US Politics: Manchin Shin Drinks the Blood and Cracks the Bone

[A True Kaniggit]

Oh sorry. Apparently that statement is intolerant towards racists and bigots. 

[HoodedCrow]

Okay there is no thoughtful reading:)

[A True Kaniggit]

Just now, HoodedCrow said:

Okay there is no thoughtful reading:)

Nyuk nyuk. I’m from Louisiana. I make no attempt to hide my thoughts. 
 

Southern Republicans are scumbags. They say the most disgusting things if they feel they are in safe company. 
 

(other white people)

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

They can only get one program, the CTC, funded for ten years at the same price as the entire bill.  They obviously should not have adopted this tack.

Then don't pick that one. Or, make it smaller. $1.75 trillion over 10 years is still a lot of money, and anything you can make deficit neutral for the entire time you're golden on forever. This is easy math, Democrats just refuse to do it.

[Fez]

16 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Yes - burn your promises to your constituents because you should have known beforehand that Manchin wasn’t going to negotiate in good faith, but still don’t use any of the leverage you actually have to make sure that he does negotiate in good faith, and just give him everything he wants anyway.

 That is some stellar fucking reasoning right there; with that kind of strategizing, it’s astounding how Democrats could be getting shellacked by Republicans on all fronts!

Yes, you do burn those promises, and learn in the future to not make promises that you can't guarantee you can keep. And acknowledge that you don't have any leverage of Manchin, no matter how you wish it were otherwise. You take what he gives you, and you're grateful for it. Because Cal Cunningham couldn't keep it in his pants and Sara Gideon couldn't convince the good people of Maine that Susan Collins was hoodwinking them.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Then don't pick that one. Or, make it smaller. $1.75 trillion over 10 years is still a lot of money, and anything you can make deficit neutral for the entire time you're golden on forever. This is easy math, Democrats just refuse to do it.

The only other thing I could see Manchin going for is the healthcare provisions.  Which, sure, at this point give it a shot.  But acting like this is even close to as much of a policy victory as the framework would have been is, well, preposterous.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Boo to both titles. And double boo for my post getting swallowed! And just call it US Politics: Democrats Need a Multiverse To Get Things Done.

Anyways, @The Great Unwashed, it's not that I expect progressives to capitulate, it's just the current nature of things. That's kind of what happens when you run on things you can't actually achieve. Look how badly Biden is struggling. Sanders would only fail more spectacularly if he was president given the current landscape. 

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

@Fez

So, your solution is to tell the youngest, most energetic, most diverse part of your caucus, the backbone of which is made up of people held in bondage by this country, that they should exist on Manchin’s by your leave, and should be happy about it, and you think that’s going to go well for you?

I mean, it certainly says A LOT, but I don’t think it’s saying what you think it does.

It's certainly better than lying to them.

[Fez]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

The only other thing I could see Manchin going for is the healthcare provisions.  Which, sure, at this point give it a shot.  But acting like this is even close to as much of a policy victory as the framework would have been is, well, preposterous.

It's not a victory compared to what people falsely believed might be achievable over the spring and summer. But I think it would be a victory compared to the bill as written yesterday. Those were badly written programs, that in some cases likely would've backfired badly and further reduced popularity of the idea that the government can do things (and the ones that weren't badly written would still just exist for a few years and then quietly expire in all likelihood). Yes, it's Manchin's fault that they were badly written; it's because he gave the lower topline number. But once Democrats knew of that number, they should've immediately reconsidered what the bill would be; rather than trying to make it the mini-version of a $6 trillion bill.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

It's certainly better than lying to them.

Why does this keep getting lost in everything? I've said for months now that overpromising and underdelivering tends to really piss people off, especially if you make promises. 

3 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Why is it always after the primaries and before the general, establishment people are like: “Oh you all did so great, Tiger! You all fought so hard and look how far left you pushed the discourse. You’ll get ‘em next time!”

But when it comes down to negotiating bills, it’s always: “Don’t fight. Sit down, shut up, and take what you can get?”

Seems a lot like white liberals coasting off the labor of marginalized people again.

Since you brought race into, why did Democrats promise their supporters, primarily their black supporters, that they would end voter suppression if they were given power knowing damn well they probably couldn't do it? Moderates and progressives both promised this for the most part.

[Fez]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

So that moderates can lie instead?

Biden lying about student loan forgiveness

Besides, its only a lie if you never intended to fight for it. So who’s lying here?

Everyone lied, except maybe Manchin (depending on what he privately told Biden and Schumer). Both moderates and progressives lied about what was achievable because they don't have a majority without Manchin and they have no leverage over Manchin. And if Democrats were honest about that from the start and about what was achievable this Congress, maybe they'd have been better able to capitalize on the political victories that have been achieved (COVID relief, BIF, vaccine distribution, 40 and counting federal judges. maybe a much smaller BBB) and keep people motivated for the midterms.

If Democrats ran on their successes (and COVID was under control) and expanded their majorities, they could accomplish a lot more in 2023. Instead, everyone is disappointed and demotivated.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Those were badly written programs, that in some cases likely would've backfired badly and further reduced popularity of the idea that the government can do things (and the ones that weren't badly written would still just exist for a few years and then quietly expire in all likelihood). Yes, it's Manchin's fault that they were badly written; it's because he gave the lower topline number.

I'm confused, are they badly written programs or are they programs that are just "badly written" because Manchin forced them to make the programs shorter lasting?  If it's the former, I simply disagree.  And again, it's ridiculous to think advancing and codifying as many priorities as possible is in any way a bad strategy.  That's how you maximize your ability to affect the status quo.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Boo to both titles. And double boo for my post getting swallowed! And just call it US Politics: Democrats Need a Multiverse To Get Things Done.. 

Would have gone with "I played my oil drum for him pa rum pa pum pum rum pa pum pum"

[Larry of the Lawn]

Also, Dems can't run on covid because they haven't done shit about it.  What they're doing right now, they would have been castigating Trump for.  They picked up the "back to work, no more aid, no mask mandates, get a vaccine, not going to waive IP for the rest of the world" shtick immediately.  

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

It’s just weird to me that, literally no matter what happens, progressives catch the blame. It’s almost suspicious - as if powerful, wealthy people want to circumscribe the world of all possible solutions - something helpful when you’re facing a crisis like we are, by narrowing them down to just two possible choices.

 

Who the fuck is blaming progressives? 

Everyone here is blaming Manchin or Schumer and Biden. Like, who is saying that progressives did this?

Who are you arguing with?

 

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm confused, are they badly written programs or are they programs that are just "badly written" because Manchin forced them to make the programs shorter lasting?  If it's the former, I simply disagree.  And again, it's ridiculous to think advancing and codifying as many priorities as possible is in any way a bad strategy.  That's how you maximize your ability to affect the status quo.

The later of course. I'm not absolving Manchin of anything here, except to say that Democrats had to meet him where he was because (as he said a long time ago) "[He is] okay with zero".

And I think its ridiculous to call it "affecting the status quo" when some of these programs were going to last as little a year, and the rest only a few years. Permanent law or bust, that's the only solution when Republicans are fine with letting anything expire.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

Would have gone with "I played my oil drum for him pa rum pa pum pum rum pa pum pum"

Just know that despite our disagreements you really do crack me up.

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Well, I’m pretty sure it’s because progressives were serious about doing so, moderates saw the base wanted that, so they said “me too!” to make sure they’d win their primary while having no intention of following through. So you’d have to ask them.

Not exactly. Honestly I think both sides want to accomplish something, for the most part, it's just that one is fine with $.75 on the dollar while the other, not always but often times, wants $1.50 when $.50 is going to be hard to find, and because of their rhetoric moderates have to further promise things both factions have to know are unrealistic. That's why we're here, imo, because we lack leaders who can be straight with the base and make both sides happy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

This too - more Americans have died from COVID under Democratic control than under Trump. Yeah variants played a part in that, but you fight variants by fucking waiving IP so that everyone can fucking get vaxxed.

They knew they were already facing entrenched Republican opposition and Biden pulled his Uncle Joe bullshit and has fucking shit the bed since day one.

I think if you take out the Jan-Feb winter 2021 wave that's not true. 

At the same time, look at the money they're dropping in the Pfizer covid pill.  That's what, the annual cost of free community college?  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised.  We knew exactly what we were voting for.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Holy shit I literally just saw Fez up there saying progressives should have shut the fuck up and taken what they were given. Don’t pull that gaslighting bullshit on me.

I didn't say that progressives' fault though. Just the reality of the situation. It's Manchin's world and we're just living in it. At least until January 2023 when it'll be McConnell's world and we'll pine for the days of Manchin's world because at least Manchin gives us federal judges, a pain-free debt ceiling, and no shutdowns.

ETA: The thing progressives, and everyone else in the party is at fault for, is lying about what was achievable. But that's not the fault of activists, just the people in the actual negotiating rooms.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Holy shit I literally just saw Fez up there saying progressives should have shut the fuck up and taken what they were given. Don’t pull that gaslighting bullshit on me.

That isn't blaming them! Like, how does telling someone what should have been done and not lying to them mean blame?

Progressives have been saying that if Manchin got bif, they'd have no leverage for bbb. And that's right!