How Joe Manchin's awful new stance could blow up in his face

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Armando
@ArmandoNDK
Good from ⁦@ThePlumLineGS⁩ - here’s my thought - if the John Lewis Act is good because 1 Republican supports it why not change the filibuster to needing just 1 minority Senator vote?

How Joe Manchin’s awful new stance could blow up in his face .

Opinion | How Joe Manchin’s awful new stance could blow up in his face
The West Virginia Senator has a way out, if he chooses to take it.
washingtonpost.com
7:26 AM · Jun 7, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/07/how-joe-manchins-awful-new-stance-could-blow-up-his-face/

By now you’ve heard that Sen. Joe Manchin III has essentially declared he has consigned us to a future of minority rule. In a new piece, the West Virginia Democrat says he’ll vote against his party’s voting rights legislation and will never, ever vote to “weaken” the filibuster.

This appears to lock Manchin into a position that guarantees efforts to protect democracy will fail. But it also locks Manchin into a position that will soon grow untenable for him, at least if his own words have any meaning.

That’s because at the heart of Manchin’s stance is a question he cannot answer: What happens when Republicans fail to support any voting rights legislation, including legislation Manchin himself wants?

In his piece for the Charleston Gazette-Mail and on the Sunday shows, Manchin stated three essential propositions:

1. Acting in defense of voting rights is urgently necessary to defend our freedom

2. Yet protecting voting rights must only be done on a bipartisan basis, or it cannot happen at all

3. Therefore, Democrats must continue seeking Republican support, which will ultimately materialize, precisely because the urgency of acting is so great

*snip*

[Blue Owl]

1. Hey Joe have a cigar to celebrate your awesome bi-partisan stance!

[FBaggins]

2. There's nothing new about his "stance" on the filibuster

He opposed removing the filibuster previously (for lower nominations and then again for SCOTUS nominations)... and he opposed removing it for legislation when it was speculated prior to the 2020 election... then he opposed it again when it was brought up during the Georgia recounts... and he still opposes it.

There are some who have been hoping that he's a hypocrite. That perhaps there's some legislation that HE wants badly enough that he's willing change his mind about the filibuster so that his desired legislation could pass.

That’s because at the heart of Manchin’s stance is a question he cannot answer: What happens when Republicans fail to support any voting rights legislation, including legislation Manchin himself wants?

Why wouldn't he be able to answer that?

It's a simple answer: The legislation fails.

[vanlassie]

3. Yea....He just wants Everybody To Get Along!

[FBaggins]

4. I'm sure he does... but that's really irrelevant

The gap that too many refuse to accept is that there are things that a senator supports, but does not agree that getting that legislation passed justifies blowing up the existing system.

I suspect that's more than just Manchin/Sinema. They're just drawing all of the heat.

[uponit7771]

6. +1, Manchin not answering that question is what makes me think he's not acting at the best

... interest of America.

He should have an answer for that instead of changing the subject and skirting

[Hortensis]

5. Fwiw, strategically Jennifer Rubin also felt Manchin, and Dems, should

want the John Lewis Act brought first.

[aocommunalpunch]

7. Check the goalposts for a lack of foundation.

at least if his own words have any meaning.

I’m not convinced he won’t move the goalposts again and again and again. There are others to cover for or whatever. His comfort is comfortable. Inertia’s got some hooks in him.

[vanlassie]

8. See Rachel tonight 6-7 for Manchins WVA polling on the issue.

He’s not on the right side for his own state. DEMs OR REPs.