Biden Thread

[Montmorency]

I have never tied Manchin's corruption to the filibuster, mainly because, as I've mentioned previously, the filibuster is a non-issue. I'll clarify that---would it be easier for the Dems to get legislation passed without the filibuster in place? Of course. Is removing or revising the filibuster absolutely necessary to get said legislation passed? No, not if the Dems voted as an entire caucus. Bringing up the filibuster is a DOA issue in the Senate at this time, so why waste time and effort talking about it?

What is important is can/has Manchin been paid off to insist that certain energy proposals that are likely to be included in the Dems-only infrastructure bill, be removed before he will support it? When the bill gets drafted, and we get to see the actions/reactions of Manchin and the other conservative/corporate Democrats, only then will we get to see whether these Dems vote for the people, or for their donors. I'm betting on the latter because money talks....

Huh, well I'm stumped, because the second graf has nothing I disagree with. It's been a few weeks, but IIRC our exchange was initially about Manchin's motivation in resisting the Dem agenda overall (including re: filibuster), and specifically the For the People and John Lewis Voting Rights acts.

To summarize where I stand at least:

1. Manchin's private and public attitudes, and legislative behavior, on energy policy, labor law, and any number of other issues are influenced by such factors as campaign finances, personal finances, his upbringing and social circle, and more. What it amounts to is conservatism.
2. If Manchin is refusing to pass anything at all on the agenda from now on, whether supra-filibuster or by reconciliation, drawing from the claimed principle of bipartisanship and its inadequate fulfillment, then that is rooted in his personal beliefs/ideology and not on external contingencies.

Sounds like you're saying the first point is most relevant to what you were talking about all along.