An Open Letter To Senator Joe Manchin

By
Joseph "Murfster35" Murphy
-
29
1169
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 20: Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV., speaks duringĀ a Senate Appropriations Committee hearingĀ to examine the American Jobs Plan, focusing on infrastructure, climate change, and investing in our nations future on April 20, 2021 in Washington, DC. Members of President Biden's cabinet are testifying about the American Jobs Plan, the administration's $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan that has yet to win over a single Republican in Congress. (Photo by Oliver Contreras-Pool/Getty Images)

Dear Senator Manchin,

Good evening sir, how are you? Let me start with this. I’m not here to rag your position, nor am I here to start a juvenile pissing contest. That time is past. We’ll shake hands right now and agree that we are both men of honor and conscience, OK?

You seem to have landed yourself rather into the whitest of the bright spotlights, haven’t you laddie? In a tied Senate at 50 votes apiece, you have voiced strong resistance to Senate Majority Leader Schumer taking steps to reform the filibuster, or more precisely the 60 vote cloture rule, because you so firmly believe that bipartisanship is still possible in the Senate. Per out agreement, I will take your sincerity at your word.

But now, with all due respect, I have a question for you, sir. Could you please tell me exactly what personal Senate experience you have with bipartisanship? You see Joe, I cheated. I Googled you. You came into the Senate in 2010. By that time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had already been quoted as his sole job being to make your President, Barack Obama, a one term President. You were lucky. You missed 2009, when McConnell had his flying monkeys spend months playing bait-and-switch to get Obama and the Democrats to pare away the emergency stimulus act, with promises of bipartisanship, only to fail to deliver a single vote. Leaving him with a gutted bill that was totally inadequate for the job.

You also missed the Affordable Care Act debacle, where once again, President Obama literally begged the GOP for constructive input to create a viable bill, and again, after playing months of hide-the-salami of concessions in returned for promised GOP support in the final product, got not a single GOP vote.

But what have you been there in the Senate for? Two years of uninterrupted GOP obstruction of anything Obama tried to do, using the filibuster to keep it from coming to the floor for a vote! When McConnell took over the Senate Majority Leader spot, he not only violated his oath to the constitution, he violated his ethics by holding Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open for more than 300 days by refusing to let his Senators even meet with Merrick Garland, much less get a committee hearing and a vote.

When Trump took over in 2017, McConnell was more than happy to shepherd Justice Neil Gorsuch through the process and into Garlands seat. He was more than happy to use the reconciliation process that you are actively resisting to pass a multi trillion dollar tax break package for the uber rich, without even bothering to seek Democratic input. And when Don McGahn engineered yet another SCOTUS opening for Trump, McConnell went balls-to-the-wall to clear a totally unqualified candidate, Brewski Brett Kavanaugh, through the process, including obstructing a complete FBI investigation into credible sexual assault allegations. He did everything in his power to obstruct not one, but two slam dunk impeachment trials in the Senate!

Please, Senator Manchin, I am humbly asking you. I promise, I am keeping an open mind. With everything I have just said, what is your personal experience in the Senate with bipartisanship? Please don’t tell me about Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey. They are at best paper tigers, and McConnell tolerates them simply because they are useful idiots, because after all, two or three, or even four votes are not ten votes, and ten votes is what you need! It’s all the same old bait-and-switch.

Now, because it’s my column, I am going to go off on a little more personal note. I am going to tell you that from where I’m sitting, you are the luckiest Senate in The Club of 100, simply because I am not the Senate Majority Leader.

You’ve had a nice run so far. You’ve nicely played the bad ass, and established yourself as the king maker for the Senate, but I’m sorry, playtimeĀ  is over. You ran to govern, and the time to govern is now. It’s time to see just how sincere your convictions are.

If I were Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, next Wednesday morning I would call the 1/6 commission back to the floor for a vote, circumventing the filibuster to pass it with a 50 vote threshold. You yourself said that there was no reason for any Senator to vote against this commission, so vote for the bill, and let’s see how many of your GOP friends come along for the ride. That should be educational.

Right after that, I would call the For The People Act to the floor of the Senate for a vote, again abrogating the filibuster rule. You can see that GOP state legislatures are doing all over the country to try to rig permanent minority rule by obstructing the right to vote. Just how firmly do you believe in the Democratic principles that you took an oath to uphold and defend.

After that, I would call the John Lewis Voting Rights Act under exactly the same circumstances. That act would put the prohibitions back on states like Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, and require them to get pre clearance from the Department of Justice before making arbitrary changes to their states voting laws.

I would follow it up with bringing the George Floyd Police Reform Act up for a vote, again, under the same rule. You think that you’re the shepherd of bipartisanship in the Senate? Then prove it and drag 10 GOP Senators across the aisle to help get it done.

Because there is an old saying that I’ve always adored,Ā Money talks, and bullshit walks.Ā Up until now, you’ve been big on bullshit, but you haven’t actually had to stand by your brave words and positions. I would put every single one of those pieces of legislation on the floor, and make you own your votes on them. When it all comes down to it, your constituents deserve to know exactly where you stand.

Follow me on Twitter at @RealMurfster35

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

Support the site with a subscription today and see no more ads!

Go Ad-free Now!

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

29 COMMENTS

  2. Nicely done Joe. The messages I left for him contained the same points but also saying if he doesn’t support doing these items, then he’s either a true Republican pretending to be otherwise, or he’s just plain stupid. Until proven otherwise, doubt either approach means jack given what you clearly laid out since his arrival. Hell. Even little red riding hood knew the damn wolf wasn’t gramma.

  3. “When it all comes down to it, your constituents deserve to know exactly where you stand.”

    Murf, as I keep trying to remind you (and others) but it’s apparently not sticking since you continue to ignore it but Manchin is on his final legs as a US Senator. He will NOT be re-elected as a Democrat in 2024. I don’t imagine he’ll retire to leave an open seat but he only won with 49.57% of the vote in 2018 (significantly down from 2012 when he won 60% of the vote while Obama only pulled in 35.54% but also down from the 53.5% in the 2010 special election that put him in the Senate). There were rumors that he’d switch to the GOP for the 2012 election (the GOP claimed Manchin had started the rumors) and he’s denied those rumors, even going so far to say as long as was in the Senate, he’d remain a Democrat but his political career is definitely coming to a close (without switching to the GOP).

    His constituents do not CARE “exactly where he stands” because they’ve outgrown him and his PARTY. West Virginia has voted for the GOP presidential candidate consistently since 2000. The state hasn’t sent a Democrat to the US House since Nick Rahall was defeated in 2014 and, as I noted, Manchin’s own support is eroding so come January 2025, West Virginia will have completed its turn from a pretty solid Democratic stronghold to a ruby-red Republican stronghold.(as far as I can tell, incumbent Governor Justice can’t run for re-election in 2024 but I think it’s safe to say that the next governor will be another Republican–first elected as a Democrat in 2016, he only got 49% of the vote to his GOP challenger’s 46% but he pulled in nearly 65% of the vote in 2020 *as* a GOPer compared to his Democratic challenger’s nearly 31%).

    There is, quite literally, NOTHING for Manchin at this point. He’s not going to win points from WV voters by supporting the Democratic agenda and he’s not likely to win re-election in 2024 so he’s not going to be swayed by being “bribed” or “blackmailed” by Senate Democrats, even Schumer. He’s done his “kingmaker” play for the past couple of months but he knows full well (as does the Senate Democratic leadership) that the Dems need him far more than he needs them. If the Senate Dems push him too far, he can always become the “bipartisan” guy and vote with the GOP, stripping Schumer of his very shaky Majority Leader status.

    • In all sincerity, I don’t agree with this. Yes it is true that Manchin won by a very small margin last election. But he has never had such an opportunity to do things for his constituents as he does now. News for some time has been that Manchin wants an even bigger infrastructure bill than Biden does. No state needs infrastructure help more than WVa, and I’m sure a special effort would be made to see that WVa was well provided for. So it’s not at all clear that Manchin couldn’t improve do better next election. Have you noticed, nationally at least, the GOP since Nov., and especially since Jan.6, have not been winning hearts and minds.

      But let me take this further. If what you say is true, that Manchin knows he can’t win reelection no matter what, than why wouldn’t he fully take the risk of supporting Pres. Biden’s program?

      I’m not sure what the real explanation is, and what you’re saying is something I’ve heard as the received wisdom for months now, but I don’t think it’s correct. And incidentally, I’ve read editorials in WVa newspapers to the effect that even they don’t understand what Manchin is trying to do with his “centrism”.

      One thing for sure is that Manchin’s rationale (the filibuster stimulates debate) is utterly unconvincing on its own terms. And nobody outside of Washington thinks senate process is a hill to die on. And Biden seems strangely unperturbed. Which leads one to suspect Manchin, unless he is a complete and total idiot, has something else up his sleeve.

    • I don’t agree that he’s not going to be swayed by being “Bribed” or “blackmailed” because he seems to be just that by the GQP. If he won’t do his job as a Democrat, for whatever reason, then in my opinion (doesn’t matter to anyone but me) he is a republikkklan.

  4. Manchin should be kicked out of the party, he’s an idiot ! And you are right Schumer should just pass it with the 50 vote. Funny how people forget what McConnell has done to the Dems, he screws us every chance he gets, well he needs to bend over now !

    • I’m confused here.
      How can Schumer pass anything using the 50 vote rule? The filibuster is in effect and IT needs 50 votes to cancel it, which won’t happen as long as Manchin has taken over the role of Susan Collins’ game of coquettish ingenue.

      Help me out here.

      • Murfster was suggesting that Schumer should selectively abrogate the filibuster rule at least for these votesā€”which he could do if supported by a simple majority. Of course the idea is that Manchin should end the game he’s been playing and vote with the rest of the Democrats.

        • Murf’s best suggestion was that Manchin show a committment to govern, and put his bipartisan marbles on the table by bringing at least ten Republicans with him

          • I agree that he should be given ONE opportunity to show that there is a minute possibility for bipartisanship. One and only one. And then he needs to agree to do the Democrats’ bidding.

      • People need to clearly understand something that Murf alluded to. the filibuster is not the same thing the the 60-vote passage requirement. As long as people keep conflating the two, productive discussion is not possible.

        • The filibuster as it exists today is the same thing as the 60-vote passage requirement, but I think Murfster’s point was, the details can be changed, short of eliminating it entirely. What he wrote was “the filibuster, or more precisely the 60votecloturerule”. The second is just the official name of the current version. “In 1917, Rule XXII was amended to allow for ending debate (invoking “cloture”) with a two-thirds majority, later reduced in 1975 to three-fifths of all senators “duly chosen and sworn” (usually 60).” (Wikipedia) But it’s just a senate rule, it’s not in the Constitution at all.

          • The filibuster is NOT the same as the 60-vote passage requirement. The filibuster as it exists today delays a vote. When the vote is finally taken, it still requires 60 votes to pass UNLESS budget reconciliation is used, normally allowed only once per year. People keep conflating the two terms and it leads to confusion. Murf’s allusion was unclear. There are two points of discussion. 1) whether to eliminate the 60-vote rule for passage of a bill, and 2) whether to change the filibuster back to a talking filibuster. Cloture is a third thing entirely. THAT 60-vote total only end the debate, but does not pass a bill. But I thank you for helping to clarify that not two, but THREE different things are being confused.

          • I’m sorry, it does not take 60 votes to pass a bill, only 50. That’s why the minority uses the filibuster ā€” you need 60 votes to close debate so the bill can be voted on. So even if you have 50 votes to pass the bill, there’s not going to be a vote unless you had 60 to close the debate.
            Following that logic, if senate leaders know beforehand that there are at least 41 votes opposed to a closure motion, the bill is very often not even scheduled for consideration.
            Whether to change the filibuster to a talking filibuster is only one idea, and I’m not sure how seriously it’s being considered. Other things that can be done are reducing the number of votes required for cloture to something less than 60, selectively eliminating the filibuster for certain kinds of votes, which has already been done (2013) for confirmation of executive nominees and court nominees, except supreme court nominees, and was widened in 2017 to SC nominees, etc.
            And because these are merely rule changes, they only require 51 votes to pass.
            https://www.vox.com/22260164/filibuster-senate-fix-reform-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-cloture-mitch-mcconnell
            Budget reconciliation is something else. It was only created in 1974. Because the budget has already been passed by the House, the Senate has to reconcile its own version, and in doing so they can put in new measures as long as they have a budgetary aspect. This process is immune to the filibuster, because according to Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the constitution, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills,” which means debate in the Senate is guaranteed. So if you want something passed in the Senate without having to worry about a filibuster, and you can figure out a way to attach it to the budget bill, it can be done that way, unless maybe you have some senators like Manchin who don’t want it done that way either. And Congress can pass up to THREE reconciliation bills per year, with each bill addressing the major topics of reconciliation: revenue, spending, and the federal debt limit.

          • Back in April it was big news that Dems, after having used budget reconciliation the one allowed time, would be permitted to use it again for the infrastructure bill. Upon double checking the number of votes necessary for passage, you are correct. The constitution says simple majority in both the House and the Senate, except over-riding a veto requires a 2/3 majority. So here I am advising against confusion of terms while being somewhat confused myself. Sheesh. It does not help that our lawmakers go on TV regularly and talk about needing 60 votes to pass things. For example, in 2017 Schumer famously said, ā€œTo my Republican friends who think that if Judge Gorsuch fails to reach 60 votes we ought to change the rules I say: if this nominee cannot earn 60 votes, a bar met by each of President Obamaā€™s nominees, and President Bushā€™s last two nominees, the answer isnā€™t to change the rules ā€” itā€™s to change the nominee.ā€ No wonder the public gets the wrong impression.

            I am not a political junkie, and until relatively recently in my life it was not necessary to have detailed knowledge of the mechanics of government. A high school civics course used to be sufficient. These days apparently a lot of high schoolers graduate without inadequate knowledge of basic civics. In 2016 Annenberg found that only about one-fourth of Americans can name the three branches of government. https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/americans-knowledge-of-the-branches-of-government-is-declining/

    • Without Manchin the ACA would have been repealed (right before a pandemic hit), there would be no COVID relief package, there would be no Biden judges…I disagree with him frequently and his stance on the filibuster is baffling, but letā€™s not fall prey to hyperbolic inaccuracies. He stands with Democrats more than he stands against them.

      • Means very little if he doesn’t support ending or drastically altering the filibuster to ensure free & fair elections cuz the fascists will just ignore the voters & pick the leaders behind closed doors, so the rich minority rule the land & will dismantle everything done to date. Joe is the problem. Either it’s naive ignorance,(don’t see how that is possible watching Mitch the bitch work since 2010), or he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The rest is smoke & mirrors.

        • the fillibuster is not the problem. Even the 60-vote passage requirement is not the problem. The problem is the now decades-old bad faith of Republicans. They refuse to govern and they refuse to let anyone else govern, either.

        • The voter suppression laws being written make it impossible for the GQP not to win or to say they have won. With no possibility for argument or challenge. We need to stop these laws that are being written in every single republikkklan state.

    • Why is it that Dems allow the Republicans to bully and make their own rules.. with no consequences but Dems appear to stillā€ play nicelyā€?.. the time to grow a pair and get tough is NOW. This country is rolling backwards at a fast rate… Dems!!! Take charge!

  5. I thought his outrage when GOP Senators wouldn’t go along with the 1/6 commission was as good a piece of bad acting that I’ve seen in a while. Very transparent, Joe, very transparent.

  6. The republicans win by sticking together. I get so damned tired of Democrats falling over like dead soldiers. They need to stick together too.

  8. Lets be honest, the only reason the colonies managed to beat the old country was because they botched their side of the fight to an even higher degree and they had help out the what’cha’ma’call’its. Sadly right, now there is no one around you can to point the finger at and say. “Why are you looking at the US of A? Look at them, they can’t even agree on the length of the curtains in their national post service offices.”
    Well, I suppose you could point to the Brits again with Brexit, Scotland referendum and devolved government meetings not going so well, but would you really want to?

  9. Five stars. Cattle prods work, but I don’t think Manchin ever will. Chuck Schumer is a little too nice to be leader either majority or minority. Warren? She’s willing to punch.

  10. Another day gone by and I’m starting to realize that neither the politicians nor the media have been presenting this issue accurately. I think everyone here would agree that because of the state GOPs’ scorched earth voting bills, the federal voting rights act is absolutely essential. We also understand that unless ALL Senate Dems vote for it, it won’t pass, even without the filibuster. And I think we also understand that with the present filibuster rule, it can’t pass because 10 additional votes from GOP senators ain’t gonna happen. Anything less than that is just “virtue signalling” (Hey look, I’m bipartisan!) and is of no more practical effect than zero.

    But guess what? It turns out that Manchin and Sinema not wanting to end or even change the filibuster is not the only problem. First of all, M and S don’t actually like everything in the present bill, and secondly, there are a few other Dem Senators like Tester who agree with them.

    So while the idea of negotiating with the GOP is at best a necessary kabuki dance, the REAL negotiations must be within the Democratic delegation itself. And here’s the thing. Considering the stark necessity of passing a voting rights bill to zap the GOP state efforts to end democracy, it may be that some of the wish-list features of the present Dem bill are not absolutely essential. That is what Tester, for example, is saying. Reading between the lines, one of the main disagreements seems to be public campaign funding. Did you know that? I didn’t. Of course the corporate donors don’t want public funding, but is that issue on the same level as saving voting rights?

    And this is why the Dems need to be negotiating among themselves. No doubt they already are, though we don’t hear about it. But here’s the problem. If Manchin and Sinema are not going to support “ending or weakening” the filibuster, what’s the point of negotiating? Because you ain’t gonna get 10 Republicans for NOTHING, NOHOW, NO WAY.

    So the only thing that makes sense here to me is that Manchin, SInema and others are holding out against the rest of the Democrats, not to kill the bill, but to pare it down, and to put the best possible interpretation on this, to pare it down to essentials. And no, I don’t think his counter offer of the John Lewis VR Act is anywhere near enough. But let’s say the Dems can get a version of the For the People Act they all agree on, then what? Will Manchin & Co. then agree (a) to at least modify the filibuster, or (b) do they just believe that with the new version of For the People they can get 10 Republicans on board? For (a), the devil is in the details, and for (b) I really don’t think they could ever get 10 Republicans, when they can’t even get them for the 1/6 Commission.

    Whatever you think of this, it seems that the way Manchin & Co. see it there’s somewhat more substance (not just process issues) than the way it’s been portrayed. But if so, what nobody has been saying out loud is that they need the filibuster to stimulate debate not between Democrats and Republicans, but among democrats themselves. Manchin is NOT a Republican in disguise, but he definitely is a centrist Democrat.

    And as is inevitably the case with all absolutely vital issues (as we’ve seen in the “government shutdown” standoffs) that have to be hammered out within a “drop dead” deadline, it’s become a silent game of chicken with the rest of us left twisting in the wind and wondering what the hell is going on. I don’t want to blame Democrats equally with the Republicans, it’s not even close. I can understand why they have not been completely open about their lack of unity at this crucial moment. And of course key Dems are all holding out as long as they can. But this is no way to run a country ā€” it is just the way things are done these days.

    I was flummoxed why Manchin made such a statement so publicly, so early, and so strictly, that he would under no conditions vote to end or weaken the filibuster. Why nail himself to the mast, especially at an early stage? But now I believe this was meant more for his fellow Dems than for McConnell. Manchin has no love for McConnell, and after the debacle of the 1/6 Commission he’s genuinely pissed off with him. But Manchin’s not convinced yet because he wants the Dems to loosen up a little.

    If the situation should ever develop to where Manchin thinks they have a reasonable voting rights bill, he COULD get out of the corner he painted himself into by blaming it all on McConnell, and saying that at the time he made that statement he couldn’t imagine the GOP being so utterly unreasonable, etc., etc., and given that, he would, with sorrow, have to vote with the rest of his party to temporarily modify the filibuster rule. Or perhaps even to permanently modify it, which would not “weaken” but strengthen it, because under present circumstances in order for the filibuster to work as intended, to stimulate debate, etc., etc., it has to be usable by bothe parties, etc., etc.

    What Manchin still may not get is that while he could conceivably get 9 Republicans to support a voting rights bill, he will NEVER get 10, because that would represent a defeat for Trump and his entire control of the GOP, and McConnell cannot allow that, because if he does, the GOP is dead. For McConnell the death of democracy would be the far better option, since he’s never believed in it anyway.

    • This should be a stand-alone post.

      I do not understand why 60 votes to end debate is considered “bipartisan” when it is possible for one political party to absolutely dominate actual lawmaking with a simple majority. On the other hand, what is the answer when the GOP refuses to engage in good faith?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here