Opinion: Joe Manchin's arguments for the filibuster keep getting more ludicrous

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

“I mean, voting is very important. It is a bedrock of democracy,” Manchin told reporters Tuesday. “But to break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely — that’s just not who we are.”

(snip)

This is absurd. First, the idea that nixing the filibuster would “break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely” is unintentionally revealing about Manchin’s true stance. It’s false on its face: Needing a simple majority to pass legislation doesn’t stop senators from the minority party from entering into negotiations with the majority party to try to influence said legislation.

In fact, ending the filibuster might increase the incentive for a bloc of GOP senators to seek such negotiations. Without it, bills could pass with a majority of fewer than 60 votes, meaning, say, five moderate Republicans would have more opportunities to get on legislation with a real chance of passage, burnishing their bipartisan cred while delivering for constituents. Moderate Democrats who want to be seen working with Republicans would help that happen.

What ending the filibuster actually would stop is the opportunity for the minority party to participate entirely on its own terms. With the filibuster, virtually nothing can pass. This facilitates and encourages a deliberate opposition strategy of denying the president’s party legislative victories to make the government under that party more dysfunctional.

(snip)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/12/joe-manchin-filibuster-arguments-ludicrous/

[elleng]

1. "break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely" relevant for Dems when repugs

are majority, 'cause that's how they 'play.' IMO, the system (n the senate at least) is BROKEN. I have no solution.

[Uncle Joe]

3. From everything that I have read regarding the filibuster

other than a handful of exceptions listed in the Constitution there simply is no reason to require a super-majority for ordinary running of the government.

The funny thing about Manchin is, he's so dead set on including Republicans in all legislation for "bipartisanship" sake and yet for all practical purposes he's basically claiming we need the filibuster because he's afraid of that same political party.

Everything about the filibuster in modern day America is fear based and to my way of thinking whether intended or not it's just another divide and conquer psychological wedge tool.

I believe in one sense we as a people need to have more faith in one another in order to unite and overcome the forces of division.

As the Vice-President is perfectly capable of breaking a tie vote, I see no reason as to why we need a super-majority in the Senate except as in the few cases listed in the Constitution.

[elleng]

4. 'faith in one another in order to unite and overcome the forces of division' is a non-starter, imo.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I hear you, that's a tough one,

but in order to get rid of the filibuster, for many people it will require a leap of faith.

[TiberiusB]

7. except...

If the Republicans are in the majority, they can just abolish the filibuster themselves, which you know they will do the second the Democrats offer any real resistance. The Senate is a relic. It was created solely to protect the interests of wealthy land and slave owners from the common rabble. The House needs to increase in size to better reflect the current state populations and the electoral college needs to join the Senate in the dustbin of history.

None of this will happen until money is taken out of the equation. I don't see things getting better until they get much worse...and maybe not even then. Its going to be a bumpy ride, to put it mildly.

Maybe as a last resort all dems should just register as republicans and take over that party.

[ymetca]

10. And, dare I say it

Biden's visit to Georgia appears to be just so much "virtue signaling". Or as McConnell prefers to say "political theater".

Biden must have known before he went there that Manchin and Sinema were never going to be "on board". It was all for show. He was just there to shore up the minority vote for the midterms. To try and goose the turnout. What else could he do? Nothing, really. By design.

He gets to show he's on "our side", then gets called "divisive" by the "other side" right on queue.

Corporately owned, media-managed, divide and conquer "identity" politics 101. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Drum]

2. Amen!

[vercetti2021]

6. Eventually

He'll say he is married to it and thus cannot break up with it. Because hes a nutty con with a D next to his name only.

[IronLionZion]

8. GOP will abuse us when they're a majority no matter what

it's what they do. So why miss opportunities now when GOP is blocking everything they can as a minority.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I agree, has Mitch McConnell ever shown any grace?

He wouldn't even allow a hearing on President Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court and did everything he could to squeeze 3 in for the twice impeached seditionist.

I'm convinced that by removing the filibuster now, it's an even playing field and on top of that the American People will have more influence on their government.

As things are now, the government is geared much more toward stasis than progress and as a result we're falling behind other nations in all manner of criteria.