The philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “There are many instances in history of generals so jealous of each other that they preferred defeat to enhancement of the other’s reputation.” Sounds like there’s some of that going on here.
The Lakota Native Americans’ way of living is said to include this: “When choosing a leader, we always kept in mind that humility provides clarity where arrogance makes a cloud. The last thing we wanted was to be led by someone whose judgment and actions were clouded by arrogance.” Sounds like some of that's here too.
Part of what’s needed is legendary basketball coach John Wooden’s wisdom: “There is no limit to what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit.”
Joe, I agree with you, but don't you think that some of Manchin's behavior is driven by his perception of what the voters of West Virginia think of the voting rights legislation? For months the right wing media and the Republicans have demonized the Democratic voting rights legislation as a "power grab" to take permanent control of Washington for the Democratic party. I believe this has poisoned conservative voters (many of these in West Virginia) against the proposed changes. This is another example, in my opinion, of the right wing media doing a much better job than the Democrats in communicating (in this case, lying) to voters to influence their opinion on proposed legislation.
They have been sipping the poison for generations! Numerous false narratives (culture wars around race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and class, trickle down, immigrants, black lives matter, antifa, liberals, the educated, socialists...) have been used to keep them searching in all the wrong places. The GOP is gonna acknowledge there is a power grab, but they sure as _ell aren't going to implicate themselves by being honest about who is actually making the power grab- they are, nor who they are making it on behalf of- corporations and the Uber wealthy, who's wealth is the ultimate power. They will misdirect, misinform, mislead... lie, cheat and steal to keep their followers from the truth.
That's probably true, but such behavior isn't my idea of how a real leader should act. I believe that in John F. Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage," he said that part of a real leader's job is to educate the public, not cave to misinformed popular opinions. Martin Luther King Jr. similarly proclaimed, "A genuine leader doesn't reflect consensus, he molds consensus." That's how I wish Manchin would behave. If he continues the way he's going, I'm looking forward to him being primaried in 2024. I'll drive down from Ohio to help with the effort. West Virginia having a lot of natural beauty will be a fringe benefit of being there.
Some of Sinema's and Manchin's biggest funders jawboned them all week to vote to at least demand the talking filibuster, I was told last night. Mitch McConnell will kill the filibuster the second he can, and we know it. Sinema and Manchin are in Red states, both have GOP governors, and they were probably paid by McConnell. That's my bet. More important is what to do now, looking forward. Instead of focussing on these tools, we need to focus on their masters, the donors. Go to them, threaten to expose them in public media, boycott their products, sell off their stock, investigate them for violations of SEC, OSHA, etc. rules. If they don't do right, then make good on the threats. Fast.
Brilliant commentary, as always, and an interesting perspective. Call me crazy, but I think they could have gotten their ego boost by becoming “heroes“ after listening to all the sane voices around them and then being the ones who saved democracy!
True, but what about the money? They would lose their places on the gravy train. Another dark thought I have had is that they may have been threatened by the evil orange 'empire' boss and his thugs. They threaten those in their own party, why not the opponents?
Good point! We are watching what happens when politicians sell their souls! As Nancy Pelosi said, "You come to Washington to do a job, not keep your job."
Can Democratic Senators not just casually shun and ignore them, taking away all that attention? Wouldn't it be easier to woo one or two moderate Republican Senators and get less than they wanted but still achieve something, and just leave Manchin and Sinema out in the cold for a couple of weeks?
Yes, and that's exactly what I've been recommending: Court Murkowski, Collins, and Romney. See what they want or need for a "talking filibuster," or a stripped-down "Build Back Better."
Murkowski talks a good game, but often her votes against the party are "safe" votes. She had no qualms voting against the voting rights bill this week and the BBB bill previously. I lived in Alaska 27 years, helped re-elect her with write-in votes against a wacko who otherwise would have been elected in the very Republican state. I learned not to trust her. Now they all crow about the $$$ coming from the infrastructure package.
Until Biden becomes less toxic & inert, we need to abandon the thought of any "moderate" or retiring GOP Senator(s) OVERTLY helping the Democrats in any way. If Dems can identify anything they can do COVERTLY to undermine #45's grip on their party, they'll help. They still think they can beat BOTH #45 AND the Dems.
Yes. Harp on the issues and make any senator state why they would oppose feeding children, getting all people access to vote, day care for working mothers, new jobs, etc etc. There has been a lot accomplished and Dems don’t communicate that because our egos are normal sized.
Let's take the next necessary step, and square the circle. Corporate-cash and a psychopathological need to feed one's ego go hand in hand; they fuel each other. In the two cases at hand media attention and buckets of compromising cash are happy obscene playmates. Not only do we radically need regulation of contributions to both candidates and office-holders but we need at least constituents' scrutiny for aberrations.
Look at the role models: the former guy; MTG; Gaetz; Cawthorn; Boebert; DeSatan; on and on....
Bingo! I live in Arizona and voted for Sinema when she ran against bat shit crazy McSally. The only reason she won was because McSally was so bad. If the Republicans nominate someone who is better than McSally (I'm not holding my breath)they will win back the seat. In the meantime there is an immense movement to primary Sinema.
There is talk of Reuban Gallego running for the Senate instead of the House. He is barely left center so he would stand a chance, plus he is a Veteran and Hispanic.
I just don’t understand this. I don’t understand how they work so hard to get where they are, just to turn around and NOT do the job they’re there to do. It’s incredible. I also don’t understand why THIS is the position they’re taking as a way to garner some attention! They might not have been familiar names a year ago, but don’t they realize they will be known throughout the rest of history as the two people who could have helped save democracy, but instead helped usher in the demise of democracy in America? I’m just not understanding the end game or long term plan from them. How can they possibly think this is in any way a good thing beyond the pull of the current spotlight? They’re getting battered in the polls which are sinking lower by the statement, the optics are absolutely terrible for them (something I thought politicians cared about), and yet, here they stand.
ESPECIALLY when if they just voted for the bills they themselves co-signed (another juxtaposition that’s boggling my mind), they would be considered heroes throughout the rest of our history for restoring democracy. THAT should be the narcissistic end game. Why would they want to be villains for eternity when they have the opportunity, like so few others have, to be able to change the course of history in one of the most progressive & positive ways possible?
Where do they realistically see the country when the GQP takes over and then proceeds to kill the filibuster almost immediately for their own evil ends? Will they feel like fools as they should? Will they even care? The biggest problem is that we have no idea because they won’t be honest with us.
I understand everything you said, but I still don’t get it.
I did not fully "get It" either until I started reading Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's book, CAPTURED, explaining in detail how corporations and Big Dark Money have taken over the govt and are destroying democracy. His topics-chapters: The Powell Memo; Capture of the court, civil juries, elections, and equally harmful the capture of the regulatory agencies, and more. A mere 200 pp + end notes. Beware. It's not an easy read altho the concepts are not that complicated: money buys influence and get results. A problem has to be defined ere it can be fixed. He does that. Keep your hopeful, optimistic pills handy. You'll need them. Boy, do we have work to do. As Prof Reich says, "We've been here before." Supporting dedicated, hardworking, true-blue folks like Stacy Abrams is one thing we can do. I perceive MSM as only good for the headlines. If we want truly in-depth analyses, we must look to alternative, independent sources that break down the news instead of just breaking it. Our opponets are well funded and deeply entrenched. Please do not under estimate them as our well meaning, somewhat naive President has done. Why reach across the aisle when there's nobody there? For me, it's Global Warming-Climate Change-Disasters AND preserving our democracy. After seeing the prior admin FIX IT for themselves, their family, and coterie of close friends-associates, I shudder to think we would become "governed" by an unchecked autocrat. It may be time to start using the term "dictator" in lieu of autocrat, since it's a word the uninitiated is more likely to understand. We are going to have to work together in large groups to bring influence to bear. The SuCt is against us, 6 anyway. They are oblivious to scorn and shame, at least for now, and give off a stench J. Sotomayor speaks of. Let us obtain small victories and celebrate them as Prof Reich has advised in one of his recent missives. Above all else, we must not despair; if we do, all is lost. Work hard! Keep your cool.
Sheldon Whitehouse is getting to the root of the problem while media only points out symptoms. he did so during Barrett's supreme court confirmaton hearings on c-span: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY
WOW! Thank u so very much for that YouTube link. What a clear, crisp presentation Sen. Whitehouse made. Barrett got quite an education; whether it gels or not is another matter. Like so much of the country, she may be awash in willful ignorance. She, like the other 5, is ideologically driven. Still, she cannot delude herself without some self-deceit; who knows, she may have an epiphany -- not holding my breath.
Big Mac's new handle is Mitch "Gridlock" McConnell, one I'm sure he's proud of. It doesn't speak well of Ky, the state my mother grew up in, for the voters of the state to keep re-electing Mitch "Gridlock" McConnell. Shooting themselves, not just in the foot, but both feet. If the Dems could come up with a fire-in-the-belly candidate who knows how to campaign, I'd like to think he could be defeated. His last 2 opponents have not filled the bill. Bill Clinton went down there twice to help one of them, to no avail. There is a wind whispering that candidates, like office holders, are being threatened with violence. Somebody please tell me that's not true.
Sen. Whitehouse in CAPTURED tells how candidates who step out of line with corporate wishes get threatened with being opposed by money of an unimaginable magnitude, telling me we are going to have to learn how to campaign in a manner that circumvents big money. Walking, knocking on doors, and listening to whomever opens the door, like two young'uns did in the NE, described in a prior posting by Prof RR.
I want to speak about last Wednesday’s Senate vote, but not from the perspective of a particular Senator’s psyche. I want to speak about the general public who, for good reason, doesn’t understand most Senate rules, which are quite obtuse. Hence, whatever people think they understood about the discussions and votes this past Wednesday, without their fully knowing what actually was happening on the floor, I don’t imagine one could expect the public indignation one would hope for. Unless the public fully were made aware of the modest, restricted rule change 48 Democratic Senators had proposed to pass minimal federal voter protection safeguards, one could not expect a public outcry that could lead to real reform upon learning that 52 Senators rejected the slight rule change and chose, instead, to stick with rules that allow a single Senator merely to dial in a filibuster on a motion just to proceed to debate.
I will work hard to inform people both about the details of the proposed rule change that was to be used only once on this particular bill and also about why, in my view, it failed. More importantly, with an issue of this magnitude, I will seek the attention of credentialed experts to help assure the outrage among those who have followed these negotiations for months gets the hearing it merits.
Ok, but I do believe it’s time to turn our attention to midterms because our only hope for getting this done is to win more Senators (and keep our House).
juliet, I am 100% focused on midterms. You might recall, fairly recently, that Prof. Reich’s newsletter focused on how Biden could regain momentum. Item #2 was discussion of the filibuster.
Oh ok. Yeah, I saw on Rachel Maddow two nights ago that there have been over 150 rule changes, Klobuchar was articulate about this, and that those senators quite recently voted for a rule change. Of course the Republicans change the rule whenever they can’t pass something (is what I gather). I just meant, looking forward rather than dwelling on frustrating “failures”
Hi juliet, I believe the public at large would have viewed the failure last Wednesday as resting with Republicans and with the two Democrats who voted with them to defeat the rule change, had people understood that this modest, restricted rule change was proposed by Democrats to ensure, in all 50 states, that eligible votes would be cast, counted correctly, and certified without interference and without their being diluted through partisan gerrymandering. Additionally, I don’t accept that people, overall, would advocate for the filibuster in its present form if people understood that it permitted a minority party Senator merely to dial in a filibuster on a motion just to proceed to debate. I believe most would come to realize that this procedural rule allowed for a minority veto over the will of the majority, and that, like us, most would be outraged.
I mostly agree. Although all I hear from people is defense of voter [photo] IDs (it’s hard to explain why they’re discriminatory), and people kinda like the idea that you have to have bipartisan consent, especially for voting rights (with regard to the filibuster.) Republican arguments have been working. Also not sure who you’re referring to here but I doubt most Republicans would listen to reason, they’re already equipped amply with fake facts and whatnot. That’s a cynical view, perhaps. Just what I hear on Twitter, in the NYT comments, and among family members who are quite intelligent but not receptive to their views changing, and a bit racist underneath it all.
juliet, As I understand, the issue of ID only becomes a problem when what’s required is a government issued photo ID. For people who neither drive or travel abroad, this requirement is a problem. While the Freedom to Vote Act does require one to present ID, the type of ID is more flexible. As for the rest of your comment, the bit I find most perplexing is the prioritizing of bipartisanship, particularly with respect to voting rights. I would ask whether these folks are as troubled by GOP controlled state legislatures that unilaterally pass bill after bill that restricts voting and nullifies votes. How are we to protect the key mechanisms of our democracy if the Senate must satisfy a 60-vote threshold before it can vote on federal safeguards that protect the vote from state-level efforts to subvert it?
Why is having an identification card such as a driver’s license or an ID issued by a state government in lieu of a driver’s license a problem for the purpose of voter validation? I have to show my ID every time I make a big purchase at Lowe’s or Home Depot, and it doesn’t strike me as an affront. If voting is important, then everyone who wants to vote will be motivated to getting an ID card of some kind. People who don’t care about voting, won’t vote anyway, whether or not they have an ID card. In 2016, I supported our local Democratic Party by making phone calls to a list of registered Democrats. I was dismayed by how many of them didn’t know that an election was under way.
I am well aware of "rules that allow a single Senator merely to dial in a filibuster on a motion just to proceed to debate." and I think most people who watch MSNBC are knowledgeable. So, when are you going to begin "form people both about the details of the proposed rule change that was to be used only once on this particular bill"? And who are these credentialed experts?
Katherine, I plan to start with Indivisible. Either today or this weekend, I will write to Ezra Levin, who, btw is hosting a meeting Monday @8PM as follow-up to last Wednesday’s devastating vote.
I agree with you, Harvey. My solution is as follows: just as you need a license to drive, or to practice medicine, you should need a license to get into politics. This license could be earned by passing tests in various subjects (e. g., history, psychology, philosophy, sociology, science, civics, and yes, ethics). What do you think?
Thanks for a very incisive article. I agree. Senator Manchin maybe able to get away with it and may not be afraid of a primary challenge but I am puzzled how Senator Sinema didn’t see that she will now have a rough time in a primary.
Hope Democrats are able to improve their margin in Senate this November by at least two so that these two Senators can go back into oblivion where they were prior to last February.
Yes, but I think The Devine Comedy was kind of a way of venting and repenting of his political ambitions after being exiled from Florence. Actually I am contemplating running against Sinema in the democratic primary. She proclaims herself someone who is bipartisan (cue sarcastic retort) but I've found a way to integrate the interests of traditionally opposed political constituencies into an economic thirdness greater oneness that terrifically benefits enterprise, the individual and enables us to fiscally fund the kind of mega projects like off planeting and under planeting the worst CO2 means of production so we don't kill off the species and the planet. You can check it out here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PLNJLRN/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=wisdomics-Gracenomics&qid=1552358772&s=books&sr=1-1-catcorr
Manchin and Synema are the two best republicans out there. Democrats in name only. Shame on them. I can only hope they get voted out of office on their next go-round. They are not just hurting you and me but our children and our grandchildren just to line their own pockets and bask in the false notoriety handed out by the media.
It's hard to imagine how two mammoth-sized elephants were able to squeeze into donkey costumes long enough to get elected. [Then, of course, there is Trump, who successfully squeezed into a Christian halo outfit...]
I maintain that they are not as bad as Republicans, especially Manchin, because if he weren’t Senator, we wouldn’t be in the majority and an even sleazier Trump person would be in his place. They did vote for other legislation and against Trump in the Impeachments
Not as bad in some respects, but - their ideological waffling is directly responsible for huge damage to Biden’s overall agenda. In crafting a sweeping bill that hits every progressive priority, Biden miscalculated their inclination to support his agenda. Now the only hope is to break it into pieces and see what they will actually support.
I’m a big fan of the idea of getting some climate change stuff done (as Senator Markey has suggested). To me, that’s the most urgent thing anyway…we can come back around for the other policies, not that it won’t hurt (primarily) women and poor kids.
Craig, I not only agree, but also would add that because Dems, at least in name, control both Houses and the White House, unless they start advancing at least some of the stalled legislation, Republicans will try and seize advantage claiming Dems are unable to govern.
What are citizens supposed to do when more narcissists in Congress start playing this same game? No one has been able to answer my question of why they haven't been censured or brought up on charges for not maintaining their oath of office. But I guess perjury, lies and bribery are just the way to do business these days!
This is the oath senators in Congress must take: Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law. So WHY no repercussions for their behavior
It is a conclusion I had arrived at a long time ago Egotistical people should not be leaders of the free world , there is to much at stake to sable in self praise. These two will not change , now that that taste has hit their deranged mind. It is naive to think that they will ever perform like legislators in the future. It would be smarter to bypass them always , don’t take their word for anything
I, me, and myself so easily become everyone's inner tyrants! Unfortunately, they are also always right. Manchin and Sinema can torpedo what's left of American democracy, they will swear to their death bed that they could not have done anything wrong ever.
So, I have suggestion. If politicians love the limelight so much, why not picking one or the other when they are obnoxious and give them prime time to thoroughly explain their reasons to the public by answering its questions? No doubt they would love the scrutiny of reason at play in front of the largest possible audience, for as long as it would take, moreover.
Right?
Ok, as we all know here, mainstream media will never, ever speak truth to power. Giving context and critically going to the bottom of things is a no no when you are an institution that itself belongs to power. I was just dreaming a bit.
I totally agree that they need to think outside the box here, and yours is an original idea -- thank you. From where we stand, it looks like they use the same tactics over and over.
"Meet the Press," or some similar format would not be original. What would be is an independent press, i.e. directly financed by its audience for the quality of its work. The way it is structured, cable news is a public disaster.
On a hopeful note, I went to hear Senator Michael Bennett, Colorado, speak last weekend. Thought I was listening to Robert Reich. He's working very hard for the common good!
The philosopher Bertrand Russell said: “There are many instances in history of generals so jealous of each other that they preferred defeat to enhancement of the other’s reputation.” Sounds like there’s some of that going on here.
The Lakota Native Americans’ way of living is said to include this: “When choosing a leader, we always kept in mind that humility provides clarity where arrogance makes a cloud. The last thing we wanted was to be led by someone whose judgment and actions were clouded by arrogance.” Sounds like some of that's here too.
Part of what’s needed is legendary basketball coach John Wooden’s wisdom: “There is no limit to what can be accomplished when no one cares who gets the credit.”
Words of wisdom. Wise and also humorous. Great sharing.
Joe, I agree with you, but don't you think that some of Manchin's behavior is driven by his perception of what the voters of West Virginia think of the voting rights legislation? For months the right wing media and the Republicans have demonized the Democratic voting rights legislation as a "power grab" to take permanent control of Washington for the Democratic party. I believe this has poisoned conservative voters (many of these in West Virginia) against the proposed changes. This is another example, in my opinion, of the right wing media doing a much better job than the Democrats in communicating (in this case, lying) to voters to influence their opinion on proposed legislation.
They have been sipping the poison for generations! Numerous false narratives (culture wars around race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and class, trickle down, immigrants, black lives matter, antifa, liberals, the educated, socialists...) have been used to keep them searching in all the wrong places. The GOP is gonna acknowledge there is a power grab, but they sure as _ell aren't going to implicate themselves by being honest about who is actually making the power grab- they are, nor who they are making it on behalf of- corporations and the Uber wealthy, who's wealth is the ultimate power. They will misdirect, misinform, mislead... lie, cheat and steal to keep their followers from the truth.
That's probably true, but such behavior isn't my idea of how a real leader should act. I believe that in John F. Kennedy's book "Profiles in Courage," he said that part of a real leader's job is to educate the public, not cave to misinformed popular opinions. Martin Luther King Jr. similarly proclaimed, "A genuine leader doesn't reflect consensus, he molds consensus." That's how I wish Manchin would behave. If he continues the way he's going, I'm looking forward to him being primaried in 2024. I'll drive down from Ohio to help with the effort. West Virginia having a lot of natural beauty will be a fringe benefit of being there.
Some of Sinema's and Manchin's biggest funders jawboned them all week to vote to at least demand the talking filibuster, I was told last night. Mitch McConnell will kill the filibuster the second he can, and we know it. Sinema and Manchin are in Red states, both have GOP governors, and they were probably paid by McConnell. That's my bet. More important is what to do now, looking forward. Instead of focussing on these tools, we need to focus on their masters, the donors. Go to them, threaten to expose them in public media, boycott their products, sell off their stock, investigate them for violations of SEC, OSHA, etc. rules. If they don't do right, then make good on the threats. Fast.
Definitely FOLLOW THE MONEY. And report to the people who these senators really represent.
Exactly!
Brilliant commentary, as always, and an interesting perspective. Call me crazy, but I think they could have gotten their ego boost by becoming “heroes“ after listening to all the sane voices around them and then being the ones who saved democracy!
True, but what about the money? They would lose their places on the gravy train. Another dark thought I have had is that they may have been threatened by the evil orange 'empire' boss and his thugs. They threaten those in their own party, why not the opponents?
Good point! We are watching what happens when politicians sell their souls! As Nancy Pelosi said, "You come to Washington to do a job, not keep your job."
Can Democratic Senators not just casually shun and ignore them, taking away all that attention? Wouldn't it be easier to woo one or two moderate Republican Senators and get less than they wanted but still achieve something, and just leave Manchin and Sinema out in the cold for a couple of weeks?
Yes, and that's exactly what I've been recommending: Court Murkowski, Collins, and Romney. See what they want or need for a "talking filibuster," or a stripped-down "Build Back Better."
Murkowski talks a good game, but often her votes against the party are "safe" votes. She had no qualms voting against the voting rights bill this week and the BBB bill previously. I lived in Alaska 27 years, helped re-elect her with write-in votes against a wacko who otherwise would have been elected in the very Republican state. I learned not to trust her. Now they all crow about the $$$ coming from the infrastructure package.
You’d know better than I, but I assume they’ve been approached already, and it doesn’t seem like they’re keen on that (?)
Until Biden becomes less toxic & inert, we need to abandon the thought of any "moderate" or retiring GOP Senator(s) OVERTLY helping the Democrats in any way. If Dems can identify anything they can do COVERTLY to undermine #45's grip on their party, they'll help. They still think they can beat BOTH #45 AND the Dems.
I've been pushing that as well--they could follow the precedent of Bob Dole saving the Voting Rights bill. Here's a piece I placed in the Salt Lake City and Juneau papers https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2021/09/01/paul-loeb-could-mitt/
We tried that for Reproductive rights how well did that work out?
Yes. Harp on the issues and make any senator state why they would oppose feeding children, getting all people access to vote, day care for working mothers, new jobs, etc etc. There has been a lot accomplished and Dems don’t communicate that because our egos are normal sized.
I think any Republican would be even harder to get on board. McConnell’s got them in line. They must have strong incentives not to buck their party.
Juliet ; Yes, there have been threats for those who do not 'tow the line', even to the point of being threatened with being hung!
They certainly are! I love Frontline for details and need it now and then.
Let's take the next necessary step, and square the circle. Corporate-cash and a psychopathological need to feed one's ego go hand in hand; they fuel each other. In the two cases at hand media attention and buckets of compromising cash are happy obscene playmates. Not only do we radically need regulation of contributions to both candidates and office-holders but we need at least constituents' scrutiny for aberrations.
Look at the role models: the former guy; MTG; Gaetz; Cawthorn; Boebert; DeSatan; on and on....
Harvey, You write beautifully. Regrettably, regulating contributions seems highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.
Bingo! I live in Arizona and voted for Sinema when she ran against bat shit crazy McSally. The only reason she won was because McSally was so bad. If the Republicans nominate someone who is better than McSally (I'm not holding my breath)they will win back the seat. In the meantime there is an immense movement to primary Sinema.
She's up in 2024. Ample time to find an excellent Democrat to primary her.
One can only hope. I just hope we get rid of Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar this year.
There’s gotta be a Democrat they can groom to run
There is talk of Reuban Gallego running for the Senate instead of the House. He is barely left center so he would stand a chance, plus he is a Veteran and Hispanic.
Let's hope this movement wins the primary.
Was McSally being bad really the "only reason she won"? Weren't #45's attacks on McCain and his family significant factors for both Sinema and Kelly?
Not as much as the fact that McSally was crazy. Certainly the attacks on McCain factored in somewhat.
I just don’t understand this. I don’t understand how they work so hard to get where they are, just to turn around and NOT do the job they’re there to do. It’s incredible. I also don’t understand why THIS is the position they’re taking as a way to garner some attention! They might not have been familiar names a year ago, but don’t they realize they will be known throughout the rest of history as the two people who could have helped save democracy, but instead helped usher in the demise of democracy in America? I’m just not understanding the end game or long term plan from them. How can they possibly think this is in any way a good thing beyond the pull of the current spotlight? They’re getting battered in the polls which are sinking lower by the statement, the optics are absolutely terrible for them (something I thought politicians cared about), and yet, here they stand.
ESPECIALLY when if they just voted for the bills they themselves co-signed (another juxtaposition that’s boggling my mind), they would be considered heroes throughout the rest of our history for restoring democracy. THAT should be the narcissistic end game. Why would they want to be villains for eternity when they have the opportunity, like so few others have, to be able to change the course of history in one of the most progressive & positive ways possible?
Where do they realistically see the country when the GQP takes over and then proceeds to kill the filibuster almost immediately for their own evil ends? Will they feel like fools as they should? Will they even care? The biggest problem is that we have no idea because they won’t be honest with us.
I understand everything you said, but I still don’t get it.
I did not fully "get It" either until I started reading Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's book, CAPTURED, explaining in detail how corporations and Big Dark Money have taken over the govt and are destroying democracy. His topics-chapters: The Powell Memo; Capture of the court, civil juries, elections, and equally harmful the capture of the regulatory agencies, and more. A mere 200 pp + end notes. Beware. It's not an easy read altho the concepts are not that complicated: money buys influence and get results. A problem has to be defined ere it can be fixed. He does that. Keep your hopeful, optimistic pills handy. You'll need them. Boy, do we have work to do. As Prof Reich says, "We've been here before." Supporting dedicated, hardworking, true-blue folks like Stacy Abrams is one thing we can do. I perceive MSM as only good for the headlines. If we want truly in-depth analyses, we must look to alternative, independent sources that break down the news instead of just breaking it. Our opponets are well funded and deeply entrenched. Please do not under estimate them as our well meaning, somewhat naive President has done. Why reach across the aisle when there's nobody there? For me, it's Global Warming-Climate Change-Disasters AND preserving our democracy. After seeing the prior admin FIX IT for themselves, their family, and coterie of close friends-associates, I shudder to think we would become "governed" by an unchecked autocrat. It may be time to start using the term "dictator" in lieu of autocrat, since it's a word the uninitiated is more likely to understand. We are going to have to work together in large groups to bring influence to bear. The SuCt is against us, 6 anyway. They are oblivious to scorn and shame, at least for now, and give off a stench J. Sotomayor speaks of. Let us obtain small victories and celebrate them as Prof Reich has advised in one of his recent missives. Above all else, we must not despair; if we do, all is lost. Work hard! Keep your cool.
Sheldon Whitehouse is getting to the root of the problem while media only points out symptoms. he did so during Barrett's supreme court confirmaton hearings on c-span: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cjcXVKg43qY
WOW! Thank u so very much for that YouTube link. What a clear, crisp presentation Sen. Whitehouse made. Barrett got quite an education; whether it gels or not is another matter. Like so much of the country, she may be awash in willful ignorance. She, like the other 5, is ideologically driven. Still, she cannot delude herself without some self-deceit; who knows, she may have an epiphany -- not holding my breath.
....we need to adjust our frame of reference; clearly, "by, for and of the people" no longer applies.
Thank you for saying what should be obvious.
Big Mac's new handle is Mitch "Gridlock" McConnell, one I'm sure he's proud of. It doesn't speak well of Ky, the state my mother grew up in, for the voters of the state to keep re-electing Mitch "Gridlock" McConnell. Shooting themselves, not just in the foot, but both feet. If the Dems could come up with a fire-in-the-belly candidate who knows how to campaign, I'd like to think he could be defeated. His last 2 opponents have not filled the bill. Bill Clinton went down there twice to help one of them, to no avail. There is a wind whispering that candidates, like office holders, are being threatened with violence. Somebody please tell me that's not true.
Sen. Whitehouse in CAPTURED tells how candidates who step out of line with corporate wishes get threatened with being opposed by money of an unimaginable magnitude, telling me we are going to have to learn how to campaign in a manner that circumvents big money. Walking, knocking on doors, and listening to whomever opens the door, like two young'uns did in the NE, described in a prior posting by Prof RR.
I want to speak about last Wednesday’s Senate vote, but not from the perspective of a particular Senator’s psyche. I want to speak about the general public who, for good reason, doesn’t understand most Senate rules, which are quite obtuse. Hence, whatever people think they understood about the discussions and votes this past Wednesday, without their fully knowing what actually was happening on the floor, I don’t imagine one could expect the public indignation one would hope for. Unless the public fully were made aware of the modest, restricted rule change 48 Democratic Senators had proposed to pass minimal federal voter protection safeguards, one could not expect a public outcry that could lead to real reform upon learning that 52 Senators rejected the slight rule change and chose, instead, to stick with rules that allow a single Senator merely to dial in a filibuster on a motion just to proceed to debate.
I will work hard to inform people both about the details of the proposed rule change that was to be used only once on this particular bill and also about why, in my view, it failed. More importantly, with an issue of this magnitude, I will seek the attention of credentialed experts to help assure the outrage among those who have followed these negotiations for months gets the hearing it merits.
Ok, but I do believe it’s time to turn our attention to midterms because our only hope for getting this done is to win more Senators (and keep our House).
juliet, I am 100% focused on midterms. You might recall, fairly recently, that Prof. Reich’s newsletter focused on how Biden could regain momentum. Item #2 was discussion of the filibuster.
Oh ok. Yeah, I saw on Rachel Maddow two nights ago that there have been over 150 rule changes, Klobuchar was articulate about this, and that those senators quite recently voted for a rule change. Of course the Republicans change the rule whenever they can’t pass something (is what I gather). I just meant, looking forward rather than dwelling on frustrating “failures”
Hi juliet, I believe the public at large would have viewed the failure last Wednesday as resting with Republicans and with the two Democrats who voted with them to defeat the rule change, had people understood that this modest, restricted rule change was proposed by Democrats to ensure, in all 50 states, that eligible votes would be cast, counted correctly, and certified without interference and without their being diluted through partisan gerrymandering. Additionally, I don’t accept that people, overall, would advocate for the filibuster in its present form if people understood that it permitted a minority party Senator merely to dial in a filibuster on a motion just to proceed to debate. I believe most would come to realize that this procedural rule allowed for a minority veto over the will of the majority, and that, like us, most would be outraged.
I mostly agree. Although all I hear from people is defense of voter [photo] IDs (it’s hard to explain why they’re discriminatory), and people kinda like the idea that you have to have bipartisan consent, especially for voting rights (with regard to the filibuster.) Republican arguments have been working. Also not sure who you’re referring to here but I doubt most Republicans would listen to reason, they’re already equipped amply with fake facts and whatnot. That’s a cynical view, perhaps. Just what I hear on Twitter, in the NYT comments, and among family members who are quite intelligent but not receptive to their views changing, and a bit racist underneath it all.
juliet, As I understand, the issue of ID only becomes a problem when what’s required is a government issued photo ID. For people who neither drive or travel abroad, this requirement is a problem. While the Freedom to Vote Act does require one to present ID, the type of ID is more flexible. As for the rest of your comment, the bit I find most perplexing is the prioritizing of bipartisanship, particularly with respect to voting rights. I would ask whether these folks are as troubled by GOP controlled state legislatures that unilaterally pass bill after bill that restricts voting and nullifies votes. How are we to protect the key mechanisms of our democracy if the Senate must satisfy a 60-vote threshold before it can vote on federal safeguards that protect the vote from state-level efforts to subvert it?
Why is having an identification card such as a driver’s license or an ID issued by a state government in lieu of a driver’s license a problem for the purpose of voter validation? I have to show my ID every time I make a big purchase at Lowe’s or Home Depot, and it doesn’t strike me as an affront. If voting is important, then everyone who wants to vote will be motivated to getting an ID card of some kind. People who don’t care about voting, won’t vote anyway, whether or not they have an ID card. In 2016, I supported our local Democratic Party by making phone calls to a list of registered Democrats. I was dismayed by how many of them didn’t know that an election was under way.
I am well aware of "rules that allow a single Senator merely to dial in a filibuster on a motion just to proceed to debate." and I think most people who watch MSNBC are knowledgeable. So, when are you going to begin "form people both about the details of the proposed rule change that was to be used only once on this particular bill"? And who are these credentialed experts?
Katherine, I plan to start with Indivisible. Either today or this weekend, I will write to Ezra Levin, who, btw is hosting a meeting Monday @8PM as follow-up to last Wednesday’s devastating vote.
Money talks; principles walk.
I agree with you, Harvey. My solution is as follows: just as you need a license to drive, or to practice medicine, you should need a license to get into politics. This license could be earned by passing tests in various subjects (e. g., history, psychology, philosophy, sociology, science, civics, and yes, ethics). What do you think?
Thanks for a very incisive article. I agree. Senator Manchin maybe able to get away with it and may not be afraid of a primary challenge but I am puzzled how Senator Sinema didn’t see that she will now have a rough time in a primary.
Hope Democrats are able to improve their margin in Senate this November by at least two so that these two Senators can go back into oblivion where they were prior to last February.
Dante was prescient when he reserved narcissistic and hypocritical politicans to the deepest circles of hell.
I did not know that but I like it! I guess Dante was actually speaking from experience, though.
Yes, but I think The Devine Comedy was kind of a way of venting and repenting of his political ambitions after being exiled from Florence. Actually I am contemplating running against Sinema in the democratic primary. She proclaims herself someone who is bipartisan (cue sarcastic retort) but I've found a way to integrate the interests of traditionally opposed political constituencies into an economic thirdness greater oneness that terrifically benefits enterprise, the individual and enables us to fiscally fund the kind of mega projects like off planeting and under planeting the worst CO2 means of production so we don't kill off the species and the planet. You can check it out here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PLNJLRN/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=wisdomics-Gracenomics&qid=1552358772&s=books&sr=1-1-catcorr
Intriguing.
Manchin and Synema are the two best republicans out there. Democrats in name only. Shame on them. I can only hope they get voted out of office on their next go-round. They are not just hurting you and me but our children and our grandchildren just to line their own pockets and bask in the false notoriety handed out by the media.
It's hard to imagine how two mammoth-sized elephants were able to squeeze into donkey costumes long enough to get elected. [Then, of course, there is Trump, who successfully squeezed into a Christian halo outfit...]
I maintain that they are not as bad as Republicans, especially Manchin, because if he weren’t Senator, we wouldn’t be in the majority and an even sleazier Trump person would be in his place. They did vote for other legislation and against Trump in the Impeachments
Not as bad in some respects, but - their ideological waffling is directly responsible for huge damage to Biden’s overall agenda. In crafting a sweeping bill that hits every progressive priority, Biden miscalculated their inclination to support his agenda. Now the only hope is to break it into pieces and see what they will actually support.
I’m a big fan of the idea of getting some climate change stuff done (as Senator Markey has suggested). To me, that’s the most urgent thing anyway…we can come back around for the other policies, not that it won’t hurt (primarily) women and poor kids.
Climate change is more urgent than most.
Craig, I not only agree, but also would add that because Dems, at least in name, control both Houses and the White House, unless they start advancing at least some of the stalled legislation, Republicans will try and seize advantage claiming Dems are unable to govern.
What are citizens supposed to do when more narcissists in Congress start playing this same game? No one has been able to answer my question of why they haven't been censured or brought up on charges for not maintaining their oath of office. But I guess perjury, lies and bribery are just the way to do business these days!
This is the oath senators in Congress must take: Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law. So WHY no repercussions for their behavior
Dee Long ; It is just part of the pageantry. there are zero consequences for breaking the oath.
It is a conclusion I had arrived at a long time ago Egotistical people should not be leaders of the free world , there is to much at stake to sable in self praise. These two will not change , now that that taste has hit their deranged mind. It is naive to think that they will ever perform like legislators in the future. It would be smarter to bypass them always , don’t take their word for anything
John Schumacher ; Unless there is a great epiphany in either of them, well demonstrated for a long time.
This personality disorder is a life-long affliction. My father was this way and lived to almost 100 never changing.
I, me, and myself so easily become everyone's inner tyrants! Unfortunately, they are also always right. Manchin and Sinema can torpedo what's left of American democracy, they will swear to their death bed that they could not have done anything wrong ever.
So, I have suggestion. If politicians love the limelight so much, why not picking one or the other when they are obnoxious and give them prime time to thoroughly explain their reasons to the public by answering its questions? No doubt they would love the scrutiny of reason at play in front of the largest possible audience, for as long as it would take, moreover.
Right?
Ok, as we all know here, mainstream media will never, ever speak truth to power. Giving context and critically going to the bottom of things is a no no when you are an institution that itself belongs to power. I was just dreaming a bit.
I totally agree that they need to think outside the box here, and yours is an original idea -- thank you. From where we stand, it looks like they use the same tactics over and over.
"Meet the Press," or some similar format would not be original. What would be is an independent press, i.e. directly financed by its audience for the quality of its work. The way it is structured, cable news is a public disaster.
Michael Moore would be good at cornering them, but they would never sign up for it. Would be delicious! Just desserts.
On a hopeful note, I went to hear Senator Michael Bennett, Colorado, speak last weekend. Thought I was listening to Robert Reich. He's working very hard for the common good!
Reads like an interesting ticket to me in 2024…