out only for restoring abortion rights. I fully expect a trump senate will completely end the filibuster.
He's beyond nauseating, and his ego may have no match - which is saying something these days.
Jim Justice has an ego to match his waistline (too mean?)
All I know is that he has a waistline to match his IQ. (OK, that was definitely mean. I'll see myself out).