MSNBC Seems Pretty Upset That Joe Manchin Is Putting His State First

Prior to the 17th Amendment, which made senators directly elected instead of appointed by a state general assembly, senators did the business of the state as directed by the state general assembly. They weren’t there to represent their party, they weren’t there to represent, necessarily, the nation. They did the business of their state. That was their point. The House represented their districts (that doesn’t happen much anymore, either), the senators were essentially ambassadors to Washington for their state

Joe Manchin’s focus on West Virginia could doom voting rights
To placate his voters, Manchin doesn’t support H.R. 1 — but his Plan B for saving democracy can’t work.

crying democratI believe Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., when he says he believes in the institutions and traditions of the Senate. I believe him when he says he wants to find common ground with the Republicans he works with in the Senate chamber each day.

But I also believe Manchin operates with an eye firmly on West Virginia and its people, not the country as a whole. It’s an increasingly antiquated view that he brandishes in defense of an increasingly antiquated chamber. His myopia toward the needs of the United States versus his home state fuels his unwillingness to act in defense of democracy as we know it. As a result, Manchin’s love of a state born over 200 years ago during a struggle to preserve the Union could, in the end, be the Union’s ruin.

That’s not how Manchin sees it, though, as he explained Sunday in an op-ed announcing that he opposes the For the People Act. Manchin is the only member of the 50-senator Democratic caucus that is against the election overhaul bill, because, as he wrote, “partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening binds of our democracy.”

An “antiquated view.” Then who represents West Virginia? A little history/Political Theory 101 lesson: nations used to be called states. A visiting president, premier, etc, is called the “Chief Of State.” Most of the original 13 colonies were as big, at least in size, as the old world European nations. And were then called states. Bringing about a new term for countries: nation-states. U.S. states were meant to be mostly sovereign, with a limited federal government binding them all together. Los Federales were assigned specific duties, and everything else was reserved for the states and the People.

Should each state not be represented by their senators? That is their job, not to represent their party nor even the nation first. The wants of California are not the wants of West Virginia.

“If I can’t go home and explain it, I can’t vote for it,'” Manchin wrote. “And I cannot explain strictly partisan election reform or blowing up the Senate rules to expedite one party’s agenda.” Nor does he even really try. His essay doesn’t delve into the details of the For the People Act — there’s no “why” that even explains the parts that he’s against. He’s content to list its faults as being a “more than 800-page bill” that “has garnered zero Republican support.”

This has made MSDNC’s Hayes Brown very upset. Triggered, you might say. You’ve surely seen how Democrats and their pet media have been attacking Manchin as of late, because he refuses to Comply with the hardcore Leftist agenda. In this case, a takeover of all voting by the federal government, which I’m pretty sure violates the Constitution, and wanting to get rid of the filibuster. Joe surely realizes that Democrats will not always control the Senate.

Interestingly, we get this from the NY Post

Get this: a Democrat who puts nation’s needs before his party’s obsessions

At least one Democrat is putting the nation’s interests over his party’s obsessions: Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) went on record this weekend opposing the Dems’ top-priority legislation, the so-called “For the People Act.”

It passed the House as H.R.1 without a single Republican vote, and as S.1 faces the same united GOP opposition. It’s a naked bid to federalize nearly all election rules, in blatant violation of the Constitution.

It would strike down most voter-ID requirements and block states from purging ineligible voters, force automatic voter-registration, impose new campaign-finance rules and even deny states their rights to run their own redistricting. (snip)

Preserving the filibuster dooms not only S.1, but much of the rest of Biden’s much-hyped agenda. Maybe Manchin’s wake-up call will inspire the rest of his party to stop focusing on wild fantasies and get to work on measures that can command bipartisan support in a Congress that Democrats barely control.

Quit concentrating on offering red meat for partisans and put effort into bills that serve the nation’s actual needs.

Joe knows that the people of West Virginia are against these things, and that he would be voted out if he supported this stuff. If what’s best for West Virginia is best for the nation, that’s what Joe will do.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “MSNBC Seems Pretty Upset That Joe Manchin Is Putting His State First”

  1. Dana says:

    Senator Manchin is the only Democrat elected to a statewide office in West Virginia.

    His seat is not up for election again until 2024, which gives him three more safe years, but when the Mountain State is carried by the Republican presidential nominee in 2024, by a wide, wide margin, Mr Manchin wants to have given his constituents a reason to cross party lines and vote for him again.

    Governor Jim Justice was first elected running as a Democrat, in 2016, but switched to the GOP, and won re-election as a Republican in 2020. He’d been a Republican up until 2015, switched to Democrats to run for Governor, then switched back once he’d won. He didn’t think he’d win the GOP primary in 2016.

  2. Hairy says:

    Teach how do you feel about systems being allowed to gerrymander congressional districts?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Teach how do you feel about systems being allowed to gerrymander congressional districts?

      You mean like Democrats are trying to do in your state, Hairy?

      https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/03/new-york-democrats-gerrymandering-elections/618452/

      Secondly, of course your comment has nothing to do with the post, but that is what happens when you stay in your mother’s basement and get her to make you pizza rolls at your beck and call.

      We all get it, Hairy…..you hate facts and you hate anything that shows your hypocrisy.

      You also appear to hate the light of day and want to stay in the basement.

      Hate is all you have.

    • Dana says:

      Pennsylvania would always be carried by Republicans, were it not for Philadelphia. When so many Democrats live in the same small area, they wind up naturally gerrymandering themselves.

      In 2008, there were 57 entire precincts in the City of Brotherly Love in which John McCain didn’t receive a single vote. In 2012, there were 59 separate precincts in which Mitt Romney didn’t receive a single vote. Just how do you think such things could be split up to give Democrats less of a disadvantage with such heavy vote concentrations?

      In 2004, when there were a lot more state legislatures controlled by Democrats, John Kerry had twenty congressional districts in which he won a higher percentage of the vote than President Bush did in his best district, in an election in which Mr Bush won a majority.

      • Zachriel says:

        Dana: Pennsylvania would always be carried by Republicans, were it not for Philadelphia.

        Darn those citizens — not voting for Republicans. Pennsylvania would always be carried by Democrats, were it not for rural areas.

        Dana: When so many Democrats live in the same small area, they wind up naturally gerrymandering themselves.

        Assuming you set boundaries based on communities, then Republicans will still tend to have an advantage. Instead, boundaries are not based on communities, but are designed to maximize partisan advantage.

        There is no perfect electoral system that will always represent a majority, but a democracy will destabilize if the majority will is constantly thwarted.

  3. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: a takeover of all voting by the federal government, which I’m pretty sure violates the Constitution, and wanting to get rid of the filibuster.

    U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    • Zachriel says:

      Also the 15th Amendment, Section 1, The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

      Section 2, The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

  4. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: Should each state not be represented by their senators? That is their job, not to represent their party nor even the nation first.

    The U.S. is of vital interest to the people of West Virginia.

    • Dana says:

      Zachriel wrote:

      The U.S. is of vital interest to the people of West Virginia.

      It is, but how the United States is run ought also to be subject to the wishes of the voters in each state. Do you think it possible that the voters in West Virginia might see that somewhat differently than voters in California?

      • Zachriel says:

        Dana: It is, but how the United States is run ought also to be subject to the wishes of the voters in each state.

        Yes, within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

        Dana: Do you think it possible that the voters in West Virginia might see that somewhat differently than voters in California?

        Sure, but the claim was their job was not to represent the nation first, even though the nation is the safeguard of liberty, as civil war and the fight against tyranny has shown.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7728 access attempts in the last 7 days.