From what I recall, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, the Moderates agreed, in principle, to some social/entitlement spending and programs, but it was the original price tags that threw them off. That’s when things went sideways. That doesn’t seem like them backtracking, that seems like the Progressives taking that to mean putting in everything including the kitchen sink and the Moderates balking…then the Progressives using that to stop a bill already going through. Like I said, YMMV…obviously it does. This is how it looks from my perspective.
AFAIK the moderates privately told schumer they would do basically what they’re doing now but schumer didn’t publicize the details and the fight got delayed.
IIRC the whole reason to bundle them was because political betrayal of norms by the right(ward) against the left(ward) is now expected, thanks to 1)mcconnell and 2)the big lie. It was seen as reasonable by just about everyone, moderates included. They are looking over at that 6-3 court and saying huh?
Sinemanchin are not staking out a moderate democratic position. They are positioning for a life under Republicans even if it means without a democracy.
Eugene Debs suggested “It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.” The problem with shushing and ignoring the “far left” is it shifts the Overton window to the right and limits possibilities for the future. This shift to the right has been a main feature of electoral politics for some time, and it is aided and abetted by the right. Noam Chomsky, suggested “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
So if you want to be a moderate, be a moderate, but don’t suggest that the left will succeed by becoming moderate.
I can’t believe that its the price tag. They (S and M)would spend us into the stone age for any political gain for themselves. The price tag never comes up in other contexts with these folks.
Manchin’s talking about an “entitlement society.”?!?! Someone needs to tell these people that you need to invest in your country, and not in your profile with the other parties base of seditionists. They do not want to invest in this country. They are traitors.
They should be taken out and shot, amiright??
I’m not sure how firm the commitment was – this is what I found:
At the time, Manchin didn’t seem to have any problem with working the two together. Later, he acted like he’d never even heard of the plan to work them together. No topline number had been agreed upon, but it’s clear that this was planned to go together for many months. I think that’s when the progressives got really frustrated.
First you have to subpeona, indict, try and then convict. I’m against the death penalty.
Certainly there have been a few dozen less subpeonas than we need lately, and not much passion in enforcement. I guess being a moderate that’s ok by you.
I think you are making a good case for why the ‘Far Left’ is demonized by some. You are seriously advocating trying these senators for treason, and simply balking at a firing squad because you are against the death penalty.
And I seem to be the only one who finds this extraordinary in this thread.
Thanks for the link. I read it slightly differently than you are…basically, what ISTM is that Manch’s worry was that the Republicans would back out or oppose in lockstep the infrastructure bill, so this was a hedge against that. This didn’t happen, however. He stated several times in the article you linked to that, in principle he agreed with the ‘human infrastructure’ (first time I’d seen it referred that way, but haven’t really been following politics much lately so probably not a new thing) aspect, but that he thought all Dems needed to be involved in putting it together.
I think this was an instance of both sides talking past each other, hearing what they thought the other side was saying when it coincided with their own expectations. I can see the frustration you are talking about, especially since that article is obviously trying to push a narrative that caving in on the ‘human infrastructure’ part would be caving into eventual, total Republican/Conservative domination.
Stop being silly.
Your so called moderates are not moderate any more than you are. Nobody is demonizing the progressives aside from the right.
I can’t really help it…I’m big on just saying NO to drugs…
But not to drug companies I take it.
Sure, if they supply me with the NO I need to be silly, I’m all for…
What were we talking about?
Oh yeah it was all just an accident of miscommunication.
Manchin is longing for a Republican congress so he doesn’t have to face questions about his “cui bono” problems.
This was the Dem parties worry, as a whole, left and moderate, but Manchin did not share it at all. Didn’t seem to care.
You say that the republican betrayal didn’t happen? Isn’t the process ongoing now? They can still do that. Who has stopped worrying about Republican betrayal? You? You seem to be very naive.
On the infrastructure bill? As far as I know, they are on record as, at least some of them, supporting it. It’s only ‘process ongoing’ right now because, well, it’s still in limbo, since it hasn’t been put forth by the Dems yet. It’s being held up by the Progressives…which was what we were talking about. Sure, there is the debate between some of you on who is at fault, blah blah blah, but the bottom line is it isn’t the Republicans holding things up.
IF they do go back on that, well, then you will have a point. I’ll be happy to blast them over doing so, as I think this thing is important and should go through.
As to my naive-essense or whatever, I guess. I’m not the one who wants to try a senator for treason because he doesn’t toe the party line though…
Right–but there are two different issues here.
- Should infrastructure be tied to social spending? AFAICT, all Democrats, including Biden, agreed to this early on. This continued tie seems to be the crux of your argument that progressives are weakening Biden. If Biden himself is agreeing to this tie, it’s bonkers to argue that progressives are undermining Biden by supporting a maneuver that he supports.
- Should social spending be passed? This is the crux of my argument about Manchin and Sinema weakening Biden. This social spending is (again AFAICT) stuff that Biden campaigned on. Efforts by two Democrats to block Biden’s agenda, going against the House and the president and the vice president and 48 senators, is unquestionably weakening Biden.
Look, I get it. In this respect, you apparently stand against Biden’s agenda, and of course you’re allowed to do that. That doesn’t (good grief) make you, or Manchin, or Sinema, a traitor, and FWIW such rhetoric is repugnant to me.
But in standing against him, you weaken him. That’s just how politics works. It’s fine for you to want to weaken someone whose positions you don’t support. But to act like it’s the progressives–who are pushing Biden’s agenda–are weakening him is just bizarre.
Fair enough, though to my mind I don’t see it as standing against him. I see it as supporting him and what he’s trying to do for the good of the country right now, with what we need (IMHO of course)…right now. Yes, I get that he campaigned on a lot of other things, but myself I think Biden et al need a win right now and this is a win that would be good for him, his administration the Democrats as a whole, and the country.
We just see it differently. I’m glad you find the whole traitor thingy repugnant.
Okay–but again, you disagree with Biden in this respect.
It’s difficult to argue that progressives, who are in agreement with Biden on this measure, are weakening him, and conservatives, who disagree with him on this measure, are not.
Stand with those who are weakening him, fine, that’s your prerogative. But taht’s what you’re doing.
And of course the “traitor” thing is repugnant, and I really wish folks wouldn’t do it. There may be, and IMO is, a helluva lot wrong with Manchin and Sinema, but the “traitor” rhetoric is super unhelpful and gross.