Joe Manchin might not back Harry Reid or Barack Obama

[FBaggins]

West Virginia Democratic Senate candidate Joe Manchin says he may not support Harry Reid's bid to remain Senate majority leader or endorse Barack Obama for president in 2012.

Manchin has blasted Democratic leaders in his close Senate race against Republican John Raese – voicing frequent criticism of the health care law and even cutting an ad where he shoots a hole through the cap-and-trade bill. But the West Virginia governor took his criticism a step further in an interview with Politics Daily, by not committing to endorsing Reid as the Democratic leader should both win their races Nov. 2.

"I'll support the person who supports West Virginia," Manchin said. "I'm going to support the person who supports West Virginia and I'm not going to support the person who doesn't support West Virginia." -

Asked if he intends to endorse Obama in his reelection bid, the governor responded: “That's such a hypothetical thing, but basically I think there's two more years that have to play out.”



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44112.html

[BeFree]

1. Screw you, Punk

Bite the hand that feeds you? Get lost.

[LynneSin]

2. I'm not sure what I think about this guy but better him than Rease

and that's about it. I don't care who he supports for majority leader as long as he helps us get a democrat in the majority leader position.

[vi5]

4. But that seems to be the point.....

Does he rule out voting for a republican for majority leader? Would he want someone more conservative than Reid (god help us)?

[Cosmocat]

13. oh for christ sakes ...

its flipping WV for crying out loud, not Massacheusettes (sp) ...

The man is scrapping to get there, and in a state like WVU has to at least posture to the right ...

If he was going to support an R for leader, then he would be that far gone he would RUN AS AN R ... A lot easier to get there from his state as an R at this point ... Why run as a D only to basically caucus with the Rs?

Are people REALLY this short sighted?

[vi5]

16. Why run as a D only to caucus with the R's?

Because if the Senate is that tight then it gives him a lot of power. As an R he'd have no power. But seeing how our party treats the Nelson's and Baucus's and Lincoln's and the complete and utter lack of any ramifications whatsoever for doing so...why wouldn'the.

I'm not saying he's got to run as a rabid populist deep blue Dem. I didn't care about his silly ads or running to the right. But I do care if we wind up in another situation where our leaders have to fall all over themselves trying to please one guy because he has all the power.

[Cosmocat]

27. I know a lot of people don't get this ...

Like it or not, the middle in both chambers is the right end of the demcratic caucuses ... I know some people have a hard time understanding it, but the Rs vote in COMPLETE lockstep ... The choice in a place like Montana or WVU is either a lockstep R or a D who is really mushy ...

Sorry, even the mushiest Ds are better than a Jim Demint bobblehead ...

Manchin could be the difference in a Reid/Schuster/Durbin majority leader and whatever crape the Rs would put at the head of the chamber ...

[vi5]

30. I understand it.....

But I just don't agree with the "Well that's the way it is, we've just got to lie back and accept it." And if it means our party and our country gets pulled ever rightward because our party leadership basically hands over whatever the right wing of our party wants then we've got some serious soul searching to do.

The entire premise is based on the fact that our leadership has to be the most mealy mouthed, cowardly, constantly caving people imagineable. The R's have shown that they can be an effective minority party for their side because they are aggressive and can get their caucus in line. The problem is that we are so scared of losing our majority because we all know that our leadership and our caucus will never be as aggressive and as strong as they are. So we pathetically keep clinging to this notion that we have to sell our souls over and over and over again and betray more and more core democratic constituencies just to keep the conservadems and blue dogs happy.

So I understand it completely but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't stink to high heaven.

[golfguru]

33. Are you really saying that Manchin is a

hypocrite? Do you think he is just lying his way
through the election? And after he is elected he
will make a 180 deg turn and turn liberal?

IMHO none of the above is true. Manchin can never
go back to supporting Obama after his words are
on video. He will be crucified in the next election.
He will be a 1 termer for life. He is too young to
accept that fate.

Nope, I really think he will oppose Obama every
way he can to prove to WVA he is really a republican
in democrat clothing.

[countrydad58]

45. So tell me again

What good is it to have a numerical advantage,if they dont back the Dem. agenda? I rather be in the minority with solid Dems who will do the right things for the betterment of the people,& fight a guerilla insurgeny like the pukes have for almost 4 yrs.

[vi5]

3. But we need to get him elected and GOTV!!!!

Because he's a dem and any dem is better than any republican.

Right? I mean right?

[dennis4868]

8. Not sure if he is worthy of a dem voting for him....

he slams the senate majority leader and the leader of his party, the president of the United States....and he bases his frustration with Obama and Reid on lies about the health care bill.....he takes the repubs lies as fact and then bases his attack against Obama/Reid on the the lie....HE WHOULD MAN UP AND FIGHT FOR DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND THE TRUTH! Another fucking spineless dem....I am sick of these dems....a total waste of time.

[treestar]

29. Yes, why are you being sarcastic about this?

If the Rs are in majority, they control the agenda. Everything you want will be actively worked against. It's one thing not to get enough. But another to have it actively worked against.

[vi5]

32. Everything I want

is being actively worked against now, and they already control the agenda. Sometimes by the R's and sometimes by members of my own party.

West Virginia can do what they want. My problem with this is less that West Virginia could elect another conservadem (I understand that) than with the full awareness that the leadership in our party will cave to this person at every single turn and turn over our agenda to them the same way they have already.

[treestar]

34. Simply not true

Total exaggeration. How is it possible for anyone to really think the Republicans will not smash down anything that any progressive wants? It's one thing to complain that the current Congress is not enough to the left but another to be dealing with a Republican one. Republicans, people. They are Republicans.

[vi5]

35. They are already doing it....

They are already smashing down everything and they don't even have majorities in either house. And they still call the shots and they still cause most everyone in any leadership position within the democratic party (Pelosi excepting, sometimes) to cower and not fight back.

I'm voting Dem, no doubt about it because what you say is true. But the fact is that if we had a democratic party that did anything other than cave and did anything other than sell most of their demographics and constituents down the river at every single opportunity than maybe we wouldn't be cowering in fear at the republicans gaining control because we'd know that Dems would do the same thing that Republicans were doing now and being a forceful, strong, commanding minority party. But we all know that's not true. So it's a doubly bitter pill to swallow. I've got to support and vote for a group of buckling, craven cowards AND I have to accept that this group of buckling, craven cowards is the best we're going to get. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not jumping for joy or if I don't lambaste someone else who isn't doing the same as I am.

[treestar]

38. I've been through this coward thing before

What are they afraid of? The best one I have heard is they are afraid of not getting re-elected. Why would they think they won't get re-elected if they fail to pass any legislation, because what is before them is not progressive enough?

And the only example is Feingold, who was progressive enough to refuse to vote for the financial reforms as not good enough. Well I guess that was courageous, and he is in big danger of being replaced by a Republican. So what good was that "courage?"

Republicans don't have "courage." They know they have unwavering support from the far right. If they get a little of what the right wants, they are cheered on and supported. All they have to get is a little. To the right, that's progress in their direction and they take it as a reason to build on and go on.

[vi5]

41. Yes, they only get a little fro the right....

They just got a few far right supreme court justices and a few judges down at the lower levels. Just a little tax cut for the wealthy. Just a tiny bit of deregulation and underfunding of regulatory agencies. They just got a little bit of war and a little increase in defense industry spending. Man, what they got during the Bush years and the Republican controlled congress was so small now that you mention it, I don't know what it was that we all got so riled up over.

All sarcasm aside, needless to say I respectfully disagree with the assertion that R's only give a little of what the right wants.

As for what they are afraid of, pathetically enough I think what they're all afraid of is essentially what cable news will say about them and what the public will believe. But they're too insular and idiotic enough that they don't realize that this stuff is going to be said no matter what. So they don't please the Fox/Cable news crowd (because they never will) and then all they do is piss off far too many of their consituents.

Yes, Feingold is in trouble. So is Lincoln. So it's not an ideological thing. And I'll take Feingold's version of courage as someone who would do what is right and be defeated than to continually sell his soul simply to keep the money coming in and cling to power at all costs. Again, we can agree to disagree on that.

To me the most recent example that just personifies the modern day Democratic party and most of it's leaders is Obama not visiting the temple because he'd have to wear the traditional headwear and there could be pictures that may or may not be used by cable news to maybe or maybe not talk about him being muslim and this may or may not impact people who may or may not have ever voted for Dems or Obama anyway. That pretty much sums it all up for me, and I'm sorry if that general attitude is not something that even if I'll vote for it that I'll be happy about, or applaud or lift a single damn finger beyond voting to continue giving power to.

[dennis4868]

5. He is a typical political whore...

he will say anything to get elected.....

[geek tragedy]

6. There are certainly better targets for out of state donors

and volunteers.

[WI_DEM]

7. He may as well run as the republican in WVA

apparently that's what you have to do to win in that state these days.

[Mass]

9. He is running in WV, where Obama is very unpopular. I will wait to see what he says in November.

[ProSense]

10. That does it. West Virginians might as well vote for Raese or stay home and let him win.

Seriously, who cares what he might or might not do? He might not win. He might not lose.

Here's a definite: Raese will not support President Obama or Harry Reid. He will side with the Republican/RW Teabagger Party.

[Champion Jack]

22. Bullshit. Nothing is "definite" it's all politics

[ProSense]

23. Bullshit?

So you think there is a chance that Raese will support President Obama and Harry Reid?

What percentage of a chance?

Based on what: the current Senate Republicans?

[jdlh8894]

11. This all boils down to

"king Coal". The coal industry wants to keep him as Gov. and put Raese in the Senate. Then they have the best of both worlds.

[zulchzulu]

12. The guy is trying to win his race. This is pure politics. Yawn. n/t

[AspenRose]

14. I would expect to hear that from a Democrat trying to win in West Virginia.

[FBaggins]

15. Really? Then you no doubt have a number of examples from Byrd's many election?

n/t

[ProSense]

17. Manchin is not Byrd, who

not only was an institution in WVA, he was not a liberal. Seriously, what's your point?

[FBaggins]

20. I would think that it's a pretty obvious point.

This isn't "what you expect from a Democrat trying to win in WV".

He's not Byrd? Ok... might he be like another well known WV politician who has won statewide twice by 30+ points? Who was that guy again? Some guy named Manchin?

Or Sen Rockefeller - who also wins regularly by solid double-digit margins... yet doesn't run like this.

The point is that a Democrat can win WV by highlighting an independent streak... by alligning himself with WV democrats and with WV priorities...

... he doesn't need to attack his party leadership so directly.

he was not a liberal

Yet he voted for Reid and endorsed the President.

[ProSense]

21. Manchin is not Senator Rockefeller

who is also entrenched. What's your point: that this year is no different from past years, and Manchin should be able to run on Byrd or Rockefeller's coattails?

[FBaggins]

24. I'm pretty sure I made the point clearly.

You can dodge it is you like... but let's not pretend it isn't there.

No... Manchin isn't Rockefeller, nor is he Byrd... but he has also won resoundingly in WV in the past (including a year that was strong for republicans). Democrats in WV can't embrace the national party entirely, but they don't need to attack it so blatantly in order to win either.

This is an act of desperation that implies that his internal polling is scaring him... but I don't see how it helps him.

[ProSense]

25. Hmmm?

"No... Manchin isn't Rockefeller, nor is he Byrd... but he has also won resoundingly in WV in the past (including a year that was strong for republicans). "

Yes, that was my point, he's not Rockefeller or Byrd. And to your other point.

[Lord Magus]

42. You're forgetting something about those past elections.

There wasn't a black Democratic President in those years. West Virginia is a very racist state.

[FBaggins]

49. Manchin was reelected by a large margin the same year that Obama lost WV.

n/t

[AspenRose]

54. Yeah, really.

And I go by the time I spent living among the people of WV to come to that conclusion.

The Era of Byrd is over. West Virginia, for its glorious liberal and union history, is socially conservative. That's why Hillary won WV and not Obama.

That's just the way it is.

[OHdem10]

18. This is why our party appears disfunctional. This conservative

tell me now is he a Democrat or DINO.

[Lasher]

19. Think you've seen DINOs before? Wait till you get a load of Manchin.

I sent him some money and will vote for him because Raese is much worse, and because I want Democrats to retain control of the Senate.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Screw him, but he needs to do what he needs to do to get elected. I'm sure he's not serious!

Well...maybe not... :puke::puke:

[Valienteman]

28. Manchin's opponent is a super-wingnut

We're better off with Manchin.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Who cares? Manchin is running so far right, his endorsement won't be missed. nt

[PBS Poll-435]

36. He is just sayin' that.

Duh.

[phleshdef]

37. Jay Rockefeller seems to still be doing fine and he outright campaigned for Obama.

I know he isn't up for re-election this year, but he is still pretty safe from what I gather.

But Manchin does have a delicate balance to play here so that he can seal the deal next week. Thats what all this is about. When he says "the guy that supports West Virginia", he can easily decide thats Obama and the Democratic party for all the same reasons Byrd and Rockefeller have/had given to their constituents for ages. West Virginia still has a lot of racial problems and a bible belt mentality, but people there like their highways, their coal unions (whats left of them) and their food stamps and many know where all that comes from. I know it looks pretty bad outside looking in, but having been raised in WV myself, I understand exactly why he is doing what he is doing here.

[AspenRose]

55. Exactly.

You "get it." I also understand why he's doing what he's doing.

[polichick]

39. This guy seems like a Republican wanna-be. nt

[Thrill]

40. This guy will be the new John Breaux if he wins

.

[Lord Magus]

43. Whereas his opponent would be the new Jesse Helms.

The choice is obvious. Beat Raese now, primary Manchin in 2016.

[depakid]

50. Hate to say it, but sometimes a traitor in your own ranks is far worse than raving loon

on the other side.

[burning rain]

51. Manchin is running to fill the rest of Byrd's term: he was reelected in 2006.

Manchin, therefore, will stand for election to a full six-year term in 2012.

[LeftishBrit]

44. Question from an ignorant foreigner: how on EARTH can he say this and still be a Democrat?

Or does he mean that he might support someone against Obama in the Dem primary? If he might support a Republican, how is he a Democrat?

[dsc]

46. As a gay Democrat who justifyably criticised Byrd on gay issues

it is hysterical to see all complaints about Manchian.

[wisteria]

47. He is running for office-ask him after he wins. I think he is in a precarious position right now,

and has to appease the voters.

[recadna]

48. This guy is going to a major PITA even if he wins

Because he is up for re-election in two years. Trust me, he would make Ben Nelson look like a bleeding liberal.

[scheming daemons]

52. Still better than Raese

[rpannier]

53. One thing to consider

He never says who he'd support
Maybe he thinks someone else should be the senate majority leader. Maybe he thinks that Reid has done a carptacular job and another Democrat needs to step up.
If someone asked me if I would support Obama in 2012, I'd have to see who else was running in the primary.

He never says he's supporting Republicans -- nor does he even hint at it.
I'll admit I don't know much about the guy but it seems the garment rending going on is a bit much