I’ve defended Joe Manchin here before, mainly since the kind of Republican who would probably get elected instead of him leaves a lot to be desired. I’m willing to leave the man who inherited Robert Byrd’s seat a wide degree of latitude to vote against the party on issues that are out of step with his state. Particularly on guns, coal, and abortion. I’m even willing to give him all the pork he wants, lord knows a state that poor could use some federal help.
Joe always calls himself a “West Virginia Democrat” and I always took that to mean conservative on God, guns, and the troops while supporting the old time liberal religion on unions, social security, and disability payments. For the most part, Joe has stacked up on these lines. But now, he is actually to the right of some West Virginia Republicans.
Gov. Jim Justice (R-WV) (first elected as a Democrat) has been going on cable show after cable show asking for more government help for his citizens and to buy vaccines. He wants bigger payments and a bigger stimulus while Manchin is crying crocodile tears about the deficit. Rep. David McHenry (R-WV) has even co-sponsored a $1,400 check proposal with Democratic Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester. Why is Joe to their right on an economic issue?
Maybe West Virginia Joe should quit playing to Morning Joe and start showing he gives a damn about his state and their people. Instead of voting like a debt scorning Acela corridor centrist, he should be a bold big daddy like his predecessor Robert Byrd. Instead of voting with Joni Ernst to kill a $15 minimum wage he should be voting for it. As a fellow Senator from a rural white gun loving state put it, now is the time to go Big. If West Virginia Republicans get it, so should the states last statewide Democrat.
If there were no filibusters Manchin would be in a position to leverage his power on every issue to the benefit of the constituents he represents. So why did he turn down that kind of power?
Perhaps because it is unusual for the Senate to have a 50/50 tie.
It suggests that an effective way forward is for Democrats to regain a majority or even super-majority in the Senate.
By the way, there are some simple “revisions” to the filibuster rules that would preserve the tool while limiting the opportunities for its abuse. One example is to require an affirmative vote of 40 Senators in attendance to continue any filibuster that is underway.
The filibuster itself — as understood in popular belief — is different from what has been abused by the GOP to derail the Democratic agenda while the GOP is a minority. The above change would return a filibuster to something closer to its original intent — it would require minority Senators to actually be present in the chamber to continue blocking the will of the majority.
To answer my own question, my take is that the narrative that Manchin is advocating for is constituents is not one that would stand up under continual scrutiny.
I wonder if he wants to lose his re-election to one of these Republicans in his state who are addressing the crisis more seriously and actually willing to spend the money to solve it. That’s the part where I wonder if he is confusing Beltway centrism with the center of his state, which would seem to be economically leftist and culturally rightist.
Coal is king in West Virginia, and coal — especially big coal — doesn’t want a $15/hr minimum wage.
Sadly, my understanding is that he is reflecting the views of his constituents. Perhaps an effective media strategy is to flood West Virginia with messages supporting Mr. Manchin and also showing the need for a $15/hr minimum wage.
If the residents of West Virginia move on this, Joe Manchin will move on this.
Although like I said his constituents are some of the poorest people in the country. His Republican colleagues within his state are doing a much better job advocating for them than he is.
My understanding is the $15 minimum wage vote was a procedural tactic that passed without objection from anyone. It preserves reconciliation on pandemic relief, but does not foreclose taking it up later as a stand-alone bill.
Why did he vote against it though? That seems to preclude a future vote for passage on a separate stand alone raise.
Everyone voted the same way, or at least did not object, to Ernst’s motion to not include that at this moment, including those very pro-hike on the merits.
I have heard (or read) suggestions that he’s objecting to the inclusion in this package, and that he’d rather do it on its own. I don’t like it, but that strikes me as a legitimate position.