457 Comments
⭠ Return to thread

Why is Biden even talking to Republicans? I cannot understand this fixation with compromise. If you are elected to govern, then govern. If you are the (dis)loyal opposition, then oppose. It is how government works.

Expand full comment

Because, first, he promised he would attempt compromise. Two, all Manchin talks about is “bi-partisanship,” so to being him along Biden must attempt it. Three, it makes it easier to move toward modification of the filibuster rule to have tried. That’s why.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that if there were some way to bring Manchin along, he would have been brought along already. Reconciliation is the only way - for now - the Democrats can pass any legislation, and that maneuver can only be used a few times and only for things that can be reasonably construed as "budget" matters (as I understand it), and even then it requires all 50 DEM Senators' votes plus the VP. or an adequate number of GOP votes to compensate for undisciplined Dems.

Most legislation - including the essential/existential "For the People Act" - can only be passed if 60 Senators (must include at least 10 GOP Senators) vote "yes" (never gonna happen) or if the filibuster is modified, suspended or eliminated (not gonna happen unless Manchin and Sinema make it happen).

The simple vote-counting math is inescapable, and you can be sure Mitch McConnell knows how to count votes.

I am still waiting for some coherent explanation of how the Dems can get past the filibuster barrier with any legislation that is worth the effort. Compromise either involves give and take, or one side gets fleeced.

Expand full comment

I think this is precisely correct. Though I applaud Biden and his team for continuing to try, since the Rs only goal (baldly stated by McConnell) is to obstruct Biden until they can get to the 2022 midterms, there is zero chance for meaningful legislation until at least then. Might Manchin and Sinema be brought around in a 12th Hour reveal? You know, "we TRIED to do it the bipartisan way but the other side wouldn't budge" type of thing? If I were writing the movie script, that's what would happen. But I doubt it will happen in real life.

Expand full comment

What if two or more republican senators (Hawley and Johnson come to mind) are arrested for insurrection? Are they removed from Congress while pending trial? Does Congress continue on given the vacancies? Would this create an opening for majority vote? Just thinking outside the box.

Expand full comment

Indictments and arrests are separate from decisions about the status of individual Congresspeople. They must be made by the House or Senate.

The classic case is the House expelling Preston Brooks in 1856 for beating Charles Sumner half to death. Brooks was promptly reelected by his constituents. (He died within a year, ensuring his status as a nasty footnote in American history.) NB, his home district of Edgefield SC was the most violent county in the entire country.

D Donald, Charles Sumner & the Coming of the Civil War

J Freeman, The Field of Blood

S Puleo, The Caning

PS, I often leave a modest offering at the Sumner statue in Harvard Square when passing by. It's literally putting in my two cents worth.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the history and book titles! I used to go through the Charles Sumner tunnel as a young girl. Never appreciated the history.

Expand full comment

Thank you too, Eileen. The ST is actually named after someone else who's less important, a MA governor's son. But I revere Sen Sumner, and thus also associate the tunnel with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_Tunnel.

Expand full comment

Yes, please, Dear God in Heaven, Mother Nature and Buddha hear us!

Expand full comment

Great questions! I'm sure there are a few poli-sci and history profs reading these comments who are able to give better answers than I can. Google is often useful for the quick and general....

Expand full comment

I did a little google search to find out that the state governor replaces a senator until a special election is called. Although there may be differences in each state. The governor of Missouri is a republican. The governor of Wisconsin is a democrat. Wonder if a governor is required to replace with like party?

Expand full comment

Well, I hope all these insurrectionist politicians are arrested and run through the wringer. This will not be pretty.

Expand full comment

This website lists this how each state handles a senate vacancy.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vacancies-in-the-united-states-senate637302453.aspx#Foot1

Of special note: McConnell just helped Kentucky change the way a senate vacancy is handled: Kentucky’s SB 228 requires the governor to appoint someone who shares the same political party as the departing senator and makes them select that person from a list of three names provided by the executive committee of that senator's state party. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-general-assembly/2021/03/30/mitch-mcconnell-recommended-changes-kentuckys-senate-vacancy-rules/7056325002/

.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that on this point you really either don't understand how things work, or haven't been keeping up with current affairs. You *cannot* ignore either Manchin or Sinema, unless you want to live with a 48-member minority in the Senate. Please, I hate having to educate people I consider otherwise intelligent.

Expand full comment

TC, I always find your comments interesting and I often agree with your take on things (as I understand it). Unfortunately, when the late evening rolls around here in Italy, I begin to lose the thread and am not sure who is responding to whose comments. Jeanne Doyle says she's sorry if that was her you're educating and admits to asking a stupid question, but it occurred to me that I'm the one you think needs educating, given that your 2-hr. old comment is directly under my 7-hr. old comment. In any case, it's no big deal as I'm sure I still need lots of educating if anyone wants to give it a try.

Expand full comment

Sorry if that was me you’re educating. I don’t ignore those two but I think I did ask a stupid question. Sometimes I ask questions here instead of looking them up because if I look them up online and try to come back to the same spot on substack, I’m completely lost. Then I give up because I need to sleep.

Expand full comment

Maybe you should be using a laptop - with Chrome (on my MacBook Pro) I can open a web page - and it sits there, while I open another - so it's easy to flip between items without losing your place. I don't know how many pages I can have "on standby" - seems a lot. Some pages refresh (if you have to) and take you to the part you left, some just start at the top again..

Expand full comment

Thanks, Hugh!

Expand full comment

I think Joe can change the filibuster back to being a marathon monologue with just an executive order. Am I wrong about that?

Expand full comment

I don't believe that the president has the power to change Congressional rules through direct action. Presidents must work through and persuade members of each chamber.

Expand full comment

The Senate makes, changes or eliminates its own rules. Joe Biden can express an opinion. That's it as far as I know.

Expand full comment

Yup!! When they refuse to do anything we grind out the legislation. Slow but sure.

Expand full comment

Sounds good, but what sort of grinding are you referring to? A little corruption might change a few key votes, but I'm pretty sure that is not what you had in mind.

Expand full comment

Well, I grind my teeth whenever someone mentions the GQP.

Expand full comment

Does Manchin understand the word Seditionists? Sort of like Northern Congressmen compromising with Southern after the Civil War.

Expand full comment

Absolutely!

Expand full comment

Biden is fully aware of what dangers our nation faces from both domestic and foreign forces. He’s attempting to manage an exquisitely difficult balancing act. I trust him more each day. And still, the ultimate outcome is unknowable.

Expand full comment

I disagree. He’s taking the high road and doing what he said he would do. Remember he’s been around the block and he’s a crafty guy. I think he knows EXACTLY what he’s doing. That said, both parties are supposed to work together, or attempt to anyway. It’s called democracy. If we don’t do that we are just like them and then I am no longer a Democrat

Expand full comment

I'm sorry, Elaine. The Republicans have announced they will not participate in bi-partisanship....at all. Even after the meeting with President Biden yesterday, McCarthy said that Biden was pushing a radical socialist agenda and started a fundraising tweet. And Joe Manchin continues to say bi-partisanship is possible. You can close your eyes all you want, but the reality is that there is no bi-partisanship to have.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/manchin-support-measured-voting-reform-lieu-sweeping-democratic/story?id=77646348&cid=social_twitter_abcn

Expand full comment

I’m not sure where I said that the republicans were going to comply. Nevertheless making the effort is what democracy is about and it’s a very noble thing. I applaud him for making the effort.

Expand full comment

I agree with Elaine. I am a school counselor in an elementary school and I have seen group think in action. I have also seen courageous and socially wise leaders persuade some from the group to recognize their power as an independent thinker. We might not get Manchin to vote for HR 1, but we might get Romney and the lady from Alaska and then, Voila! No more voter suppression. I am proud of Joe for giving any of them a chance to speak up. Plus, by trying to compromise, any failure is the fault of the Republicans after that in the eyes of the world.

Expand full comment

Anyone who saw his interview last night with Lawrence O'Donnell would know you are correct.

Expand full comment

It's called "politics," in case you slept through Civics. He's educating both the Senate and the general public.

He has to convince more than two of the Democratic Senators to proceed, and that takes either getting a bit of what he wants in a bipartisan way and then doing the rest in reconciliation (as he explained last night in his interview with Lawrence O'Donnell) or he proves the Republicans are not people who want to make things work.

For the public, he educates them to the fact the Republicans are mostly not serious ab out being a governing party.

Just because *you* know Republicans can't be worked with doesn't mean 50% of the people you know *don't* know that.

Expand full comment

It wasn't called civics in Canada. Ignoring Manchin and Sinema will result in the Dems with a minority Senate? That is what you have now. Good luck. In four years Canada next to USA will be like Ukraine next to Russia.

Expand full comment