Don’t blame Manchin (1 Viewer)

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

What exactly are Manchin’s Democratic bona fides, anyway? All his positions that I’m familiar with are conservative positions, so I wonder why he keeps up the ruse.

Lemme guess - he backs unions, right?

He's fairly consistent in siding with the Dems on all the things we don't hear about, like for example confirming judges. And most importantly by far, he caucuses with them, which is the only reason Schumer is the Senate majority leader.

I mostly agree with Tim and others that it's a miracle that there's a Dem senator from WV at all (although worth noting that Shelly Capito is a surprisingly reasonable Republican, as these things go). If Dems want to pass things he doesn't like they need to get another Senator elected.

My only issue with Manchin is that he's not being straightforward. It is very clear that he's a swing vote and holds inordinate power, he should be involved in setting the agenda and crafting legislation, telling his peers up front what is and is not in play so they don't waste time and political capital.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's the one word you took out of that post?  Really?

It was the first sentence.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Simple yes or no.  Do you think it's fair to consider whether Joe Manchin, personally, is heavily invested in the coal industry when evaluating his stance on legislation that would impact that investment?

Not really, no.  Does anybody seriously doubt that his constituents support more coal mining?  This is exactly the same as how every midwestern senator supports ethanol.  I mean, duh.

Sometimes people who live in different parts of the country have interests that are different than yours.  That doesn't make the corrupt, or evil, or a weasel, or whatever.  They're just different, and if you don't want them to have a voice in government, that's totally fine but then knock it off with the "democracy" thing.  It's embarrassing.

 

[MAC_32]

Manchin is why I laughed at those on team red that were chicken little a year and a half ago. Manchin is why I laugh at those on team red who now say team blue can't get anything done. Manchin is why I laugh at those on team blue who are now trying to rake him through the coals - pun (un?)intended - for stalling their agenda. But this is my life without a tribe and I don't think I'll ever have the ability (let alone willingness) to view this stuff from their lens. Cause I don't understand why anyone should have been - and now is - surprised/upset about what's transpired in the senate over the last 18 months. 

 

[Rich Conway]

It was the first sentence.  

I've criticized you in the past for tiptoeing around topics and/or dismissing others viewpoints, while refusing to straightforwardly offer your own opinions.  This is one of those times.  Should we evaluate Manchin's stances based on his own personal interests?  Should we compare it to, say, Liz Cheney's actions in detail, or should we just go with "voted against the party"?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've criticized you in the past for tiptoeing around topics and/or dismissing others viewpoints, while refusing to straightforwardly offer your own opinions.  This is one of those times.  Should we evaluate Manchin's stances based on his own personal interests?  Should we compare it to, say, Liz Cheney's actions in detail, or should we just go with "voted against the party"?

I'm not "tiptoeing" or "dismissing" anything. 

I don't have a lot more to add than my original opinion below. I added that I wasn't doing anything "reflexively". Given it's July and it's the busiest time for the fantasy football business, that's about as much as I'm able to do now. 

I'm sorry you feel that merits criticism but it's my reality. 

I'd make this change:

We need more politicians that won’t just toe the party line and vote what they think is right.

Blue tribe or Red tribe on person that doesn’t toe their party line:  He’s an opportunist.  He’s a self-interested weasel.  His motivations are not pure.  He just loves the attention.

If someone from the "other" side doesn't toe the party line, that person has integrity. 

Rinse and repeat.

One would hope the Republicans would learn things from Cheney and the Democrats would learn from Manchin. Doesn't seem to be the case. But that's entirely predictable as well. It's way easier to dismiss or demonize the person that doesn't agree with me than it is to consider they might have a point. Because that might mean we could be wrong about something. Or our side might lose some points. 

 

[Rich Conway]

I don't have a lot more to add than my original opinion below. I added that I wasn't doing anything "reflexively". Given it's July and it's the busiest time for the fantasy football business, that's about as much as I'm able to do now. 

I'm sorry you feel that merits criticism but it's my reality. 

To be clear, I have never and will never criticize someone for "family comes first" or "work comes first".

That said, when you offer posts like this:

I'd make this change:

We need more politicians that won’t just toe the party line and vote what they think is right.

Blue tribe or Red tribe on person that doesn’t toe their party line:  He’s an opportunist.  He’s a self-interested weasel.  His motivations are not pure.  He just loves the attention.

If someone from the "other" side doesn't toe the party line, that person has integrity. 

Rinse and repeat.

You are certainly implying that others aren't evaluating the details but are simply being tribal.  This comes across as "reflexively both sides", especially when you don't weigh in on the actual topic of the thread, such that the only opinion you're offering is effectively "sides = bad".

 

[FairWarning]

I've criticized you in the past for tiptoeing around topics and/or dismissing others viewpoints, while refusing to straightforwardly offer your own opinions.  This is one of those times.  Should we evaluate Manchin's stances based on his own personal interests?  Should we compare it to, say, Liz Cheney's actions in detail, or should we just go with "voted against the party"?

Whether he’s invested or not, do you think he’s getting money and support from those businesses and voters in WV if he’s for green energy?   Not a chance.  

 

[djmich]

To be clear, I have never and will never criticize someone for "family comes first" or "work comes first".

That said, when you offer posts like this:

You are certainly implying that others aren't evaluating the details but are simply being tribal.  This comes across as "reflexively both sides", especially when you don't weigh in on the actual topic of the thread, such that the only opinion you're offering is effectively "sides = bad".

When you think Manchin is voting based on his stock ownership rather than what the people in his state want and it is contrary to what you like and pisses you off…that sure seems like a reflexive assumption to me.

 

[Boston]

When you think Manchin is voting based on his stock ownership rather than what the people in his state want and it is contrary to what you like and pisses you off…that sure seems like a reflexive assumption to me.

It would be so much easier if he just got investment tips from Pelosi.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Whether he’s invested or not, do you think he’s getting money and support from those businesses and voters in WV if he’s for green energy?   Not a chance.  

Reading this thread, you get the impression that people honestly think that if they just scream at voters one more time, people from WV will elect a progressive senator who will sign onto the Green New Deal.  It's like these people just woke up from living in a cocoon and know absolutely nothing about the actual United States.

 

[timschochet]

I personally wouldn’t compare Manchin to Cheney because Cheney is IMO acting on a higher plane than politics- she is attempting to preserve the integrity of of system of government and I really admire that. Manchin is making a political decision- perhaps in the interests of West Virginia, or in his own interests, or because he truly believes it’s what’s best for the country, or a combination of all three. I have no reason to impugn his motives. But I don’t put him on the same level as Cheney. 

 

[The Commish]

Not really, no.  Does anybody seriously doubt that his constituents support more coal mining?  This is exactly the same as how every midwestern senator supports ethanol.  I mean, duh.

Sometimes people who live in different parts of the country have interests that are different than yours.  That doesn't make the corrupt, or evil, or a weasel, or whatever.  They're just different, and if you don't want them to have a voice in government, that's totally fine but then knock it off with the "democracy" thing.  It's embarrassing.

Anecdote Alert!!!!!  To a person, of all the people I have ever worked with in that area, they'd love something else to do instead of coal mining.  They know it's killing them and they also know it's their only option.  This was something I realized back in the late 90s early 2000s.  I doubt they've fallen in love with mining since then.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Anecdote Alert!!!!!  To a person, of all the people I have ever worked with in that area, they'd love something else to do instead of coal mining.  They know it's killing them and they also know it's their only option.  This was something I realized back in the late 90s early 2000s.  I doubt they've fallen in love with mining since then.

Cool.  I look forward to meeting WV's new pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-nuclear senator who replaces Manchin in 2024.  (Not really joking -- I would actually like to see more such people in congress.  But obviously I don't expect that to actually happen.)

 

[Rich Conway]

When you think Manchin is voting based on his stock ownership rather than what the people in his state want and it is contrary to what you like and pisses you off…that sure seems like a reflexive assumption to me.

I'm not arguing anything about the constituency.  I'm arguing solely that it's not "both sides-ism" to consider the personal interests of a legislator when evaluating their policy positions/votes.  That's it.  Obviously, I recognize that WV as a whole is tied to the coal industry, and a WV senator who wasn't the single largest coal investor in the state (I think this bit is correct, but not 100% certain) would likely vote the same way.  That's still irrelevant to the original point I was making.

 

[Summer Wheat]

They are wrong too. But that's not nearly as important because Manchin is the marginal difference maker.

If the vote was 50-50, and Kamala Harris voted No, who would you blame more...Harris or the 50 GOP?

This is what I despise about politics.

Take 100 people on "any" topic.  Say there is 100 votes to cast on a variety of topics.  Would all the same people vote all the same way on every given topic?

Hell no!  But the left and right forces people to hold the line no matter what you actually believe in.

 

[Whyatt]

Anecdote Alert!!!!!  To a person, of all the people I have ever worked with in that area, they'd love something else to do instead of coal mining.  They know it's killing them and they also know it's their only option.  This was something I realized back in the late 90s early 2000s.  I doubt they've fallen in love with mining since then.

Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

West Virginia voters oppose Joe Manchin supporting a “new, smaller version of a Biden social spending plan.” When asked if they supported or opposed Senator Manchin supporting “a new, smaller version of a Biden social spending plan that would be focused on climate programs, prescription drug reform, and rolling back the Trump tax cuts,” they oppose it by a wide margin, 56 to 38 percent.

 

[supermike80]

Is it all possible Manchin is in the seat because he promised to protect the coal industry and is delivering on that promise?  I mean whether people like the work or not....its an important industry to the folks there I imagine.

I mean god forbid an elected official votes in a way that protects the folks that actually elected him and doesn't bow down to California's wants, which does nothing for those voters.

Crazy talk man

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

For those suggesting that Manchin is looking out for his coal-loving constituents here- he might be, but it's not the blue collar constituents working in the mines that you're visualizing. The coal industry employs only 11,000 West Virginians (and falling, due to market forces and basic environmental protections). There are two million residents in the state. Kroger probably employs more West Virginians than the entire coal industry. 

Lotta coal money in West Virginia, though.

 

[urbanhack]

What has Manchin actually done for the state of WV? Don't they rank near the bottom in many categories (poverty, child poverty, etc.)?

He's been in politics there since 1982 (state senate, sec. of state, governor and now senator).

What's his track record...should the state have something more to show by now under his leadership?

https://www.wboy.com/only-on-wboy-com/wboy-com-lists-and-rankings/west-virginia-ranked-among-worst-states-to-raise-a-family/

 

[FairWarning]

What has Manchin actually done for the state of WV? Don't they rank near the bottom in many categories (poverty, child poverty, etc.)?

He's been in politics there since 1982 (state senate, sec. of state, governor and now senator).

What's his track record...should the state have something more to show by now under his leadership?

https://www.wboy.com/only-on-wboy-com/wboy-com-lists-and-rankings/west-virginia-ranked-among-worst-states-to-raise-a-family/

Funny we think that about a 50-year politician (Biden).

 

[shader]

I generally like Manchin.

However, on the stripped-down BBB/climate bill, he is missing an incredibly historic oppty to singularly make a difference. Ostensibly, his reasoning for opposing the bill is inflation and the national debt.

These reasons are incredibly misguided a) because the climate investments are genuinely investments and not outright stimulus-like fiscal handouts b) at this stage $500 billion in additional debt is a drop in the bucket vs. the monumental benefits that would accrue and c) runaway inflation will likely be handled by an impending recession.

The Democrats missed their climate oppty in 2010 under Obama. It has been 12 years waiting for this next one. If ever the next one occurs will likely be too late to prevent warming from exceeding the 1.5-2.0C degree devastating temperature levels.

So yeah. He deserves the heat in this specific case.

Nothing any US politician decides is going to affect the global temperature level.

 

[The Commish]

Cool.  I look forward to meeting WV's new pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-nuclear senator who replaces Manchin in 2024.  (Not really joking -- I would actually like to see more such people in congress.  But obviously I don't expect that to actually happen.)

Right...which is never going to happen.  Problem there is people are terrified of making the leap.  They are frozen in place and if pressed to answer will tell you they'll take what they have right now over the unknown possibilities of the future.  They want guarantees and a documented path forward, but no one up there is willing to do that sort of work, so their position is to take the known over the unknown.

ETA:  And to be clear, my comments have nothing really to do with Manchin specifically....just the situation.  Manchin wasn't even in his current position during the times I was there working with the people.  

 

[Stoneworker]

Nothing any US politician decides is going to affect the global temperature level.

Lame

 

[Boston]

Nothing any US politician decides is going to affect the global temperature level.

I think Biden did a very good job affecting it yesterday with the number of cars, SUVs, helicopters and planes used to do photo ops in Mass and Rhody.

 

[urbanhack]

Funny we think that about a 50-year politician (Biden).

What does this have to do with Manchin?

I've never liked Biden FTR.

 

[dkp993]

Nothing any US politician decides is going to affect the global temperature level.

Weak sauce. We’re either the greatest country on the planet or we’re not.  We are either a world leader or we’re not.   Greatness doesn’t look at others for reason why they should or shouldn’t do something.

Oh and for the record China while currently producing a #### ton of carbon emissions is also kicking our ### in green production and development. So one day they will be producing a whole lot less carbon meanwhile we’ll be there, excuses in hand, about why we’re significantly behind them.  But the only true answer will be because of mindsets like yours.  

Leaders lead.  

 

[shader]

I think Biden did a very good job affecting it yesterday with the number of cars, SUVs, helicopters and planes used to do photo ops in Mass and Rhody.

That’s the point. This is all a political joke.  Make the differences in your own lives.  Some pork-laden bill designed to give rich people money and virtue-signal to the world to win an election isn’t going to affect the environment.

 

[supermike80]

For those suggesting that Manchin is looking out for his coal-loving constituents here- he might be, but it's not the blue collar constituents working in the mines that you're visualizing. The coal industry employs only 11,000 West Virginians (and falling, due to market forces and basic environmental protections). There are two million residents in the state. Kroger probably employs more West Virginians than the entire coal industry. 

Lotta coal money in West Virginia, though.

Considering every politican is about money, and I mean everyone, this is not surprising

 

[Herb]

On one hand, I want to believe that Democrats are the party that wants to save democracy.  

Then I read posts like this and I realize that you're just salty about the people of West Virginia having their interests represented in the senate.

These aren't mutually exclusive,  though. Yes, Manchin votes in the best interests of his constituency and against his own party, which is exactly what we want from our elected officials. But he also receives large sums of money from fossil fuel interests,  and loves the attention that he receives. So, is he a good politician,  or a self-serving weasel? Maybe it just doesn't matter anymore...

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I personally wouldn’t compare Manchin to Cheney because Cheney is IMO acting on a higher plane than politics- she is attempting to preserve the integrity of of system of government and I really admire that. Manchin is making a political decision- perhaps in the interests of West Virginia, or in his own interests, or because he truly believes it’s what’s best for the country, or a combination of all three. I have no reason to impugn his motives. But I don’t put him on the same level as Cheney. 

Agreed. The parallel to Manchin isn't Cheney, it's Susan Collins. Who I also think is a bit of an opportunist, but, like Manchin, does a pretty good job of representing what her constituents want.

Every politician, at some point, has to prioritize whose interests they're representing: Their voters, their party, their country or humanity in general. Manchin is doing a great job of representing his voters, and as a result may allow himself to get re-elected in 2024. He's not doing a very good job of representing his party, which will bother some people and delight others. IMO, by forestalling action on climate change, he's not doing a good job of representing the general good, which should bother all of us.

Personally, I don't believe there's any inconsistency in criticizing Manchin for sinking BBB and praising Cheney for participating in the J6C (or Collins for voting against Obamacare repeal), because I think we're allowed to make value judgments about their underlying actions. But if someone wants to use that to accuse me of hypocrisy or mindless partisanship, they are free to do so.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I generally like Manchin.

However, on the stripped-down BBB/climate bill, he is missing an incredibly historic oppty to singularly make a difference. Ostensibly, his reasoning for opposing the bill is inflation and the national debt.

These reasons are incredibly misguided a) because the climate investments are genuinely investments and not outright stimulus-like fiscal handouts b) at this stage $500 billion in additional debt is a drop in the bucket vs. the monumental benefits that would accrue and c) runaway inflation will likely be handled by an impending recession.

The Democrats missed their climate oppty in 2010 under Obama. It has been 12 years waiting for this next one. If ever the next one occurs will likely be too late to prevent warming from exceeding the 1.5-2.0C degree devastating temperature levels.

So yeah. He deserves the heat in this specific case.

Sounds like he is singularly making a difference.

 

[Phil Elliott]

The far left of the Dems want only one  person to make decisions in the government. They got their wish.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But he also receives large sums of money from fossil fuel interests,  and loves the attention that he receives. 

As opposed to the 99 other senators who turn down contributions from industries that dominate their states, and toil away in selfless anonymity.

 

[supermike80]

These aren't mutually exclusive,  though. Yes, Manchin votes in the best interests of his constituency and against his own party, which is exactly what we want from our elected officials. But he also receives large sums of money from fossil fuel interests,  and loves the attention that he receives. So, is he a good politician,  or a self-serving weasel? Maybe it just doesn't matter anymore...

WHY does this shock you guys?  Why are you holding up Manchin here, as somehow he is the lonely weasel taking money from businesses?   Seriously. Do you guys know anything about politics????   

 

[Boston]

WHY does this shock you guys?  Why are you holding up Manchin here, as somehow he is the lonely weasel taking money from businesses?   Seriously. Do you guys know anything about politics????   

It is one of the few bi-partisan things...everything that was described in that post covers pretty much every member of congress regardless of party.

 

[Herb]

As opposed to the 99 other senators who turn down contributions from industries that dominate their states, and toil away in selfless anonymity.

Touche

 

[Desert_Power]

For those suggesting that Manchin is looking out for his coal-loving constituents here- he might be, but it's not the blue collar constituents working in the mines that you're visualizing. The coal industry employs only 11,000 West Virginians (and falling, due to market forces and basic environmental protections). There are two million residents in the state. Kroger probably employs more West Virginians than the entire coal industry. 

Lotta coal money in West Virginia, though.

Manchin voting to support what his constituents or lobbyists support is one thing. However, it is clear that Manchin's support of coal is primarily about his own interest. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that criticizing this craven self-interest is an attack on democracy. A very weak form of the "both sides" argument.

 

[supermike80]

Manchin voting to support what his constituents or lobbyists support is one thing. However, it is clear that Manchin's support of coal is primarily about his own interest. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest that criticizing this craven self-interest is an attack on democracy. A very weak form of the "both sides" argument.

Ugh.  I really wish you guys would stop being children about this kind of stuff.   Hes in a coal state, so he is going to take coal money.  If a politican from Michigan took UAW money(if a democrat) or GM Money(If either R or D) would that surprise you?  Come on.  Please stop acting or believing this is only a Manchin thing.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

I encourage everyone to stop being slaves to the two party system and start thinking for themselves... then demand the same of your politicians. 

Manchin is one of those politicians and the members of the tribe hate him for it.  

 

[Snotbubbles]

When you think Manchin is voting based on his stock ownership rather than what the people in his state want and it is contrary to what you like and pisses you off…that sure seems like a reflexive assumption to me.

Wouldn't that just make him Nancy Pelosi?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Manchin is one of those politicians and the members of the tribe hate him for it.  

In general I want politicians doing what they think is honestly best for the country and who cares how that aligns with their party's line.   Kudos to him and others for at least not toeing party lines 100%.   

My beef with Manchin is that on topics like climate change, he's just like any other you can trace his motivations to how they help him and his bottom line,  so it's hard to fully trust that his intentions are motivated by what's best for the U.S.    Again, that's not exclusive to him by any stretch, just pumping the brakes a little on full kudos for going against the Ds on that issue.  

 

[Stoneworker]

In general I want politicians doing what they think is honestly best for the country and who cares how that aligns with their party's line.   Kudos to him and others for at least not toeing party lines 100%.   

My beef with Manchin is that on topics like climate change, he's just like any other you can trace his motivations to how they help him and his bottom line,  so it's hard to fully trust that his intentions are motivated by what's best for the U.S.    Again, that's not exclusive to him by any stretch, just pumping the brakes a little on full kudos for going against the Ds on that issue.  

Agree with the spirit of this.

IMO politicians at the federal level have a dual responsibility both the interests of their country and their state/local constituents. It's up to them to balance those interests.

I will never in a bazillion years understand in the case of climate change how Manchin could elevate constituents over the country/globe.

 

[Rich Conway]

Wouldn't that just make him Nancy Pelosi?

Almost the opposite, actually (and both awful).  Manchin votes for policy based on how it will affect his holdings.  Pelosi makes trades based on how she intends to vote.

 

[supermike80]

Agree with the spirit of this.

IMO politicians at the federal level have a dual responsibility both the interests of their country and their state/local constituents. It's up to them to balance those interests.

I will never in a bazillion years understand in the case of climate change how Manchin could elevate constituents over the country/globe.

Um because those constituents are who elect him?  Maybe that's why?  Just a shot in the dark here

 

[Stoneworker]

Um because those constituents are who elect him?  Maybe that's why?  Just a shot in the dark here

With that size of a bill...combined with his leverage being the last holdout...he could have easily gotten significant concessions to insulate his constituents from any negative economic effects...while at the same time doing the right thing for the country as a whole. 

Politics/Negotiating 101

Just a shot in the dark here

 

[supermike80]

With that size of a bill...combined with his leverage being the last holdout...he could have easily gotten significant concessions to insulate his constituents from any negative economic effects...while at the same time doing the right thing for the country as a whole. 

Politics/Negotiating 101

Just a shot in the dark 

Lol that's funny cause that's exactly what he's doing and you all are butt hurt over it

 

[timschochet]

Interesting that this thread has focused so much on Joe Manchin- I know he’s in the title, but it’s the opposite of my intent. My entire point is that he’s not really significant. What is significant is that on almost every issue or proposal before the Senate, all 50 members of the Republican Party stand opposed. That’s what allows for the Manchin phenomenon. And, pun intended, it’s the real elephant in the room. 
 

Now depending on your belief system, you may argue that this united Republican opposition is because Democratic proposals have become too leftist. Or you can argue that Republicans have become too fanatical in their insistence on rejecting bipartisanship, particularly since the Trump era. Or perhaps it’s some combination of both. But whatever the cause my own argument is: this is not at all healthy for the country. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

Interesting that this thread has focused so much on Joe Manchin- I know he’s in the title, but it’s the opposite of my intent. My entire point is that he’s not really significant. What is significant is that on almost every issue or proposal before the Senate, all 50 members of the Republican Party stand opposed. That’s what allows for the Manchin phenomenon. And, pun intended, it’s the real elephant in the room. 
 

Now depending on your belief system, you may argue that this united Republican opposition is because Democratic proposals have become too leftist. Or you can argue that Republicans have become too fanatical in their insistence on rejecting bipartisanship, particularly since the Trump era. Or perhaps it’s some combination of both. But whatever the cause my own argument is: this is not at all healthy for the country. 

If only Republicans would put forth bills, then all the Democrats would line up to vote for them.  

 

[timschochet]

To continue my point: let’s suppose for a moment that Manchin and Sinema was willing to go along with the rest of the Democrats on these various bills. That would mean that Biden would get most of his agenda passed.  But it would all be passed by a 50/50 vote, with Kamala as the tiebreaker. Which would only divide the country further. When Democrats are all on one side of an issue and Republicans are all on the other side, that’s not healthy. That’s why Obamacare was so problematic for so long. 

In our long history of the two political parties, most important legislation was passed by the majority of one party and opposed by the majority of the other. But there were always some crossovers on both sides, and these crossovers gave the new laws legitimacy among the public. Obamacare was the first major bill in history to have no crossovers. Then Trump’s tax cut. Now it’s become a standard thing. And that’s what’s so disturbing IMO.