Betrayal

Smedley said:

Even if it was -- so what? That was his position, right or wrong. So why move forward with> $1.5tln if that was doomed to fail?

Because both sides undertake negotiations, if that’s what these were, under the presumption that failure is not foredoomed?


Smedley said:

PVW said:

Smedley said:

Not announced the "framework for an agreement" in late Oct which was apparently built on sand.  

I still don't see how that would have somehow led Manchin to supporting BBB? The buck still seems firmly in Manchin's hand, no?

There's the failure of the legislation which may or may not be Manchin's "fault" depending on whether you believe he went back on his word (the WH story) or if he never was signed on in the first place (which is what I believe).


you're choosing to believe the less plausible explanation.  Why would the White House and Senate Democratic leadership continue in negotiations over the course of weeks and months if Manchin gave no indication that he was willing to negotiate?  Are we to believe they are that stubborn and/or stupid?

or is it more plausible that Manchin gave at least the appearance of a willingness to negotiate?


I believe there have been negotiations, in good faith on both sides, but ultimately the WH overestimated its ability to get Manchin on board. 


Smedley said:

I believe there have been negotiations, in good faith on both sides, but ultimately the WH overestimated its ability to get Manchin on board.

So: One side overestimates its position in talks, which eventually fall apart, with the other side saying it never budged from its starting point. All in good faith. Blame and second-guessing ensue.

Inherent risks of negotiation.


STANV said:

I don't know what else to call it.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/19/manchin-says-he-wont-support-bidens-social-spending-bill-525458

“To me, that’s not acceptable,” said progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).
 “I wish we would have kept both bills together. That was the plan throughout several months of negotiation,” Bowman said. “I was frustrated then and obviously frustrated now that we decided to decouple those bills, because, as Manchin has shown in the past, we cannot just take his word for something.”

Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement that Manchin had "betrayed his commitment." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday he “absolutely” wants to see a vote on the legislation, calling for Democrats to "let him vote no in front of the whole world" on CNN's "State of the Union."

When are "Progressives" actually going to get tough?


Smedley said:

I believe there have been negotiations, in good faith on both sides, but ultimately the WH overestimated its ability to get Manchin on board. 

this doesn't correspond with your earlier comment.  unless you believe that never budging off one's original position is good faith negotiation.   I don't think you'd get much agreement from anyone else on that though.


Yes I believe Manchin sat there with his arms crossed and a gruff look on his face and said this is my position, take it or leave it. He may have even put his hands over his ears and said "lalalalala" at some point as Biden spoke to him. And I believe that is good-faith negotiations.

But seriously, there was/is a lot more to BBB than just the sticker price so there was a lot to negotiate, and I believe good-faith negotiations took place. 

Do you believe Manchin is 100% to blame for BBB failing and Biden is 0%? It seems so, but I'd like to confirm.  


Smedley said:

Yes I believe Manchin sat there with his arms crossed and a gruff look on his face and said this is my position, take it or leave it. He may have even put his hands over his ears and said "lalalalala" at some point as Biden spoke to him. And I believe that is good-faith negotiations.

But seriously, there was/is a lot more to BBB than just the sticker price so there was a lot to negotiate, and I believe good-faith negotiations took place. 

Do you believe Manchin is 100% to blame for BBB failing and Biden is 0%? It seems so, but I'd like to confirm.  

your comments on this are kind of incoherent.  You believe it was a good faith negotiation, yet you say the Democrats should have known all along Manchin wasn't going to budge on his demands. That's not a negotiation, it's an ultimatum.

I don't think Manchin is 100% to blame for the bill failing.  Sinema deserves some blame too.  And of course the 50 Republicans in the Senate spitefully keeping in lockstep to oppose it deserve most of the blame.

and maybe you have a different definition of good faith bargaining.  To most people, it probably doesn't include making new demands when your initial demands are met.  To most people that's considered "moving the goal posts."


Well if there were no good faith negotiations, as you seem to believe, that means this WH is even more incompetent than they are perceived to be. It means for months they have dealt with an intractable senator, and not made one iota of progress. For months. And then they don't even go on the offensive -- instead they are blindsided by the senator going public and nuking the whole thing.  

if there were no good faith negotiations, how long was the WH going to continue the charade?

A much more plausible scenario is that there were good faith negotiations, but when push came to shove they just couldn't get it over the line. It happens sometimes in life, it doesn't have to mean that one party is evil. 



Smedley said:

Well if there were no good faith negotiations, as you seem to believe, that means this WH is even more incompetent than they are perceived to be. It means for months they have dealt with an intractable senator, and not made one iota of progress. For months. And then they don't even go on the offensive -- instead they are blindsided by the senator going public and nuking the whole thing.  

if there were no good faith negotiations, how long was the WH going to continue the charade?

A much more plausible scenario is that there were good faith negotiations, but when push came to shove they just couldn't get it over the line. It happens sometimes in life, it doesn't have to mean that one party is evil. 

sorry - when one Senator, representing half of a tiny state, takes it upon himself to demand concessions that are not even favored by the people in his own state,  such that the entire bill is doomed, that's pretty much the definition of evil.

Did you see the report about what he said about the child care credit? That was pretty effed up - even more so that he had the gall to say it out loud to people.

I don't know why you're trying to make excuses for this guy.


Smedley said:

A much more plausible scenario is that there were good faith negotiations, but when push came to shove they just couldn't get it over the line. It happens sometimes in life, it doesn't have to mean that one party is evil.

But while “it happens sometimes” in negotiations, in this case it’s “at least partly due to Biden's mismanagement of the whole situation.”


DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

A much more plausible scenario is that there were good faith negotiations, but when push came to shove they just couldn't get it over the line. It happens sometimes in life, it doesn't have to mean that one party is evil.

But while “it happens sometimes” in negotiations, in this case it’s “at least partly due to Biden's mismanagement of the whole situation.”

Who are you, Zagat's?

Rather than just parsing my posts for errors / inconsistencies / typos / just general awfulness, how about offering your own take on what's happening?

Why do you think BBB failed, who if anyone is deserving of blame, and what is the way forward? 


drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

Well if there were no good faith negotiations, as you seem to believe, that means this WH is even more incompetent than they are perceived to be. It means for months they have dealt with an intractable senator, and not made one iota of progress. For months. And then they don't even go on the offensive -- instead they are blindsided by the senator going public and nuking the whole thing.  

if there were no good faith negotiations, how long was the WH going to continue the charade?

A much more plausible scenario is that there were good faith negotiations, but when push came to shove they just couldn't get it over the line. It happens sometimes in life, it doesn't have to mean that one party is evil. 

sorry - when one Senator, representing half of a tiny state, takes it upon himself to demand concessions that are not even favored by the people in his own state,  such that the entire bill is doomed, that's pretty much the definition of evil.

Did you see the report about what he said about the child care credit? That was pretty effed up - even more so that he had the gall to say it out loud to people.

I don't know why you're trying to make excuses for this guy.

I don't think Manchin is evil. I do, however, think many progressives too often assign evil to anyone who's not a progressive. 


Smedley said:

I don't think Manchin is evil. I do, however, think many progressives too often assign evil to anyone who's not a progressive. 

I am not going to use the word evil.  But the future is not likely to be kind to Joe Manchin if this was the last chance to do something about climate change. 


Seems as though Biden just hasn’t realized as yet that he’s negotiating with dishonest people. He compromised on the infrastructure bill because Manchin wanted it done in a way that suited him and his state. He got what he wanted, and most likely told Biden that he would compromise on the other parts of BBB. He deceived Biden. It’s pure and simple betrayal. Biden’s mistake is always giving everyone a fair chance. 


Smedley said:

I don't think Manchin is evil. I do, however, think many progressives too often assign evil to anyone who's not a progressive. 

are you for real? Why do you think there are so many right wingers stocking up on ammo? They actually think the democrats are evil and working on destroying this country. 
Trumpenstein is evil, but dishonest politicians are on both sides of the aisle.  



Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

Well if there were no good faith negotiations, as you seem to believe, that means this WH is even more incompetent than they are perceived to be. It means for months they have dealt with an intractable senator, and not made one iota of progress. For months. And then they don't even go on the offensive -- instead they are blindsided by the senator going public and nuking the whole thing.  

if there were no good faith negotiations, how long was the WH going to continue the charade?

A much more plausible scenario is that there were good faith negotiations, but when push came to shove they just couldn't get it over the line. It happens sometimes in life, it doesn't have to mean that one party is evil. 

sorry - when one Senator, representing half of a tiny state, takes it upon himself to demand concessions that are not even favored by the people in his own state,  such that the entire bill is doomed, that's pretty much the definition of evil.

Did you see the report about what he said about the child care credit? That was pretty effed up - even more so that he had the gall to say it out loud to people.

I don't know why you're trying to make excuses for this guy.

I don't think Manchin is evil. I do, however, think many progressives too often assign evil to anyone who's not a progressive. 

it's not because he's not a progressive. it's because he's a dishonest, heartless **** who cares about nothing but coal and his own enrichment. and thinks the poor aren't worthy of aid because they'll just waste it on drugs.

he is a destructive force, when he had the choice to be constructive.

and I still don't know why you're making excuses for this guy.


Smedley said:

Who are you, Zagat's?

My thought exactly, but not until after I posted.

Rather than just parsing my posts for errors / inconsistencies / typos / just general awfulness, how about offering your own take on what's happening?

In online political discussions, I’d rather listen, learn, challenge and clarify, while leaving my opinions out of them. (The fourth one was my intent in quoting you. I didn’t notice any errors, inconsistencies, typos or general awfulness.)


Eric Levitz gets Manchin.

========================================================

Much of Manchin’s worldview is deluded, classist, and wholly incompatible with meeting the challenges that the United States faces in the present moment. Manchin’s deficit-phobia is premised on basic misunderstandings about the nature of sovereign debt. His fear that providing cash aid to  indigent families would only trap them in dependence is rooted in hateful folk wisdom, not actual social science (studies have demonstrated that giving unconditional cash benefits to low-income parents does not significantly depress their labor-force participation, but does improve their kids’ later-life outcomes, in part by increasing their labor-force participation). His stalwart  support for ever-higher military budgets is born of a delusional faith
in both the wisdom and plausibility of America’s absolute global  dominance. His skepticism of green-energy subsidies proceeds from some  admixture of his family’s financial interests and his region’s understandable yet destructive nostalgia for a long-dead coal economy.

========================================================

And this is what's so frustrating about Manchin. He's completely out of touch with ... well, most everything that's critical politically.

I'm surprised he's been helpful with judges - my guess is that he doesn't actually think they're very important in the grand scheme of things.


drummerboy said:

Eric Levitz gets Manchin.

========================================================

Much of Manchin’s worldview is deluded, classist, and wholly incompatible with meeting the challenges that the United States faces in the present moment. Manchin’s deficit-phobia is premised on basic misunderstandings about the nature of sovereign debt. His fear that providing cash aid to  indigent families would only trap them in dependence is rooted in hateful folk wisdom, not actual social science (studies have demonstrated that giving unconditional cash benefits to low-income parents does not significantly depress their labor-force participation, but does improve their kids’ later-life outcomes, in part by increasing their labor-force participation). His stalwart  support for ever-higher military budgets is born of a delusional faith
in both the wisdom and plausibility of America’s absolute global  dominance. His skepticism of green-energy subsidies proceeds from some  admixture of his family’s financial interests and his region’s understandable yet destructive nostalgia for a long-dead coal economy.

========================================================

And this is what's so frustrating about Manchin. He's completely out of touch with ... well, most everything that's critical politically.

I'm surprised he's been helpful with judges - my guess is that he doesn't actually think they're very important in the grand scheme of things.

of course he is out of touch. He's a Manchin and a yacht


ml1 said:

of course he is out of touch. He's a Manchin and a yacht

The linked article shows why he's such an empty bag of wind. 

“We will get to that eventually, but right now we can’t even take
care...it’s going to go broke in 2026,” he said of the medicare trust
fund. “Let us fix and repair that first.”

Well, gee Joe, why don't you propose that a fix to Medicare funding be added to BBB? Oh, but if you did that, then you wouldn't have an excuse to oppose expansion.

A statesman would do one thing. A blowhard, the other.


Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy. 


Manchin will most likely run in 2024, because he knows WV better than most politicians in the state. He doesn’t run as a Democrat, he runs as joe Manchin, he is pro unions, anti partisan, and he knows his flock to a tee. Think about how he was able to get 60% of the votes in a predominantly conservative state. I feel it’s because WV was always pro unions, conservative, and clinging to their guns and Bible. Joe Manchin can read the political winds blowing through the Appalachians with his middle finger. He’s also a shrewd businessman, and he’s dishonest. He uses people and politics for his own benefit. 
I think a progressive can win WV…at the cost of their credibility.


Smedley said:

Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy. 

The fact that Manchin doesn't have to run in 2022 makes the "Manchin Acts That Way Because Trump Won West Virginia" excuse complete bull caca.


Smedley said:

Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy. 

nobody with a half ounce of common sense expects Manchin's successor to be a Democrat, whenever it is.  The way forward for Democrats is to flip seats in PA, NC, and possibly OH and WI.  If the GOP nominates really Trumpy candidates, even MO could be in play. 


ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy. 

nobody with a half ounce of common sense expects Manchin's successor to be a Democrat, whenever it is.  The way forward for Democrats is to flip seats in PA, NC, and possibly OH and WI.  If the GOP nominates really Trumpy candidates, even MO could be in play. 

I agree. But I also think the best way forward for Democrats does not include whingeing about Manchin as a featured strategy. 


nohero said:

The fact that Manchin doesn't have to run in 2022 makes the "Manchin Acts That Way Because Trump Won West Virginia" excuse complete bull caca.

And, given the length of time before he runs for reelection, he could probably run on BBB benefits in WV in 2024.  People usually need to see the benefits before appreciating them.


Smedley said:

Perhaps Manchin will run for a higher office in '24.

Author: "Peter King retired in January as the U.S. representative of New York’s 2nd Congressional District. He served 28 years in Congress, including as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Follow him on Twitter @RepPeteKing."


Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

Well hopefully Manchin won’t run in 2024. The WV Dems will put up a progressive candidate who has your seal of approval, and the GOP candidate will win by 40 points. Perhaps then you’ll be happy. 

nobody with a half ounce of common sense expects Manchin's successor to be a Democrat, whenever it is.  The way forward for Democrats is to flip seats in PA, NC, and possibly OH and WI.  If the GOP nominates really Trumpy candidates, even MO could be in play. 

I agree. But I also think the best way forward for Democrats does not include whingeing about Manchin as a featured strategy. 

it's a good thing that's not what's happening


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.