The Filibuster - Keep, Adjust, or Destroy?

[LFC]

Sen. Diane Feinstein just said she'd be open to carving out an exception in the filibuster for voting rights legislation. Moscow Mitch did the same for Supreme Court nominees. (Harry Reid, of course, did it as well when MM and the GOP blocked a ridiculous number of Obama nominations.) Manchin is still not on board, though.

In an extremely significant shift, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), long one of the more traditional members of the caucus in her support of keeping the filibuster, signaled Tuesday that she would be open to a “carveout” to pass HR1 with a simple majority.

Feinstein “believes that the leadership of the Senate will come up with a path that allows this bill to go forward with 50 Democratic votes,” her state director told progressive group Indivisible, adding that she “will make this the number one bill that has to get through over the next month or two.”

Democrats could potentially change the Senate rules to create an exception to the filibuster when it comes to voting rights legislation, much like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) did with Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

It’s something Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-GA), who has become increasingly strident on the need to reform or kill the filibuster, suggested during a March interview.

“If Manchin and Sinema enjoy being in the majority, they had better figure out a way to get around the filibuster when it comes to voting and civil rights,” he said. “I’m not going to say that you must get rid of the filibuster. I would say you would do well to develop a Manchin-Sinema rule on getting around the filibuster as it relates to race and civil rights.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), an avowed disciple of the filibuster who has balked at many suggested reforms, previously expressed disdain for the idea.

“No. No. No. That’s like being a little bit pregnant, maybe,” he said of a carveout, meaning that it’s impossible to partially eliminate the filibuster. It has been partially eliminated multiple times before in just the past 8 years, by McConnell twice and by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on executive branch nominees and federal judicial appointments.

Still, Feinstein’s movement left could presage a wider caucus shift. She recently expressed a newfound amenability to reforming the filibuster, specifically mentioning President Joe Biden’s embrace of the talking filibuster reform as “an idea worth discussing.”

[goldenvalley]

The real problem is Sen Sinema from AZ who doesn't seem to be reality based:

“When you have a place that’s broken and not working, and many would say that’s the Senate today, I don’t think the solution is to erode the rules,” she said in an interview after two constituent events in Phoenix. “I think the solution is for senators to change their behavior and begin to work together, which is what the country wants us to do.”

Most of her fellow Democrats would tell her that the broken Senate is at least partly the result of the filibuster rule. The other part is the Republican senators' complete refusal to negotiate anything.  That includes Collins and Romney who can't seem to get away from the "my way or the highway" thinking or the "I made an absurdly lowball offer and they said no so they're being unreasonable and causing gridlock".

[LFC]

Josh Marshall (paywalled) says that Manchin's latest op-ed about the filibuster is not just bad news for Democrats trying to get things done but also presents a justification that makes no sense. In full:

I just got around to reading Joe Manchin’s new OpEd in the Post. And, well … it’s pretty bad news and by my read almost all bad news. With anything less than heroic squinting and wishful thinking, it reads pretty clear: Manchin won’t support abolishing or weakening the filibuster. Full stop. This seems to take back what had seemed to be his pretty clear openness to some version of a talking filibuster earlier in the Spring. He claims early efforts to weaken the filibuster have only increased partisan polarization, a claim that makes no sense – correlation, causation, etc.

What jumps out to me most is that his argument is absurd even on its own terms.

He says that we need to keep the filibuster because only that can force the two parties to get back to the good old days when bills went through regular order and passed on something other than party line votes. But he wants to force this outcome by taking off the table at the start the one cudgel that might conceivably (though very unlikely) make it happen: the threat to end or significantly weaken/reform the filibuster.

As most of us know, both on policy specifics and for political reasons, Republicans want no legislation under Biden’s presidency. On the big agenda items, they actually want to go in the opposite direction. So there’s no real basis for compromise, other than agreeing not to do anything. And they see their best political hopes for 2022 and 2024 in a Biden presidency that fails or can’t deliver. By standing by the filibuster Manchin is giving Democrats lots of incentive to compromise and Republicans none. In essence, he says to his Republican colleagues: start compromising now or face the prospect of getting exactly what you want.

What a joke.

Just to draw this point out, the one way to achieve some version of what Manchin claims to want would be this: Announce today that on January 1st 2022, unless there has been significant legislative progress on some set of agenda items, he will support major changes to the filibuster. I don’t think that would get you any bipartisan bills. But it would create real incentives for Republicans to find some. This doesn’t create any. Indeed, it places the entire onus on his own party.

What a joke.

But wait there’s more … bad news.

Manchin also pans the increasing use of budget reconciliation. He doesn’t rule it out. So I don’t think that threatens its use on an infrastructure bill. This leaves the discussion about the filibuster really about HR1, the big piece of democracy-protecting legislation, which certainly can’t be passed through budget reconciliation. Manchin does appear to support a lot of the measures contained in it. But when he references the important parts of it the one part (of three) he doesn’t mention is the anti-gerrymandering portion. To me that’s actually the most important part. It’s also the part Republicans certainly won’t support precisely because it’s the most important part.

Where does this leave things? I’m really not sure. I think Ds can still pass a really big infrastructure bill, which is hugely important. Anti-filibuster crusader Adam Jentleson notes that when Republicans refuse to negotiate in good faith on anything or simply say no to everything (which it’s actually entirely their right to do) it will leave Macnhin as “Mr. Gridlock”, the guy standing in the way of passage of lots of popular legislation.

The problem is that I don’t think Manchin really cares. Or rather, this doesn’t actually put any pressure on him. Outside of West Virginia, only political obsessives know who Manchin even is. To the extent the public is upset about lack of progress on important legislation that will focus on the Democrats or Joe Biden. Nor does that create any realistic chance that Manchin will face a primary challenger or lack of party support because there’s zero chance any other Democrat could win or hold that seat.

There’s a big chorus of people who insist on seeing Manchin as a closet Republican, a Democrat in name only, benefiting from Democratic support while advancing Republican aims. This view has the benefit of moral clarity. But it’s not true. Manchin just voted for the massive COVID relief bill and he’ll likely vote for a very big infrastructure bill, albeit probably with more slimming than the relief bill got. If Manchin were or wanted to be a Republican I guarantee you he could become one and be welcomed with open arms at any moment. Indeed, his political position and longevity in office would become much simpler.

The simple fact is that Manchin, probably both on principle and certainly as a matter of self-preservation, prefers a more consensus-based form of politics where party lines aren’t so harshly and clearly drawn. For him it is a very accurate estimation of self interest to see things this way. He represents a state that in our current political world is overwhelmingly Republican. Without his 50th vote, the entire Biden legislative agenda goes up in smoke. And that’s simply where we are.

Manchin has said that his guiding priority is the success of the Biden presidency. And I think he means it. Yes, his claims about Biden and the filibuster are in wild contradiction. But that being the case doesn’t mean they have to change.

Never is a long time. Even 18 months is a long time. Manchin can say one thing categorically now and just change his mind later. That doesn’t mean it’s likely that it will happen. But it can. And Democrats need to keep operating on the possibility it could. But at least right now the chances don’t look good.

[goldenvalley]

Manchin seems to be a contrarian and only that. I think that's why he remains a Democrat in a state that would rather have another Republican senator. He tweaks the Rs with his mention of a talking filibuster and then tweaks the Ds saying he sees no reason for changing the filibuster at all. He is adding fuel to the fire that Rs like to stoke.

[LFC]

Sen. Joe Machin's op-ed concerning the filibuster was just shredded by a counter op-ed. Manchin's arguments really don't make any sense in the reality that he's seen play out full tilt.

Fred Wertheimer, founder, and president of Democracy 21, dismantled Manchin's arguments in an NBC News op-ed of his own. He began by highlighting how Manchin's views conflict with the views of his predecessor, the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.) As the longest-serving senator in United States history, Byrd was a pivotal figure who helped shape the Senate's legacy.

Although Manchin claims his beliefs are part of an effort to protect the Senate legacy, his defense appears to contradict what it stands for. Wertheimer noted that while Byrd's record suggests while he did recognize the Senate's filibuster rule, he also understood that it "was not sacrosanct."

"He supported changing the rule when it had been abused or when the times demanded it," Wertheimer wrote, later adding, "Byrd obviously believed revising the filibuster rule when abuses or circumstances called for it was good for the country and for West Virginia, the state he represented and loved."

He went on to highlight another area where their differences lie: exemptions to the filibuster. "Byrd also supported a number of exemptions to the filibuster rule," Wertheimer explained. "He played the crucial role in the 1974 creation of the budget reconciliation process — which Manchin criticized in his opinion piece — and which the Senate just used to pass the Covid-19 relief bill and could use again for the coming infrastructure package."

[LFC]

A letter signed by over 350 scholars basically urges that something must change and that the abuse of the filibuster is exactly what the Framers rejected from the Articles of Confederation.

Over 350 scholars, historians and political scientists urge Congress to take action on filibuster reform in a new letter first obtained by TPM, arguing that the Framers never intended for the Senate to rely on supermajorities to pass even routine, bipartisan legislation.

The group includes such prominent historians as Pulitzer Prize winners Jack Rakove, Gary Wills, David Hacket Fischer, Daniel Walker Howe, Ron Chernow and Debby Applegate.

They wrote that the Framers “explicitly rejected” the supermajority requirement for most legislation after observing the gridlock caused by the Articles of Confederation mandating the higher threshold for a whole host of federal action. At the Constitutional Convention, the scholars wrote, the Framers nixed the supermajority threshold for all but impeachment, treaties and amending the Constitution.

“Today, the Framers’ vision of the function of the Senate has largely been inverted,” the scholars wrote, pointing out the decline in debate and legislative productivity.

They outlined the heavy usage of the filibuster first by pro-slavery lawmakers and, later, by segregationists blocking civil rights legislation during the Jim Crow era.

“The filibuster is not original to the Constitution: it developed in the early nineteenth century as an exploitation of the Senate’s generous rules of debate, propelled in part by proslavery senators seeking to protect slaveholder interests,” they wrote.

Today, they wrote, the filibuster has all but stopped legislative activity, thereby giving the executive branch outsized power and worsening partisan divides. And perhaps most worryingly of all, they added, is the damage it’s doing to democracy.

They cited statistics that nearly 80 percent of the bills blocked by the filibuster in the past 30 years were bipartisan, and that nearly a quarter of the filibustered bills in the last 16 Congresses were supported by senators representing over 60 percent of the U.S. population.

“This dynamic is untenable for a democracy,” they warned. “A government unable to produce results that significant majorities of the public elect their representatives to deliver is no longer a representative government.”

The scholars did not promote any specific filibuster reform, though all 350-plus of them agree that change has to be instituted.

[goldenvalley]

May 4, 2021 18:43:12 GMT LFC said:

A letter signed by over 350 scholars basically urges that something must change and that the abuse of the filibuster is exactly what the Framers rejected from the Articles of Confederation.

That's interesting and all, but it isn't going to change Joe Manchin's mind.  

[jackd]

I'm guessing the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation don't agree with all those scholars.

[LFC]

May 4, 2021 19:46:51 GMT jackd said:

I'm guessing the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation don't agree with all those scholars.

I'm guessing they would if it was the Dems abusing it. Just sayin'.

[jackd]

Yeah, but it isn't.

[Deleted]

Any opposition party has one overriding goal: to become the ruling party. Preventing the current ruling party from accruing any achievements is the first and basic step towards realizing that objective. Filibuster is a handy tool for the minority to override the majority.

Democrats fear what Republicans would do when they're in the majority. ACA gone. Social safety net gone. Every Democratic achievement would be erased. These are worthy fears because Republicans would want to eliminate those achievements. Some they would shy away from (Social Security, Medicare), some they would implement (housing, childcare, SNAP etc.). However, there would be consequences at the polls. Democratic (as in voting public) pressure should be the governor on Republican desires.

Democrats need to stop shielding the Republicans from the consequences of their own foolhardiness. Eventually, 2018 mid-term losses taught them to steer clear of ACA, even in rhetoric.

[LFC]

May 5, 2021 12:26:31 GMT @probabilistic3 said:

Any opposition party has one overriding goal: to become the ruling party. Preventing the current ruling party from accruing any achievements is the first and basic step towards realizing that objective. Filibuster is a handy tool for the minority to override the majority.

And yet opposing parties managed to not abuse it for years. The Republicans decided to use it on everything ... so that's where we are now. They built this.

[jackd]

And, if the Republicans get back in control, they will eliminate the filibuster on anything they care about so Democrats are foolish to rely on it for their own use.

[Traveler]

Tell that to Manchin and Sinnema.

[LFC]

Manchin continues to be a complete and total tool.

When the Jan. 6 commission became the latest casualty of Republican obstructionism on Friday, most Democrats weren’t surprised. Joe Manchin was.

Manchin, West Virginia’s senior senator and the only Democrat in Congress from a state Donald Trump won by 40 points, has not been convinced that the GOP’s current strategy is scorched-earth partisan politics.

Ahead of Friday’s vote, as Republican opposition to the insurrection commission solidified, Manchin issued a call “imploring” his colleagues to consider passing the legislation. He said he couldn’t imagine why Sen. Mitch McConnell’s conference would block a bipartisan effort to get to the bottom of the attack on the Capitol.

“There is no excuse for any Republican to vote against this commission,” he said, “since Democrats have agreed to everything they asked for.”

That argument was a pitch-perfect distillation of how Manchin views the Senate. How it was received—with just six Republicans voting for the commission—would perhaps indicate to a more mutable senator that his view may be out of step with reality and necessitate eliminating the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold for passing bills.

But not for Manchin.

“I don’t think I’ll ever change,” Manchin told reporters on Thursday. “I’m not separating our country, OK?”

Manchin said later in the day that he thought Democrats could find “10 good people” on the GOP side to support the commission. And on Friday, after Democrats predictably did not find 10 Republicans to support the commission, Manchin sounded genuinely upset and surprised that his GOP colleagues would side with a nakedly partisan view that there shouldn’t be an independent report on the Jan. 6 attack.

"This job's not worth it to me to sell my soul,” Manchin told reporters on Friday. “What are you gonna do, vote me out? That's not a bad option—I get to go home."

Maybe he really is so dense that he can't see what's been in front of his face for over a decade. And maybe he's just a cowardly little shit.

[LFC]

Biden took a swing at the two Democratic holdouts.

President Biden on Tuesday appeared to take aim at Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) for their vehement refusal to eliminate or reform the filibuster amid Democrats’ push for voting rights reforms during a speech marking the 100-year anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre.

After touting that “democracy prevailed” last year despite restrictive voting laws, Biden urged voting right groups in the country to “redouble” their efforts to register and educate voters.

The President then referred to the obstacles that the filibuster presents in getting his legislative agenda passed in a 50-50 Senate — and appeared to take issue with Manchin and Sinema’s reluctance towards eliminating or reforming the filibuster.

“I hear all the folks on TV saying why doesn’t Biden get this done? Well, because Biden only has a majority of effectively four votes in the House and a tie in the Senate — with two members of the Senate who vote more with my Republican friends,” Biden said, despite the moderate senators’ record of voting in favor of the President’s agenda, at least thus far.

[LFC]

It sounds like Senate Democrats are planning for June to be a string of failed votes. No more quiet killing of bills. The Republicans get to explain in 2022 why they voted against so many things the majority of people want and the Manchin/Sinema anti-anti-filibuster team gets to explain why their way is better.

Democrats are six months into their control of Congress and the White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is queuing up floor votes that will all almost certainly fail—and that’s sort of the point.

Equal pay. Voting rights. Perhaps even gun control and LGBTQ rights. Ever since Democrats took unified control of Washington in January, these long-awaited Democratic priorities have been on a slow-motion collision course with a legislative reality: the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold for passing bills that continues to ensure minority rule over what makes it to President Joe Biden’s desk.

After a busy beginning to the year—during which Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, confirmed Biden’s cabinet, and wrote into law a bipartisan hate crimes measure—liberal lawmakers are finally bracing for impact. With the Senate split 50-50, the longstanding filibuster has become the brick wall standing between Democrats and their top goals.

The next month, then, could be the toughest stretch yet for Democrats. In a letter to senators last week, Schumer said as much, forecasting an “extremely challenging” June that will “test our resolve.”

Schumer seems to be setting up his party for failure for a couple of reasons. Many Democrats believe—or, at least, hope—he is trying to force a gut check for some individual members, like centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Demonstrating to Manchin that Democrats can’t succeed while the filibuster persists could produce some momentum toward ending the 60-vote threshold. And, at the very least, Schumer could be giving Democrats a political cudgel to beat Republicans in 2022 and beyond.

Call it The Month of Taking the L—in hopes that those losses eventually turn into wins. Democrats have little choice but to trust the process, even if some big dominoes have to fall in the right direction quickly.

“If any of these lead to the reform or elimination of the filibuster,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) told The Daily Beast, “my response is, bring it on.”

Some progressive lawmakers are anxiously welcoming the succession of votes on dead-on-arrival bills as a wake-up call to filibuster holdouts.

“With each vote on lifesaving common-sense legislation that gets shot down because of the filibuster,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), “the American people and the senators themselves who are still holding out hope that filibuster reform is unnecessary will see that it is.”

[goldenvalley]

Jun 3, 2021 18:02:43 GMT LFC said:

It sounds like Senate Democrats are planning for June to be a string of failed votes. No more quiet killing of bills. The Republicans get to explain in 2022 why they voted against so many things the majority of people want and the Manchin/Sinema anti-anti-filibuster team gets to explain why their way is better.

Democrats are six months into their control of Congress and the White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is queuing up floor votes that will all almost certainly fail—and that’s sort of the point.

Equal pay. Voting rights. Perhaps even gun control and LGBTQ rights. Ever since Democrats took unified control of Washington in January, these long-awaited Democratic priorities have been on a slow-motion collision course with a legislative reality: the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold for passing bills that continues to ensure minority rule over what makes it to President Joe Biden’s desk.

After a busy beginning to the year—during which Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, confirmed Biden’s cabinet, and wrote into law a bipartisan hate crimes measure—liberal lawmakers are finally bracing for impact. With the Senate split 50-50, the longstanding filibuster has become the brick wall standing between Democrats and their top goals.

The next month, then, could be the toughest stretch yet for Democrats. In a letter to senators last week, Schumer said as much, forecasting an “extremely challenging” June that will “test our resolve.”

Schumer seems to be setting up his party for failure for a couple of reasons. Many Democrats believe—or, at least, hope—he is trying to force a gut check for some individual members, like centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Demonstrating to Manchin that Democrats can’t succeed while the filibuster persists could produce some momentum toward ending the 60-vote threshold. And, at the very least, Schumer could be giving Democrats a political cudgel to beat Republicans in 2022 and beyond.

Call it The Month of Taking the L—in hopes that those losses eventually turn into wins. Democrats have little choice but to trust the process, even if some big dominoes have to fall in the right direction quickly.

“If any of these lead to the reform or elimination of the filibuster,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) told The Daily Beast, “my response is, bring it on.”

Some progressive lawmakers are anxiously welcoming the succession of votes on dead-on-arrival bills as a wake-up call to filibuster holdouts.

“With each vote on lifesaving common-sense legislation that gets shot down because of the filibuster,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), “the American people and the senators themselves who are still holding out hope that filibuster reform is unnecessary will see that it is.”

That's as good a plan as any.  The outside DC world isn't as interested in bipartisanship as the inside world is.  

[goldenvalley]

Jun 3, 2021 18:02:43 GMT LFC said:

It sounds like Senate Democrats are planning for June to be a string of failed votes. No more quiet killing of bills. The Republicans get to explain in 2022 why they voted against so many things the majority of people want and the Manchin/Sinema anti-anti-filibuster team gets to explain why their way is better.

Democrats are six months into their control of Congress and the White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is queuing up floor votes that will all almost certainly fail—and that’s sort of the point.

Equal pay. Voting rights. Perhaps even gun control and LGBTQ rights. Ever since Democrats took unified control of Washington in January, these long-awaited Democratic priorities have been on a slow-motion collision course with a legislative reality: the filibuster, the 60-vote threshold for passing bills that continues to ensure minority rule over what makes it to President Joe Biden’s desk.

After a busy beginning to the year—during which Democrats passed a $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill, confirmed Biden’s cabinet, and wrote into law a bipartisan hate crimes measure—liberal lawmakers are finally bracing for impact. With the Senate split 50-50, the longstanding filibuster has become the brick wall standing between Democrats and their top goals.

The next month, then, could be the toughest stretch yet for Democrats. In a letter to senators last week, Schumer said as much, forecasting an “extremely challenging” June that will “test our resolve.”

Schumer seems to be setting up his party for failure for a couple of reasons. Many Democrats believe—or, at least, hope—he is trying to force a gut check for some individual members, like centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Demonstrating to Manchin that Democrats can’t succeed while the filibuster persists could produce some momentum toward ending the 60-vote threshold. And, at the very least, Schumer could be giving Democrats a political cudgel to beat Republicans in 2022 and beyond.

Call it The Month of Taking the L—in hopes that those losses eventually turn into wins. Democrats have little choice but to trust the process, even if some big dominoes have to fall in the right direction quickly.

“If any of these lead to the reform or elimination of the filibuster,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) told The Daily Beast, “my response is, bring it on.”

Some progressive lawmakers are anxiously welcoming the succession of votes on dead-on-arrival bills as a wake-up call to filibuster holdouts.

“With each vote on lifesaving common-sense legislation that gets shot down because of the filibuster,” said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-NY), “the American people and the senators themselves who are still holding out hope that filibuster reform is unnecessary will see that it is.”

That's as good a plan as any.  The outside of DC world isn't as interested in bipartisanship as the inside world is.  

[jackd]

It's probably the only plan available. If they don't bring anything to a vote, they'll be accused of doing nothing. They may get accused of that anyway if nothing passes. The more I watch it, the more I'm reminded of the midterm disaster after Obama's election. If the economy stays strong and Covid is essentially stopped, perhaps the Democrats can hold their own in the midterms but the Trump cult is energized and the Republican state legislatures are getting a free hand to set up the system their way. I wouldn't bet on the Democrats succeeding in 2022.

[Deleted]

For some strange reason CNN is still pondering "What's exactly is Joe Manchin trying to achieve?". As if much mystery remains.

Well he's trying to achieve one thing, and only one thing. Preserve his options for his 2024 re-election bid. The results from 2022 mid-terms would tell him if he would have much chance left in West Virginia winning as a Democrat. If not, he wants the option of switching parties. Changing the filibuster in any manner would eliminate that option.

[Traveler]

Chait has a good take on the filibuster.

[Traveler]

Jun 4, 2021 14:30:24 GMT @probabilistic3 said:

For some strange reason CNN is still pondering "What's exactly is Joe Manchin trying to achieve?". As if much mystery remains.

Well he's trying to achieve one thing, and only one thing. Preserve his options for his 2024 re-election bid. The results from 2022 mid-terms would tell him if he would have much chance left in West Virginia winning as a Democrat. If not, he wants the option of switching parties. Changing the filibuster in any manner would eliminate that option.

I don't think that at all.  Manchin has been Dem all along, and so far in terms of actual votes.  I think he might come around to reconciliation.  I am thinking its Sinnema that will be the big holdup. She has no idea of what she stands for. 

All this talk about going it alone if the POGers won't go along is a smokescreen.  Any major infrastructure deal is dead. There will be crumbs left over paid from stimulus funds. (Which are now looking excessive, particularly UC).   Meanwhile, Progs are all up in arms, idiots that they are.  If it wasn't for them, Dems would have had a chance on other Senate races they lost.  Collins for one.  Just STFU aholes.  

[LFC]

Manchin killed the voting rights bill and is trying to defend himself. His defense is pretty weak gruel.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on Sunday denied having any delusions of bipartisan compromise in a 50-50 Senate after declaring his opposition to the House-passed For the People Act in an op-ed published in the Charleston Gazette-Mail.

In his op-ed published hours before his appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” Manchin dismissed the sweeping voting rights legislation his Democratic colleagues have pushed as “partisan,” while also reaffirming his refusal to eliminate the filibuster that has presented obstacles in moving Democrats’ agenda forward with its 60-vote threshold. The West Virginia senator, who previously expressed issues with the broad nature of the bill, reiterated his support for the less-comprehensive John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

During Manchin’s interview on “Fox News Sunday,” anchor Chris Wallace asked whether the West Virginia senator’s hopes for bipartisanship is the “wrong” approach heading into negotiations with Republican colleagues in the Senate. Wallace suggested that perhaps if he voted to nuke the filibuster, Republicans would be more incentivized to negotiate due to centrist senator’s role as a key vote in the upper chamber.

Manchin denied that his commitment to preserving the filibuster “empowers Republicans to be obstructionists,” citing the handful of Republican senators who voted to convict former President Trump for “incitement of insurrection.”

“I don’t think so because we have seven brave Republicans that continue to vote for what they know is right and the facts as they see them, not worrying about the political consequences,” Manchin said.

Manchin added that he believes there are a lot more Republicans in the Senate who agree with him.

“I’m just hoping they are able to rise to the occasion to defend our country and support our country and make sure that we have a democracy for this republic of all the people. I’m just very hopeful that — and I see good signs,” Manchin said. “We’re doing more things than ever before. Give us some time. I know everyone’s putting deadlines, got to be done by this, this and this.”

Wallace then brought up Republicans’ use of the filibuster to kill the House-passed bill to create an independent and bipartisan Jan. 6 commission, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) remarks of being “100 percent” focused on blocking President Biden’s agenda, before asking Manchin whether he is being naive by hanging his hopes on bipartisan cooperation in a 50-50 Senate.

Manchin denied having political naivety.

“I’m not being naive. I think (McConnell is) 100 percent wrong in trying to block all the good things that we’re trying to do for America,” Manchin said. “It would be a lot better if we had participation and we’re getting participation.”

Manchin maintained that he will “continue to keep working with my bipartisan friends.”

The rest is the same pablum. Meanwhile Sinema continues to keep her head down.

[Deleted]

Jun 7, 2021 12:21:27 GMT LFC said:

Manchin killed the voting rights bill and is trying to defend himself. His defense is pretty weak gruel.

Any bill that is not supported by both Republicans and Democrats would further entrench divisions in the country. So goes Manchin's stated logic of steadfastly opposing any progress. (Personally, I have not paid much attention to the details of the HR1/SB1 - so don't have an opinion whether this is a worthwhile vehicle to pursue to ensure voting rights for all.)

If lack of bipartisanship in legislation is so dangerous to the wellbeing of our country, then why doesn't he agitate against the Republican state legislators who have been passing legislations related to voting, counting, and certifying elections exclusively on a partisan basis? If this is such a danger to the nation what has he done to prevent it from occurring? Preening about motherhood and apple pie in Charleston gazette doesn't count.

None of the reporters seem to have enough presence of mind to ask these simple questions.