What’s Joe Manchin’s game?
Commenter “JohnTyler” writes:
I recall that during one of Trump’s SOTU addresses, Manchin stood up to applaud one of Trumps points (think it was about energy policy).
Chucky Schumer, who was sitting next to Manchin , ORDERED Manchin to sit down.
Like a “good German” Manchin immediately sat down.Just another illustration that demokrats never break ranks and those that do, well, they just go away (e.g. Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Lieberman).
You will never find a “John McCain” in the demokrat party.
In the best traditions of Stalinist Russia, you either tow the line or you are out.
I agree that the Democrats toe the line to a far greater extent than Republicans. And although I don’t recall that incident during the SOTU address, I certainly agree with the point that Manchin’s defiance of the Democratic leadership has until now been fake and essentially theater. He votes against them when it doesn’t matter and his vote isn’t needed. When it is needed, he talks about defying them and then has some sort of last-minute change of heart and finally is “convinced” that principle dictates he vote with them (at least, that’s my recollection).
The difference between Manchin and Lieberman/Gabbard is important, however. Joe Lieberman and Tulsi Gabbard were expendable because they came from states where they could be easily replaced. Who needs even a semi-defiant Democrat when that person can easily be replaced by a more compliant one in a state that is basically blue? But Joe Manchin comes from a red state, and therein lies his special importance. The person he is most like in the GOP is Susan Collins, who if driven from her seat in Maine would almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat. If Manchin goes, a Republican would be likely to replace him to represent West Virginia.
So Manchin does hold some power in a very evenly divided Senate. He is very much needed by the Democrats and would not be easy to replace. Whether he will ultimately choose to exercise that power in the sense of actually voting against the wishes of Schumer et al in a vote where he actually stymies their plans is anyone’s guess, and it’s wise to be doubtful. I’m speaking, of course, of the filibuster.
If Manchin were to vote to end the filibuster it would be political suicide for him as far as West Virginia goes. However, if the filibuster were to be eliminated, the Democrats wouldn’t need Manchin as much anymore because at that point they might be able to pass just about anything and everything they wanted to pass, including a voting “reform” bill that will greatly facilitate fraud, as well as a bill giving statehood to most of DC in order to increase Democrat votes in the Senate and give them more of a safe margin. So the Democratic leadership might be willing to sacrifice Manchin’s seat and would pressure him to vote to end the filibuster and facilitate the party’s dominance at the cost of his own job. I don’t know exactly what form that pressure would take (and/or what future reward they might be promising), but I have little doubt they would try to exercise it if need be.
I titled this post “What’s Manchin’s game?”, but that doesn’t mean I know the answer. From my previous observations of him, I doubt he would defy the leadership on principle, although I think he might do it to save his own political future. He might be inclined to do it if Arizona’s Sinema (who might be somewhat more mavericky than Manchin) continues to stand firm against the filibuster as well.
It also occurs to me that Schumer may not be ready to end the filibuster just yet. So Manchin’s and Sinema’s “no” on the filibuster might serve Schumer’s and the party’s purposes for the moment. Schumer might sense that the party needs to slow down a little bit and let the public settle down, and then go full steam ahead later. At that point, he can say that the stubborn nasty stonewalling Republicans made him end the filibuster, and that he’s oh-so-reluctant to do so but he unfortunately had no choice. And then the orders will go out to Manchin and Sinema that it’s time to cave.
Well, since Schumer has publicly encouraged Biden to do more with EOs I presume that he doesn’t need anything, because he doesn’t intend to do anything of substance. So long as Manchin has a D after his name he serves a purpose.
Clearly, the legislative process is obsolete. That make it very convenient to be the Senate Majority Leader, or even a back bencher. No fuss, no bother. Enjoy the perks. Show your face on selected TV programs and express whatever opinions are most likely to support reelection. Hold interminable hearings, preferably televised, about minutia. Oh, and participate in phony impeachment trials of previous Presidents just for the entertainment value.
Nice work if you can get it.
Where did I go wrong?
Always remember that political office is a stepping stone to riches for most politicians. Biden and Obama arrived at a time when corruption was tolerated in Washington in both parties but the Democrats revel in it. If Manchin should lose an election, there are fat lobbyist jobs available for him, especially as a Democrat. Even Toomey will no doubt show up with a K street office by a year from leaving office. Manchin’ds daughter is already a big wheel in Big Pharma.
Gingrich stepped on his d**k by trying too soon to cash in as Speaker but most are smarter than he is.
Watch Tester too. Montana became redder this year, and he was close to losing last time. I would love if my state got rid of that fat corpuscle in a few years.
If Manchin was truly the centrist he claims to be, and has any genuine concern for the future of America, he would ‘pull a Jeffords’ and leave the his caucus. Like Jeffords, he wouldn’t have to formally switch parties, just become an independent and caucus with the GOP. Like Jeffords, his state is now strongly inclined towards the opposing party, bringing minimal risk if he wanted to run again in 2024 (when he’ll be 77). Or, like Jeffords, he could simply retire at that point, detested by the national Democrat party, but beloved and appreciated by West Virginians.
In the alternative, Manchin could resign his seat, allowing Governor Justice to appoint a Republican and call a special election (which the GOP would almost certainly win). He would return to West Virginia a hero and could contemplate seeking the governorship again in 2024 when Justice is term limited.
….If he truly was a centrist and concerned about America’s future. I have my doubts. The Beltway corrupts; there are Georgetown cocktail parties to consider, lobbyists who are eager to please, and billions in pork to try to funnel to West Virginia contractors (like his illustrious predecessor so adeptly did for decades), after all.
The dems are going to make it hard for red state dems too, how does Tester defend the green programs. MT is losing out on the Keystone pipe line, coal, gas, timber, and mining will take a hit. There is a lot of federal land that may close down to leasing. Billings area has three refineries alone and would lose big.
I work at a small manufacturing company and we’re going to pay more for our plastics, rubber, and materials due to inflation and the rise in oil.
“as well as a bill giving statehood to most of DC in order to increase Democrat votes in the Senate and give them more of a safe margin.”
This keeps being brought up, so it’s probably important to point out that making DC a state would be a DEATH SENTENCE for Democrats in red states. Not just at the federal level, either. While a lot of the GOP/conservative leadership would be perfectly happy with perpetual minority status, the other 99.99% of Republicans would be angered beyond anything any of us has ever seen. Take the DC riot and multiply it by about 50.
And even some Democrats would be disturbed because they’re not all hardcore leftists but the DC Congressional delegation would be.
Which isn’t to say Democrats aren’t stupid enough to make DC a state. It was Harry Reid, after all, who opened the door for Trump and McConnell to transform the federal judiciary. But the ultimate result of DC statehood would likely NOT be perpetual Democratic dominance. It would more likely be either states flipping from blue to red or red states leaving the Union.
Mike
“Manchin’s defiance of the Democratic leadership has until now been fake and essentially theater. He votes against them when it doesn’t matter and his vote isn’t needed. When it is needed, he talks about defying them and then has some sort of last-minute change of heart and finally is “convinced” that principle dictates he vote with them”
Add to neo’s perspective, the alternatives Ackler mentions @ 3:47 that are available to Manchin and there remains little doubt that Manchin is a deceitful little wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Slightly off topic, but you said something about replacing senators with members of the other party. What would happen if Senator Leahy (D, VT) had to be replaced for health reasons? The governor of VT seems to be a far-left RINO. What kind of replacement would we be likely to get? Would we get another leftist RINO in the senate, or would he just appoint a Democrat?
bof:
By “replace,” I didn’t actually mean appointment. I meant they’d be defeated if they tried to run for re-election because the winner would be their opponent from the other party. Or, they would choose not to run again, and the candidate from the other party would win against whoever did run instead.
A recent article from the National Catholic Register on Manchin:
https://www.ncregister.com/news/will-sen-manchin-s-focus-on-moderation-come-at-the-expense-of-his-catholic-principles
When Republicans had a 3 or 4 vote edge in the Senate the Dem’s used the filibuster to stifle Republican legislation and the Roll Over Party hated it. Now that the ROP is the (de facto) minority in the Senate Dem’s are threatening to eliminate the filibuster and the ROP is against it. What goes around comes around.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Manchin and Sinema are frauds. What kind of power can Schumer hold over them? Change their committee assignments? BFD. But since modern Dems are Bolshevik collectivists, they must fall into that category too.
I am more and more impressed by Tulsi Gabbard. Yes, she is a Democrat, but she understands and honors the Constitution. I believe she is amenable to reason.
In a parliamentary system, when the parties are 48 and 48, the party holding 4 rules, if it wants to.
Be interesting to see Manchin’s behavior, possibly in concert with Sinema or someone like, shows the power of the “4”.
You mentioned the possibility, nearly certain, of DC becoming a state, if/when the Manchin safety net falls. I have wondered, and haven’t noticed anyone else wondering, why the area wouldn’t just be absorbed into Virginia or Maryland which seems natural to me. Of course the official federal buildings would be “neutral” or somehow maintain a special status, much like embassies abroad. What am I missing here?