Warren holds up confirmation of a Biden pick at Education Department

[George II]

James Kvaal is President Biden’s pick to head higher-education policy at the agency

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is impeding the confirmation of James Kvaal, President Biden’s pick to head higher-education policy at the Education Department, to secure commitments on student loan reforms, according to people familiar with the matter.

Warren’s strategy is creating tensions among Democrats who see Kvaal’s leadership as key to executing Biden’s higher-education agenda, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

But people familiar with Warren’s thinking say she wants assurances the department will overhaul the administration of the federal lending program, with tougher oversight of loan servicing companies.

White House and Education Department officials say they are working toward a resolution.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/06/22/elizabeth-warren-kvaal-confirmation-education/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[Walleye]

1. Jesus Christ, Democrats, please at least once try to present a united front

I am sure the Senator thinks she’s doing the right thing, but we can’t present any cracks for them to drive a wedge into. Dammit it’s like we forget everything we’ve ever learned in the past 50 years of republican obstructionism

[mopinko]

2. she didnt have him executed. relax.

she's just holding his feet to the fire, like she promised she would.

those loan guys are evil. they've made it so that military training cant be used for civilian certifications. like for rn's and emt's.
have a nephew who joined the army JUST to train as a nurse. was a surgical nurse st reed when he got out. but he had to start over from 1st semester to get a civilian rn.
he went another way.

this is the student loan guys being blood sucking ticks. and harming military recruitment to boot.

[Walleye]

4. I understand, I'm sure she's doing the right thing as far as the loans. Wish she didn't

Give ammunition to the Republicans and the media by opposing the nomination.

[jaxexpat]

10. The MEDIA took a fact and made it into GQP propaganda (IOW: knuckle dragger red meat).

The blame for the optics for this are ALL on the media this time. Was it intentional, a jockeying for ratings or are they just too damned lazy to tell a straight story?

If Sen. Warren drags her feet into next month on this then 2 things:
1. she's on to something
2. she's on to something

[KS Toronado]

15. Yes, Sen Warren knows exactly what she's doing and why

and we should be praising her for it.

[modrepub]

3. Not Sure

What "reform" we're talking about. No one in the Democratic party seems to want to start addressing any of the reasons why the cost of a higher education has grown so much over the last 2 or 3 decades. In my opinion, part of the problem is a lot of institutions have not even tried to contain costs figuring their good name justifies their tuition increases.

Continued education either at a formal institution or on your own is key to achieving and holding on to jobs that pay livable wages. Almost all of us agree on this matter. It's the astronomical costs and sometimes dubious reasons for attaining an advanced degree that are causing folks to take on more debt than they can handle. Government intervention at the tail end (loan forgiveness) doesn't address the real problems IMHO.

[JI7]

5. Isn't the problem that people are willing to pay a lot for certain schools ?

It becomes more about status than education itself .

[modrepub]

8. That's Part of It

Some of my friend's kids are going to institutions that charge over $50k a year. Now some of that is going to get covered with grants but how do you justify an expense like that if your kid chooses a career where the average starting salary is say $25-35k/year (like a school teacher)?!?

There are cost efficiencies that are currently available to most folks (who figure they want or need to go to college). Rather than taking honors courses in High School, kids would be better served participating in dual enrollment with a local college. Most offer half tuition for High School kids. You go that path, you earn credits towards a degree, test out if your kid can handle the college course load and maybe even try out a school to go to when they graduate. My brother in law's kids all did this and only had to go 3 years to finish their degrees. A lot of folks could take this route or start out in community colleges then transfer saving themselves a lot of money in the process.

[JI7]

18. Another thing is that many aren't focusing on the education itself but it's more about the

"college experience" apart from the education. This was one reason given for students who didn't want to start college during the pandemic when it would be virtual.

They want all the parties, games and socialization etc.

The things you mention are good tips for students who DO want to focus on the education itself . This is especially good for students who aren't sure what they want to do . I would also recommend some students doing a job early on in an area they have interest in working in. But make sure they have a good balance between school and work. The work can even be like 5-10 hours a week as long as they aren't taking a full load of courses and can handle it. The job might help in deciding what they want to do even if they are working at lower ,entry level positions. They can see that they can get a higher position or a better job if they do xyz in school . They may even decide they want to go to a trade school which high schools also need to emphasize as equally as the traditional 4 year schools.

If more students started doing these things and colleges started seeing less students applying or caring about status as much they would change things and even make things more open to others through virtual learning.

People should also take advantage of non college online and in person classes for things they just want to learn but don't necessarily want or need for a college degree if it's cheaper .

[modrepub]

66. Due to Demographics

The pool of available college age students is declining; gen X was smaller than the boomers and therefore their (my) kids' numbers have dropped. This has created the opposite effect you are talking about. More prestigious (expensive schools for the most part) have not seen a drop in the number of applicants but the other lesser know institutions have.

My son's state affiliated university head count has declined by several thousand students in the last 5 years of so. That may not sound like much but that's about $10-15k a head in revenue it's lost over each semester. That cascades though the system decreasing revenue to the university and its surrounding community. Education programs were cut and teachers were let go.

Personally, I'm not looking to eliminate the "college" experience. Go have some fun before the world beats your ass into submission. Paraphrasing my old roommate as we were discussing our college bound kids futures; let's hope they never figure out what we did to them.

[ancianita]

22. It might seem that way, and that's the popular view. But on closer inspection there really are

knowledge intangibles experienced at university levels -- beyond the Gen Ed course work -- that truly exercise one's ability to
-- coordinate knowledge of statistics, concepts, applications in the field, and
-- engage these in extended analyses for two years.

That experience is more random elsewhere, and is not at the levels of rigor practiced at universities.

There are intangibles of experience that college people recognize in each other, which helps them trust each other's judgment in different experiential contexts, once out in the world.

There really is a difference between the thinking of the non-college and the college world, or the wealthy would not try to make university/college access so difficult or expensive. Take care of that exclusion, and they don't have to worry about knowledgeable voters, either, or their money, or their tax rates, or their stealth influence on government.

[modrepub]

68. I Can Agree With You

The school I graduated from had a rigorous Engineering program. Some unfathomable percentage of all the engineers in the world graduated from this school. My roommate said his initial job interview consisted of him and the interviewer discussing the bar and frat scene from school. The connections as a graduate of a certain college or any college are definitely tangible.

That said, I and any 18 year old person, was/are generally totally unaware of these circumstances when we enter higher education. It's a real gamble at that point given how little we know of ourselves at that stage in life and the (hopefully) long path ahead of us that we can not see. I was real fortunate on where I went to college, who my professors were and the type of people I hung around with. I feel for those just entering this stage of life. Saddling yourself to this much debt without a way out from under it is a real problem. I wish we were allowed more mulligans in life. But we are a society bent on punishment for some reason.

[ancianita]

76. I agree with you up to the last four sentences.

There is no "we" who decided to increase tuitions many times higher than rates of inflation over the last 35 years. Soaring college costs were not decided by us, but by those who wanted to make college harder to afford in order to lessen any competition their own kids might experience with the other classes of America's young. Merit kept being pushed, but legacy admissions still lived on. Most of us didn't see it happening, but high school teachers and counselors did.

Colleges are where the wealthy's influence act as gatekeepers to knowledge. They sold us on the idea that we could all be like Bill Gates even as they made sure we couldn't get easy access a 'higher' education.

The result: only 25% of Americans have college degrees, and 30% have some college -- the associates degree, which is really a review of high school subjects, not rigorous concentration on a 'major'; the original design of the first two years was to help the young "find" a knowledge avocation to study in depth, it was not to make the claim that someone had "some college."

That means that 70% can be convinced of all manner of "justifications" for not going to college, along with all the rhetorical tricks and traps used in presenting them a lot of other "issues". Which is exactly the way wealthy elites like it -- inure Americans to the economic and information "free market" they "deserve," without their knowing what they've missed. Blame the victims; tell them "life is choices," and their lives are exactly what they've "chosen." It's all lies.

No, a college degree is never a degree in moral growth, but it does give exposure to understanding related disciplines' areas of ethics, and the basis of goodness outside religious dogma.

As my non-college parents from different parts of the country always told me, "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it." The problem is that most people can't tell when that holds true. Like Bob Marley once said, "Some people feel the rain. Some people just get wet."

Colleges and universities build into their design the knowledge that 18 year olds need guidance.

Anyone with a sympathy for intelligence should feel okay with going to college at any time in life. It's time and money that's never wasted; it's an important investment.

[HariSeldon]

13. Here's a thought new to me

Let's create a federal tax on excess tuition, used to fund* grants to new institutions of higher learning to overcome barriers to entry. "Excess" should be measured relative to expenditures on salaries of academic instructors (but not administrators or coaches) less earnings of the institution's endowments and received gifts. Republicans, here's your "market based solution:" if the current players in the market are doing a bad job, let's get some other players involved. But there are massive startup expenses, which is why most new colleges or universities are state-supported schools or for-profit (which have a sketchy track record).

* I have a heterodox understanding of taxes and government spending, in which taxes do not "fund" anything but rather provide incentive to participate in government-desired activity.

[George II]

9. Neither Manchin nor Sinema have held up or voted against any of Biden's nominees.

[wellst0nev0ter]

63. *Neera Tanden enters the chat*

[George II]

64. I don't know why, but she's the one who was publicly castigated over personal matters....

....during her hearing before the Budget Committee.

That only confirms what I'm saying here. Thanks for the help!

[wellst0nev0ter]

67. "Neither Manchin nor Sinema have held up or voted against any of Biden's nominees"

Then why isn't she the OMB director now?

Reply when you're willing to answer honestly, or if you want to argue again that "goop" is too much like a racist slur.

[George II]

74. Because the Chair of the Budget Committee was going to block her nomination to proceed.

The OMB has to be recommended to the full Senate by the Budget Committee. That didn't happen so the nomination was withdrawn.

Senator Manchin isn't a member of the Budget Committee.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. Awesome! There's no success that the democrats can't fuck up or fail to take advantage of.

Good for the GOP.

I totally understand why Warren is doing this, and I applaud her passion about this - but this ain't the time to start eating each other.

[ancianita]

23. It's not eating. It's making the legislation better.

[George II]

65. Legislation isn't the issue, blocking one of Biden's nominees is the issue. That nominee....

....if confirmed, won't be responsible for legislation.

If it was a matter of legislation, perhaps the person blocking his nomination can introduce legislation to achieve what she's looking for?

[KS Toronado]

11. How much of the high cost of a college education

can be attributed to the millions they pay coachs?

[Crowman2009]

12. At this point, we need athletics out of school.

If they want to play so bad and make a living out of it, they should start their own clubs and the NFL owners should pony up the costs.

[Walleye]

14. Football isn't the only sport in colleges

[George II]

16. I'm sure that's a factor. In a now infamous press conference by Connecticut's coach Calhoun....

....around the time that many members of the faculty were taking a temporary pay cuts, he was asked if he was giving up anything (at the time he was the highest paid state employee by a LOT, in the millions!).

He got really nasty and sneered back, "not one dime!" What a nasty cur that guy was.

[StarfishSaver]

17. This is ridiculous

James Kvaal is a highly respected and committed champion of public education.

Sen. Warren is way off base on this. She needs to leave these hostage-taking tactics to the Republicans - or if she just can't help herself, she should at least direct them at the other side and not use them to undermine President Biden and stall his agenda.

[George II]

19. +1

[getagrip_already]

26. -1 You are ALL missing the issue she is addressing....

It has nothing to do with elite college costs, or the good name of Dr. Kvaal.

It has to do with predatory lending, and interest costs to students who have little access to other forms of financing their education.

Most of you can send your kids to college under a vast array of loan options. Yes, it's the students who take out the loans but in many cases parents either co-sign or have their credit histories examined. Many students won't qualify for normal loans. Some go to schools that don't qualify. So their only option is exploitive lenders who are protected by law to hound these students for decades to repay loans with very high interest rates.

The fact that he simply won't agree to do this is a RED flag. It is not on her, it is on HIM.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Not missing the point at all

The fact that her problem has nothing to do with James Kvaal, as you acknowledge, IS the issue.

[getagrip_already]

37. Kvaal not answering the questions is the issue....

He may be an excellent choice, but he still needs to answer questions.

It sounds like he is evading the question. He hasn't given an up or down answer.

A nominee who won't answer a direct question deserves a time out. He IS the issue.

[betsuni]

27. +1

[left-of-center2012]

21. Sanders, Warren, Manchin, Sinema

[George II]

24. FiveThirtyEight has compiled a list and assessment of all Senators w/respect to them voting WITH....

....Biden.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

Here are the percentages and rank of the four you mention above:

#01 Manchin 100% (top 35 Democratic Senators tied at 100%)
#01 Sinema 100% (top 35 Democratic Senators tied at 100%)
#36 Warren 96.9% (11 Senators tied at 96.9%)
#50 Sanders 93.5%

People like to bash Manchin and Sinema, but so far this year they are among the most loyal to Biden and the Democrats.

[wellst0nev0ter]

70. Too bad Tanden never got a vote n/t

[George II]

72. Correct. She was being blocked (in the press, no less) and the Chair of the Budget Committee....

....said he wouldn't vote for her, so she never advanced to a Committee vote. The WH withdrew her nomination and now she has MORE to say about the budget than she would have in the one for which she was blocked.

Senator Manchin isn't on the Budget Committee, so her not getting the OMB position is irrelevant to this discussion.

[wellst0nev0ter]

80. Bring up evidence that Sanders wouldn't vote for her

You can take your time.

[George II]

81. Nah, if I did you'd just move on to your next demand. I'm getting off this carousel, until next time

[wellst0nev0ter]

82. Don't bother, I'll bring up the evidence for you

This is what you're talking about, right? Sanders postponing a hearing means he blocked her nominationーthat is what you're insinuating.

But unfortunately for you, the Senate Homeland Security committee also postponed a hearing with Tanden, which sort of screws up your little narrative. As far as I know, Tanden never had a feud with Homeland Security Chairman Gary Peters, you know, that raving Leninist.

Tanden's two hearings were postponed because Democrats needed time to review her nomination because Manchin and the goops were sinking it.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee postponed a morning meeting where Tanden was going to be discussed, with the chairman, Senator Gary Peters, saying “people needed a little bit more time to assess” her nomination.

The Senate Budget Committee postponed a similar meeting. “It didn’t look like she had the votes,” said the panel’s chairman, Senator Bernie Sanders.

Now stop engaging in disinformation.

[George II]

88. Thanks so much for proving my point. I truly appreciate that. There was no point in holding....

....the hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee inasmuch as the Budget Committee hearing had already been cancelled:

The Senate Budget Committee postponed a similar meeting. “It didn’t look like she had the votes,” said the panel’s chairman, Senator Bernie Sanders.

It should be noted that Senator Manchin isn't a member of either committee.

Thanks again for the assistance!

[wellst0nev0ter]

90. Someone had to do the one job

And it doesn't answer the question: Why did Gary Peters postpone his meeting? Why should he care about the Budget Committee's schedule? Was he conspiring against Tanden too?

Also, presidential nominations are voted on by the full Senate, which is why Manchin's vote is need. But you knew that already.

[George II]

91. Why hold a hearing when the chair of the other committee cancelled his hearing and stated bluntly...

...that the reason HE cancelled his hearing is “It didn’t look like she had the votes.” ?

But of course he didn't know that for sure because he cancelled the remainder of his hearing and never held a vote. The chairman of a committee decided unilaterally "It didn’t look like she had the votes” and cancelled his hearing.

Enough of this for me. No matter what I say or no matter what reality is, you'll come up with something.

Enjoy!

[wellst0nev0ter]

92. Why cancel a meeting?

As the article said, the Democrats had to strategize and weigh options.

The article was free to read.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. Why can't she be like Manchin, who has a 100% voting record in support of Biden?

/sarcasm

I don’t have a problem with the hold, in order to highlight the student debt issue, which seems to have been sidetracked by distraction around delays on voting rights (Manchin and Sinema) and infrastructure (Manchin again).

I’m okay with pausing to have a conversation about student debt, rather than blindly rubber stamping nominees- it’s less harmful to Biden’s agenda, and democracy overall, than the antics of Manchin and Sinema.

[George II]

29. Manchin hasn't held up or voted against a single Biden nominee. The conversation can still....

...be had after he's in the job.

[Fiendish Thingy]

45. Let's see where Manchin stands when infrastructure comes to a vote via reconciliation

His “bipartisan” bill will likely not get out of the budget committee,at least not without revisions that would allow the Congressional Progressive Caucus to support it in the house, and everything not included in Manchin’s bill will be included in another bill to be passed via reconciliation. Unless, he has a sudden change of heart, I’m afraid his 100% “pro-Biden” voting record will come to an end at that point. I hope you’ve prepared yourself emotionally for Manchin’s significant moment of disloyalty…unlike Warren and Sanders “disloyal” votes, which you have so far been unable to even name the bills/nominees they have opposed, which keep them from your revered “100%” status, Manchin’s disloyalty in voting down infrastructure will be remembered for decades…

[George II]

49. But people have already been bashing him for weeks for his "vote" that hasn't even taken place yet..

"Manchin’s disloyalty in voting down infrastructure will be remembered for decades…" When did that happen?

Fact is, Manchin and Sinema have voted with Biden 100% of the time. Cold, hard facts.

[Fiendish Thingy]

50. You brought up Warren and Sanders voting record in this thread before I replied

If you’d read my post slowly and thoroughly, it would be easy for you to see that My comment about Manchin’s infrastructure vote being remembered was future-oriented, yet-to-happen (although could happen soon), but based on his statements in opposition to using reconciliation to pass the bill, would be true.

[George II]

53. Sorry, someone else brought up the four names, not you. I'll edit that out. Fact remains....

....we can't fault anyone for a vote that hasn't taken place yet.

[wellst0nev0ter]

71. Seriously, this was only 4 months ago

Manchin Opposes Neera Tanden's OMB Nomination, A Blow To Her Prospects

We need to have longer memories.

[George II]

73. He opposed her nomination but he didn't BLOCK it. On the other hand the Chair....

....of the Budget Committee was on record that he would block her even getting out of committee, so it never even made it to the floor of the Senate.

"We" don't need longer memories, I know I certainly don't.

[wellst0nev0ter]

79. The rest of us know how to search news archives

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden’s pick to head the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, has withdrawn her nomination after she faced opposition from key Democratic and Republican senators for her controversial tweets.

Her withdrawal marks the first high-profile defeat of one of Biden’s nominees. Thirteen of the 23 Cabinet nominees requiring Senate approval have been confirmed, most with strong bipartisan support.

“Unfortunately, it now seems clear that there is no path forward to gain confirmation, and I do not want continued consideration of my nomination to be a distraction from your other priorities,” Tanden wrote in a letter to Biden. The president, in a statement, said he has “utmost respect for her record of accomplishment, her experience and her counsel” and pledged to find her another role in his administration.

Tanden’s viability was in doubt after Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and a number of moderate Republicans came out against her last month, all citing her tweets attacking members of both parties prior to her nomination.

https://apnews.com/article/neera-tanden-withdraws-nomination-1f9245ff58e11533c16d7b3eff11db46

Article didn't say Sanders opposed her nomination or blocked her.

[getagrip_already]

28. This is on Kvaal to resolve, not Warren......

It is a simple request. Reform predatory lending practices for students who go outside the normal system for whatever reason (some schools don't qualify for standard student loans, and some trick students into taking out risky loans).

It is on him to agree, not on her to drop the request. It is a simple thing to agree to. The fact that he isn't is a big, RED, flag.

[George II]

30. So Warren alone gets to dictate who Biden can appoint? Student debt didn't just show up....

....last year or a year ago.

Did she hold up any of trump's nominees on this issue?

[getagrip_already]

32. lol - the senate has the constitutional authority of confirmation and advise/consent....

So yeah, she does. As does every other senator who chairs a committee. And it's how it is SUPPOSED to work.

All Kvaal needs to do is address her concerns. Why won't he? Why won't the WH?

Advise and consent. And confirmation.

Simple. Isn't it?

Oh, and yes, she tried to hold up trump nominees. But mcconnell controlled the senate.....

[StarfishSaver]

35. The SENATE has the duty to advise and consent

It's a collective duty. But she is singlehandedly preventing the other senators from consenting.

[getagrip_already]

38. she is a committee chair....

That gives her a little more say by design.

Once again, he hasn't answered the questions one way or another. If he is against it, say so. Until then time out.

[StarfishSaver]

42. No, it doesn't

No, it doesn't. Every Senator has the exact same right to block a nomination. Her position is committee chair has nothing to do with it.

Blocking a nomination and preventing the other senators from voting to consent is an abuse of the Senate rules in this instance.

[George II]

36. But ONE Senator can block a vote with an objection....

We don't know that Kvaal hasn't addressed her concerns, or that he won't. We don't know that Biden hasn't, either.

This should not be aired in the press, it only give republicans and the press the chance to repeat "Democrats in disarray."

[getagrip_already]

41. who said politics wasn't messy?

It has always been a contact sport. Even within parties in power.

It's what keeps it strong, not weak.

He hasn't answered her questions. That is clear.

[George II]

46. More from the article:

However, people familiar with the matter say the delay is not about the cancellation campaign Warren has waged but what she sees as broader failings of the federal aid system.

Warren’s office declined to comment.

[George II]

60. But what's not clear is, has she asked him those questions privately or only in the press? Nobody...

....is against her asking those questions or discussing the issue with him.

The problem is that she's gone to the media about this rather than resolving it between him and her.

The Politico headline just writes itself: "Democrats in Disarray!" They've done it before.

[Fiendish Thingy]

48. You must have been in a coma to have missed Warren's opposition to, and confrontation of

Trump’s cabinet, especially Betsy Devos.

On the other hand, I can’t recall a single time when Joe “100%” Manchin tangled with a Trump nominee or cabinet member- he voted for Kavanaugh’s confirmation, remember? But Biden wasn’t president then, that vote doesn’t sully his “100%” status…

[George II]

59. A coma? Sweet. Did she block DeVos' nomination?

[StarfishSaver]

33. No

If she thinks he didn't answer her or she doesn't like his response, she can vote no on his confirmation.

But holding up his nomination, thereby preventing her 49 Democratic colleagues from having a sat on it because SHE has a problem with how he may approach one of her priority issues a tactic better suited to the other side.

Or are we supposed to be fine with this kind of minority veto over the majority as long as it's someone on our side doing it?

[getagrip_already]

34. It's how the senate works....

Advise and consent. The committees are there to ask questions and get answers. If the chair and the other members of the committee don
't like the answers, they can hold things up until the do.

Don't forget the committee can move ahead without her. It just takes a majority vote.

[StarfishSaver]

39. The SENATE has a duty to advise and consent

But she has decided that the other senators should have no ability to do that.

If she doesn't like Kvaal's position, she can withhold her consent by voting not to confirm him.

Yes, the Senate rules allow her to do that, Just like Senate rules allow Republicans to filibuster and block democratic nominees from getting a hearing. Obviously, the fact that there was allow it does not Make it right.

[getagrip_already]

44. I disagree... she wants answers he hasn't provided...

It is a process, not an immediate automatic transistor.

It will get to a vote. He and the wh have some splaining to do first. Until, not automatic.

[DFW]

40. I would have thought by now

There must be a better way for Democrats to get Biden's attention than tying one hand behind his back every time they want attention, even when it's for a worthy cause.

[StarfishSaver]

43. Maybe, like calling him up and having a meeting with him to discuss?

I really have a problem with Democrats fighting their battles with each other through press statements and social media.

[getagrip_already]

47. just let it play out......

The same thing would be happening with or without a story being written. I guarantee you every dem on the hill knows all about this.

[George II]

54. And yet this just give republicans another chance, correct or not, to say "Democrats in disarray".

[DFW]

75. Like, for example! I have the same problem.

It is unnecessary grandstanding, and it detracts from the seriousness of the issue. No matter how valid it may be, it becomes diminished when promoted in this manner. There are better ways, especially when prominent Democrats have a communication line to the White House.

[lagomorph777]

51. She's right to make sure loan reform happens.

[Autumn]

52. Good. Glad to see Warren stepping up and exerting a little muscle for good instead

of tripping around after the magic unicorn of bipartisanship.

[George II]

55. She shouldn't be doing it publicly in the media. THAT is the issue, not that she's "stepping up".

[Autumn]

56. That's politics George, THAT'S how it goes. I can't count the times I have seen Senators

opposing a president on something or another to get something they think that people need.

[George II]

58. That's NOT "how it goes", Autumn, at least for most politicians and officeholders anyway....

Most address these questions in the various meetings and interviews that Senators have with nominees prior to any committee or floor vote is scheduled, Autumn.

I don't see why that's so funny.

[Autumn]

61. Maybe pay attention George. That is exactly how it goes. You know like Manchin has done.

He's gone public on a boat load of his compalints, what HE wants and when he felt slighted. Difference here is Liz is doing it for people.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/politics/joe-manchin-covid-relief-negotiation/index.html


As for what's funny? I have a sense of humor

[George II]

62. I AM paying attention, Autumn. Senator Warren "is impeding the confirmation of James Kvaal..."

On the other hand, Autumn, THIS is "how it goes" - the first sentence of the article you posted:

"It was Friday afternoon, and President Joe Biden was on the phone with Sen. Joe Manchin...."

Biden was speaking with Manchin. Refreshing.

[Autumn]

78. No you aren't. Read this and then try selling me what your selling George, of course I

won't buy it. I know better.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/06/politics/joe-manchin-covid-relief-negotiation/index.html

Doesn't sound like Manchin is only talking to Biden. Since Manchin's all over the news, talking about Manchin's agenda.

That's how it fucking goes.

[George II]

87. I'm not "selling" anything, Autumn. This is a political discussion website.....

If you're not happy with the way the discussion is going, you're free to just ignore it.

To quote your post #78, Autumn:

"That's how it fucking goes."

[Bettie]

69. I'm pretty sure that if it were another senator

there would be accolades from a certain crowd.

A delay isn't a no and predatory lenders are a problem.

[Autumn]

77. Right. Manchin always does the right thing, for the small amount of WV people that vote for him.

Stop and consider that Liz is doing something for a LOT of people nationwide. I know who I support.

[George II]

85. The "small amount of WV people that vote for him" was 290,000 in his last election.....

On the other hand Bernie Sanders only got 185,000 people to vote for him in his last election, and never more than 205,000 votes in ANY election.

So why denigrate Manchin for a "small amount" of votes when he got more than 1-1/2 times that of another Senator in the Democratic caucus?

[dlk]

57. Warren's career has been focused on protection consumers from myriad predators

CFPB anyone? After the DeVos criminality, Warren is doing her job. This is what the messiness of democracy looks like. Good for her!

[Demsrule86]

86. I disagree. I think Warren is making a mistake. There is very little that can be done about

student loans at this time. She should, as a Democrat, help present a united front. Voters had the opportunity to choose her as our nominee and Biden was chosen.

[Marrah_Goodman]

83. Good, we need those assurances.

Hopefully the nominee will be on board with it.

[treestar]

84. Not appropriate

For something the Rs will block anyway.

[Doremus]

89. Good for her. Fight tough. nt

[denbot]

93. I'm ok with assurances.