Manchin Flexes His New Political Power
It's now official. Senator Joe Manchin is the second-most-powerful person in Washington. Obviously, President Joe Biden is still number one, but Biden's entire agenda now hinges on the whims of Manchin... and everyone knows it. And Manchin is enjoying his newfound stature so much that it seems pretty certain he's going to enjoy flexing his political power over and over again for the next two years.
To be sure, there is at least one other Democratic senator vying for the position, but Kyrsten Sinema has so far been much less visible, no matter how hard she tries. When it came time to vote on whether to include the $15-an-hour minimum wage hike in the American Rescue Plan Act, Sinema tried to co-opt the image of a senator from Arizona dramatically giving a very literal thumbs-down. But unlike when John McCain made it famous on the vote to kill Obamacare, Sinema's attempt seemed to many rather flippant, and what will be remembered from this whole episode instead was Manchin shutting down the Senate for almost ten hours while he wheeled and dealed with both Republicans and Democrats. On a day everyone knew was going to be excruciatingly long already, Manchin was perfectly comfortable hijacking center stage for almost ten hours. In the end, minor tweaks were made -- though none of them were nearly important enough to justify Manchin's extended hissy fit.
However, it did put Manchin prominently in the kingmaker's chair all day on Friday, and this guaranteed he would be invited to multiple Sunday morning political shows, instead of other Democrats who could have done a better cheerleading job for the legislation itself. Manchin didn't manage "the full Ginsberg," but he did visit four of the Sunday network chatfests. And in each one, he was visibly happy basking in all the new media attention. Chris Wallace on Fox News even asked him point-blank if he was enjoying this all just a wee bit too much. Manchin politely demurred, but it wasn't very believable.
To Manchin, of course, being seen bucking Democratic leadership is actually a political plus. West Virginia used to be solidly Democratic, but those days are long gone. These days, it's about as ruby-red as can be imagined. And yet Manchin, a Democrat, keeps winning elections there. Being able to campaign that he "stood up" to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer is a political asset in a state that Donald Trump overwhelmingly won (by a margin of 39 points). So this really doesn't hurt him back home. Quite the opposite, in fact. Especially since some sort of progressive winning in West Virginia (a primary challenge from his left, in other words) is pretty farfetched.
The gigantic question on everyone's mind, however, is what is Manchin's precise position on the filibuster. And he certainly did a good job of muddying those waters up on Sunday. Previously, he had been a near-absolutist on the issue of keeping the legislative filibuster intact. When one reporter recently asked him (once again) when he'd ever support getting rid of the filibuster, Manchin responded: "Never!"
This Sunday, however, Manchin opened the door to at least reforming the filibuster. This is significant movement, and could signal a real chance for Democrats to get some of their bolder legislation passed. Manchin's new position is that he still believes that "the minority has to have input" into the legislative process, but also that "if you want to make it a little more painful, make him stand there and talk, I'm willing to look at any way we can -- but I'm not willing to take away the involvement of the minority." In other words, we might soon return to the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington filibuster, where a filibustering senator's physical endurance is tested to the limit.
Manchin also refused to directly answer questions about the possibility of adding more carve-outs to the filibuster rule. Currently, judges (all the way up to Supreme Court justices), presidential appointees, and budget reconciliation bills all cannot be filibustered. An emerging idea among Democrats is to add at least one more to this list: election reform and/or voting rights legislation. Such a change to the Senate rules can be made with just a majority vote, and if they were highly targeted and specific and didn't just abolish the filibuster altogether, it sounds like Manchin might just eventually get on board. But not right away, of course.
The timeline would be entirely up to him. He made that clear several times. According to Manchin, the way things would work would be a bill would go through the regular process -- hearings in committee and then the committee votes to move it to the floor -- so that the minority party can have a chance to have some input. But then if there was zero support from across the aisle and the legislation was essentially killed by the filibuster rules, then (and only then) might Manchin consider perhaps (just in this one instance, mind you) changing the rules and adding the new bill's category to the reconciliation process.
The Washington Post ran an article today that made a good point. It's one of those things which should be obvious, but isn't right away:
[I]f you assume that Manchin is executing a multistage strategy to give himself the space to support reform, then the preposterous things he says about the filibuster are a tiny bit less infuriating.
But they still drive liberals and reformers crazy, as well they should. "I worked with my colleagues and my friends on the Republican side for the last month all the way through," he said on Fox News Sunday about the COVID relief bill, claiming that the things he got into the bill came in part because of those talks.
But that kind of bipartisan negotiation was possible only because this bill was not subject to a filibuster. If it had needed 60 votes to pass, it would have just been dead -- no negotiations, no modifications, nothing. In a Senate where 60 votes are needed to pass any bill, Manchin is irrelevant.
This highlights just how powerful Manchin now truly is. Because he will be the gatekeeper/kingmaker twice on any important Democratic piece of legislation (which, to Manchin, is not a bug but a feature).
As mentioned, the entire timeline will be entirely up to Manchin. First, he may decide to try changing the rules to force talking filibusters again, just to see how that goes.
If that doesn't work as planned, then the Democrats will have to convince their other 49 senators to change the filibuster rules (and not all of them are completely in favor of the idea, yet, so this will take some persuasion). Then the Democratic leaders will have to come to Manchin personally -- because he has all but announced he will be the final holdout in any such negotiations. Meaning he can bide his time until -- to his own personal satisfaction -- the Republicans have been given a full opportunity to give their input, but are still in lockstep against voting for the bill, even with their additions. Then (and only then), Manchin will reluctantly decide to become the pivotal vote to change the filibuster rules.
But then the drama starts all over again. Democrats hold the filibuster reform vote, Republicans gnash their teeth and weep and wail, and it passes 51-50, with the tie being broken by Vice President Kamala Harris.
So the Senate takes up the For The People Act or the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. And then Manchin once again sits in the catbird seat, because then he and he alone will determine what is allowable in the final draft of the bill. This is precisely why he delayed things for so long last Friday -- to send a very powerful message that Joe Manchin will be in charge of all final drafts, and nobody better try to sneak anything by him.
Manchin is going to do exactly the same thing on every major piece of legislation, so Democrats should really get used to it. He'll have two complete rounds of being the most important person in Congress. And what politician could resist that?
In fact, to my trained ear (translation: a gut feeling which could easily prove to be wrong), on the Sunday shows Manchin sounded like more than just a key senator. He sounded exactly like someone who was thinking about running for president.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
He sounded exactly like someone who was thinking about running for president.
Hmmm. Well, he's got a long wait.
I don't think Manchin would have a prayer of being the Democratic Presidential nominee,
and that was long before his most recent Kingmaker/Gatekeeper shenanigans.
Now five Repug Senators are not seeking reelection come 2022. Whether each says it out loud or not I suspect that discomfort with where Trump is taking the GOP has something to do with that.
And as luck would have it the Repugs are defending 22 Senate seats versus the Dems 11 seats. So perhaps Manchin won't be enjoying his enhanced political power come January 2023.
[1]
Haha, agreed. I don't see Joe not running for a second term as I truly believe that he'll be a transformative President.
Golly, Elizabeth, don't tell my Comrades in the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party but I'm starting to get a mancrush on your guy Biden.
He's demonstrating his 47 years of political chops and, most importantly, Joe was there for all of the Repug obstructionism of Obama. I don't think he'll repeat Obama's silly mistake in seeking "bipartisanship" with the increasingly out-of-touch proto-authoritarian GOP.
ICYMI
We Already Got Rid of the Filibuster Once Before.
This was in the House and it happened in 1888-1890.
I was with you until the last sentence. Wait - what is Manchin's road to the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party?
"My fellow Democrats of [New York, Georgia, California, Illinois - insert key blue state here], I'm the guy who single-handedly slowed or stopped every piece of the president's legislative package in '21. Much, much less got passed into law than could have been, had I not stood firm to allow Trump's party some input into important reform bills designed to beat Trump's party. As you can see, only I can truly lead the Democratic Party and the nation into a brighter future for all its people.
"And best of all, my fellow citizens, if you nominate me and we go on to win in November, as I assure you we will, my replacement in the Senate will represent Trump's party far more faithfully than I resisted that party.
"So vote for Manchin in '24, and thank you all. Good night, and God Bless West Virginia and the coal industry!"
'24??
Yeah, that was a great TV series. Maybe they'll make a sequel series. Or not.
MtnCaddy,
I just knew Biden would grow on ya!
And, it puts a smile on my face.
John, why do you assume Biden isn't in this for the longest run?
cuz he's very old for a 2nd term president?
heck, joe STARTED his FIRST term older than the previous oldest person to hold the office of president (reagan) ENDED his SECOND term.
i'm not saying that means he definitely won't run for re-election, just that joe's ability to do the job at his current age is already pretty remarkable.
JL
Joshua, sometimes you surprise me. Never pegged you for an ageist.
Take a look at Biden, looks like he's getting younger.
Because he was made for this job.
Can't wait to see his before and after eight years pictures. Heh.
I just hope he, ah, clears the field in a timely manner and in no uncertain terms.
And, pity the Democrat who will try to fill Biden's shoes after eight years.
@liz,
i don't think it's ageist to think that the oldest president ever might not want to go for a second term. no matter how good a president he is, holding the office until 85 might be tempting fate. so far, nobody that we know of has managed to serve as president while dead.
pardon, not 85.
at the end of his second term, joe would be 86 years, 60 days.
here are the statistics on life expectancy in the US in 2018:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db355.htm#section_1
Oh, I'm sorry but it's ageist alright to assume that he won't run again.
Elizabeth, on [8]
I admit I never even considered that Biden will run for re-election in 2024. For one thing, Chris' gag that Manchin is setting himself up for a presidential run doesn't make nearly as much sense if we're talking 2028. I was following Chris' lead.
But as others have noted, really, Uncle Joe is showing his age. I agree he's pretty vital and with it, but I have to disagree that he "looks like he's getting younger". Every time I see his face on the media, my first thought is, My God, he's gotten old. He looks like Clint Eastwood in those final, brave, movies when the action hero looks like the assisted living hero.
I expect he will hold out on the re-election prospect for as long as he can, to avoid a lame-duck status. But at some point in early 2024, latest, he'll shrug off the political coil and open the party's nomination to a successor. Just my read on the situation.
@liz,
another thing you may not be considering is that joe might not WANT to run for a second term. if the republicans had run somebody relatively normal instead of donald trump, joe might not have even felt the need to run for a first term. it's not as if he's got anything left to prove.
biden is absolutely the right person for the job right now - please keep in mind that i was supporting biden for president last year before he even announced his candidacy. however, i think he'll only run for re-election if his likely opponent is somebody crazy (trump or otherwise), to the point where he'd have to do so to save the country.
JL
either way, he'll do what he believes to be in the best interests of the nation. that's what somebody with integrity does.
[5]
Um, my points were: Manchin will never be the Dem nominee,
period. And, if the Dems pick up a Senate seat or two then Manchin can posture to his Red state Constituents all he likes because he won't be able to slow our Progressive agenda.
John,
I was following Chris' lead.
I agree.
MtnCaddy [20] responding to my [5]
We cross-posted. Everything I wrote was in response to Chris' column; I did not see your posts [2]-[3]-[4] until after I hit Submit.
I loved the piece you linked to about the end of the House filibuster. Joe Reed always comes off a bad guy in Progressive-era history texts, because of his domination of the House. Nice to see a more friendly presentation of his politics and career!
Elizabeth,
Yep, that's ageism. But don't pay it no mind, Dearheart. We, as a country, are in perilous and uncharted territory. Trump beat Hillary because the status quo ain't gonna get it anymore. And Trump broke a ton of precedents in his time (for example, Trump's plain talking style means all the rest of our politician class cannot use the usual "politician talk" as before.)
So a lot of rules have been tossed out the door, and Joe's age is therefore no longer particularly relevant. My God, who cares how old he is? -- he's NOT Trump!
In fact, Joe's age and experience proved to be an advantage: I was most impressed with Joe's "campaigning from his basement" strategy. Sun Tzu (The Art of War guy) advised that when your enemy is destroying himself is best to stand back and let him do just that.
I'm impressed that Joe was smart enough ("47 years of political chops") to follow that advice.
So yeah. America on the mend will deliver a second term to Biden/Harris. And after Kamala learns at Joe's knee she'll be out first female President -- woot!
[22]
No worries, Dawg. Cross posting is a sign of an active and engaged Weigantia!
in any case, i agree with caddy that there's no way manchin would ever win the presidency on a democratic ticket. if he ran as a republican... well, that's a more complicated question.
ok, if you say it's ageist then i bow to your superior experience on the matter. ;p
[26]
Haha, you better, punk! I'm 62...6 foot 2 and full of muscle*
*Okay, at times I'm certainly full of something else!
I cannot give a damn of our President is purple and 100 years old. So long as she's getting the job done!
[25]
And there's not a prayer that Manchin could run as a Republican, either. The Repug electorate has been assiduously trained since the time of Newt Gingrich to hate us Democrats.
I'm done with talking about Biden's age - ageism or no - I don't care!
[30]
Yes, Elizabeth. I think that we have pounded any ageism into the ground.
On an unrelated topic, that Texas theme really made Sunday night happening! I think we could revisit Texas, and as I'm from Dee-troit I'd like to plant the seed for a "Michigan" theme. Also, how about successive 50s, 60s, 70s etc themes?
Oh. And Elizabeth...
Are you doing your homework so you can post links like a civilized person?
To quote a commercial from back in the day:
What are we, barbarians?
Honestly, it's like smoking weed or ingesting magic mushrooms. After a bit it becomes second nature BWAHAHAHA! ;D
*sigh*
I guess the rest of Weigantia (what I call us dennisons here in CW's Comments Section) is crashed out.
You're all worthless and weak. Now drop and give me twenty!
-- Cadet Commander Douglas C. Neidermeyer
Animal House
[2] MtnCaddy wrote:
"Now five Repug Senators are not seeking reelection come 2022. Whether each says it out loud or not I suspect that discomfort with where Trump is taking the GOP has something to do with that."
If the pattern holds, Democrats will be favored to pick up Senate seats in those states that voted for Biden, namely Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The other possibility would be the open seat in North Carolina. Any other seats really depend on how restrictive voting laws become between now and 2022.
[13] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
"And, pity the Democrat who will try to fill Biden's shoes after eight years."
The most likely successor would be by then his apparent protege Kamala Harris.
23] MtnCaddy wrote:
"So yeah. America on the mend will deliver a second term to Biden/Harris. And after Kamala learns at Joe's knee she'll be out first female President -- woot!"
I agree.
[31] MtnCaddy wrote:
"On an unrelated topic, that Texas theme really made Sunday night happening! I think we could revisit Texas, and as I'm from Dee-troit I'd like to plant the seed for a "Michigan" theme. Also, how about successive 50s, 60s, 70s etc themes?"
I would love hearing some Motown sound!!! Don't forget the 80's. Also, how about a Latin/Miami theme?
[2] MtnCaddy wrote:
"And as luck would have it the Repugs are defending 22 Senate seats versus the Dems 11 seats. So perhaps Manchin won't be enjoying his enhanced political power come January 2023."
It might be even earlier. It really depends on if Manchin can be persuaded to do a carve out and vote for statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico.... perhaps as part of a voting rights / election reform carve out of the filibuster???
The most vulnerable Democratic Senators to a possible loss to Republicans in 2022 will be Warnock in Georgia and Kelly in Arizona, who must stand again to win a full 6 year term, if Republican legislature in those states get their way on repressive voting laws. That makes getting the For The People Act or the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act thru Congress even more crucial.
John M,
I would love hearing some Motown sound!!! Don't forget the 80's. Also, how about a Latin/Miami theme?
John M,
I would love hearing some Motown sound!!! Don't forget the 80's. Also, how about a Latin/Miami theme?
Great idea!
Caddy,
On an unrelated topic, that Texas theme really made Sunday night happening! I think we could revisit Texas, and as I'm from Dee-troit I'd like to plant the seed for a "Michigan" theme. Also, how about successive 50s, 60s, 70s etc themes?
Also a great idea!
Well, we've done the seventies before ... or, was it just one year in the 70s ... yeah, I think that was it so, we'll have to do the whole decade, the latter part of which was all PRiSM!!!! :-)
We've got some time to decide.
Do you know how to set up a poll?
Caddy,
Honestly, it's like smoking weed or ingesting magic mushrooms. After a bit it becomes second nature BWAHAHAHA! ;D
Hope so!