Manchin's filibuster defense contradicts the Senate legacy he claims to protect

[Celerity]

The senator from West Virginia says he sees himself as a defender of the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd. If we review Byrd's legacy, however, it's clear Manchin is not doing that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1263770

Joe Manchin of West Virginia is the Democrats' pivotal 50th vote in the Senate — the key to passing bills with a simple majority. (With the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris.) He is also pivotal for changing the filibuster rule. His vote is pursued as decisive for President Joe Biden's infrastructure proposals and for passing S. 1, the For the People Act, to protect the right to vote and repair the corrupting campaign finance system.

So his party is forced to take notice when Manchin declares, as he did in a Washington Post opinion piece last week, "There is no circumstance in which I will vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster." Manchin also challenges the use of reconciliation as not good for the future of the country, and he seeks a bipartisan solution to the democracy reforms in S. 1.

Yet Manchin's positions here go against a legacy he has long insisted he is committed to protecting. When Manchin, then the governor of West Virginia, was first elected to the Senate in 2010, he took the seat of a historic figure, the late Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd, longest-serving senator in U.S. history, who was known for his mastery of the Senate and its rules. Manchin, in fact, has emphasized that he sees himself as "a person that's going to defend the legacy of Robert C. Byrd."

If we review Byrd's legacy, however, it is that clear Manchin is not doing that. Byrd did not believe he was weakening the filibuster rule when he engineered successful revisions to it. He did not believe the reconciliation process was bad for the country when he played a key role in creating it. He fought hard for his campaign finance reform bill — and never believed that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and his Republican colleagues were interested in reaching a bipartisan solution.

Snip

[wiggs]

1. I hold out a private hope that Biden/Schumer/Manchin have worked out a

strategy that saves Manchin's job but at the same time will legitimize filibuster reform. So...Manchin can be the stalwart for a few weeks, holding out hope that gop senators will someday attempt to govern instead of obstruct. His stance will attract attention, headlines...and some measure of general respect as a well-meaning senator. At some point, after giving the gop a chance, he will 'see' that the gop has no interest in bi-partisanship or solutions to problems and will relent. He will grudgingly accept some filibuster reform while pointing out what we DUrs already know but the rest of the country may not.

And the focus and headlines will turn to WHY filibuster reform is NEEDED IN THE FIRST PLACE (gop trampling norms for their own personal political gain) rather than fabricated stories about the dems grabbing power.

[Celerity]

2. He has publicly ruled out the two most obvious forms of modification

The 41 votes need to sustain modification, and the 'talking filibuster' (as he insists he will never accept doing away with the 60 votes needed for cloture rule). Not many other options that actual would stop a filibuster out there that conform to his demands.

Sinema may be even harder to assuage, as she ludicrously wants a 60 vote threshold on ALL Senate actions, including doing away with the two exceptions that exist now that came from the two mini-nukes. Both are fairly hostile to reconciliation as well, despite their voting for the big COVID bill via reconciliation.

Feinstein is a cipher, as she will never vote to do away with the filibuster, but has not really said where she stands on modifications.

They are the ones who have to cave, not the rest of our caucus. I have yet to have one person (despite many, many attempts) explain to me the modifications that they will accept AND that will actually allow us to pass these vital bills. All I get is vacuous 'Schumer said failure is not an option' type replies, along with implied accusations of my disloyalty to the party by even asking questions, which is outrageous. I have not, do not now, and never will work off blind faith for anything in my life. It is just in my makeup. If blind acceptance and a moratorium on even asking probing process questions are now made manifest as a requirement to post here, then I am not long for the board.

BTW, a great article that adress some of your reply (the WHY it is so important and why it truly needs to be done part):

The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats — and Mitch McConnell knows that

The numbers don't lie.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1255787