If he hasn’t come to that point after the last at least 13 years, I don’t think another few months will do it.
You don’t think that he’s being honest, but you still think to give him the benefit of the doubt?
That something else is, “Look at me! Look at me! Everyone has to pay attention to me, since the future of our nation rides on my decisions here!”
It still means that Manchin is out. And I don’t see any guarantee that Manchin isn’t defeated by 29 points to a MAGA-spewing republican. He’s not going to win any republicans, no matter how much he obstructs the democrats. And the more he obstructs the democrats, the fewer are going to come out to vote for him.
We’ll see. Any prediction is a guess. My guess is that he disappoints us, as he usually does. But it’s just a guess.
Of course I don’t think he’s being honest (or at least not fully honest) - he’s an extremely skilled politician. He has to be, to be a Democrat who wins in WV. And I don’t give him any benefit of the doubt - I’m just saying we don’t know how he’d vote until there’s actually a vote. Everything he says publicly could change, depending on the circumstances.
Remember the Presidential vote in West Virginia: Trump got 69% while Biden got 30%.
Has West Virginia always been a heavily Republican state? No: Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Hubert Humphrey, LBJ, Kennedy, Truman and FDR won the state. But in recent years the Democrats have decided that identity politics are much more important than support from the white working class.
No, in recent years the Democrats have decided to make fighting climate change a high priority. That doesn’t go over well in West Virginia, the capital of coal country. Joe Manchin went so far as to do a campaign ad years back where he literally shot a copy of a cap and trade bill.
OT, but something I found surprising: Dukakis lost California, Illinois and Michigan in 1988, but won West Virginia. I can’t begin to explain that.
Perhaps I’m digging through a pile of manure looking for a pony, but I think you’re on to something there. I’ve wondered if Manchin’s posturing is a delay tactic to postpone passage of the bill until it’s too late for court review or reversing its changes to election law in time for the 2022 mid-terms. That court review will be sought by Republicans is a given.
I’m wondering whether he’s holding out for some specific change so he can say ‘see! I fought to get it changed to something I think my constituents will see as an improvement!’
Maybe I’m just also looking for the pony, though. Plus which, depending on the change, that might also be a problem.
Joe Manchin is saving the Democrats from themselves. Just what do you think will happen if the Democrats blow up the filibuster in order to pass election laws on a straight party line vote, especially after the last election left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth?
If Democrats change election laws without a single Republican vote, the right will not trust the next election if Democrats win. If so, prepare for a major crisis. Passing sweepjng changes on straight party line votes when the Senate and House are evenly divided would also set horrible precedents for when Rephblicans gain control again as they inevitably will.
With the filibuster gone, the stakes will be raised dramatically for every election. Couple that with the rise of executive orders that can be undone by the next executive, and America coild slip into ping-ponging between extreme political changes with every election. Foreign countries will not trust America to keep its treaties, businesses will jot be able to invest long-term because the political landscape swings with every election, etc.
All of those rules that have been blown up in the last 15 years had a purpose. Now it’s all just naked politics, with major swings in policy every election. Don’t make it worse.
Honestly, I’m surprised that the percent of foreigners that say the U.S. is NOT a reliable partner are that low.
I know that Biden’s goal with our allies is to make the case that the last four years were an aberration. But any foreign leaders has to ask him or herself why – given that the United States was willing to elect one wannabe autocrat who shits on our allies and cozies up to dictators – we wouldn’t elect another one. There is no “just going back to how things were.” NATO allies and trade partners cannot assume that we will stand by our commitments, however sincere the current Administration may be. That’s part of the price we’re going to pay for decades as a result of Trump.
Yep. When Trump hemmed and hawed at his first NATO meeting about whether the US would honour the mutual defence clause (“an attack on one is an attack on all”), he did huge damage to the US’s international standing and to NATO itself. That was the point when Frau Merkel became the Leader of the Free World, in my opinion.
I’ve also seen an interview with a retired Canadian diplomat, who said that his understanding is that Foreign Affairs Canada had concluded that the government of Canada cannot assume Trump was an aberration. If the American people can elect one president willing to tear up treaties on personal whims, they can elect more presidents in the future who can do the same.
The diplomat said that now, the Canadian government has to operate on the assumption that a treaty signed by the President of the United States won’t last much beyond that President’s term.
I have no expertise in international affairs, but as a reasonably well informed Canadian, I think he’s right.
Putin’s useful idiot is paying such huge dividends, even out of office, causing huge stress fractures in the Western Alliance.
I don’t follow your linkage between the filibuster and foreign treaties. The filibuster didn’t prevent Trump from pulling the US out of the Parus climate accords, the Iran nuclear deal, or the Pacific Trade Partnership.
The common thread was that they were all deals negotiated by his predecessor so he cancelled them. That’s the type of conduct that makes other countries conclude that the US is no longer a reliable partner. Nothing to do with the filibuster.
People around the world are right in finding the US undependable and our democracy unreliable. Seventy-four million people voted for an ill-informed narcissist and a bad electoral system gave him a good chance of winning despite being outvoted by seven million nationwide. We’re a goddam mess here and the proof will be the next time some nitwit utters the argument that “we’re a republic, not a democracy, and that’s why we need the Electoral College.”