One Day at a Time
Last night Senator Joe Manchin, who is currently the only democrat holding statewide office in West Virginia, was interviewed by Bret Baier. The highlight in my opinion was when Baier asked about putting principle over party. Baier reminded Manchin that President Biden lost every West Virginia county in last year’s presidential election. Joe Manchin had no problem with the question:
“I’m here because of West Virginia,” Manchin said. “I’m here because of every person in West Virginia. I love my state as much as anything in the world, not quite as much as my family, but not far behind. I would do anything for my state of West Virginia.”
Manchin has never changed. He is a man of conviction. What has changed is the democratic party. It is in the hands of the radical left. With the election of Joe Biden the nation has been turned upside down. The nation's borders are wide open, crime is rising in our cities, inflation is on the horizon and the radicals in charge are committed to indoctrinating the US military and our children. They intend to overcome their narrow majority in the House and a flat footed tie in the Senate by using "reconciliation" , which they somehow get two shots at and of course, changing the rules. Only one thing has slowed them down - the courage of Senators Manchin and Sinema.
Currently democrats are running a scam where Republicans work with the president on a bipartisan infrastructure bill (evidently for show) and then democrats pass another infrastructure bill via "reconciliation" giving them everything they wanted in the first place. It is shameless and assumes that the American people are totally stupid. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed that her chamber will not take up the bi-partisan bill until the Senate passes the great big radical democrat gravy bill. (AKA the big whopper)
The good news is that Joe Manchin stood up and said "I don't think I can support a rumored House Democratic infrastructure bill costing between $4 trillion and $6 trillion. “That seems to me just totally out of the ballpark.”
Tags
Who is online
60 visitors
For now we have to slow them down. The courage of these public servants may just go down in history as saviors of the Republic.
Donald Trump is off topic
I am off topic
A profile in courage…
Let it be recorded.
I'm thinking Joe could re-record that old David Bowie (and then Queen) hit... 'Under Pressure"
Manchin is a grifter, and he's raised a grifter daughter. Their first concern is their pockets, not the people of West Virginia.
Manchin's daughter, Heather Bresch, lied about having received an MBA from WVU. The university disputed her claim, but Manchin was governor at the time, and she got her degree without having completed the required coursework. The president of the university took the fall for Joe, as he was fired after a vote of no confidence from the faculty.
Bresch is CEO of Mylan Pharmaceuticals, maker of the Epi-Pen. After her mother, Gayle Manchin, advocated to require Epipens to be present in public schools, Mylan, under Bresch's leadership, raised the price from about $100 to about $600.
All this was in local newspapers and on local television news at the time. West Virginians know full well where they stand in Manchin's affections - way behind his bank accounts. He and his family have used his elected position and his wife's political appointments for personal gain for years.
Assuming all of that (via Wikipedia) is true, don't we consider the totality of individuals and what they contribute? One could easily say that FDR cheated on his wife, but I'm sure those who never provided for themselves and depended on Social Security would regard him as a great man. So why smear Manchin? He stands between one-party rule and a democracy.
It's true.
FDR's cheating on his wife did nothing to harm his constituents. Using one's political position to greatly increase the cost of needed medication does.
Telling the truth is not smearing.
Minority rule is not democracy.
Oh I see, there is another technicality. How about his internment of Japanese Americans? Did that harm his constituents?
Telling the truth is not smearing.
It can be, Sandy. You see, when it is done for political reasons it absolutely does constitute smearing.
Minority rule is not democracy.
How ironic Sandy. The democrats lack a true mandate and they are operating as if they had super majorities in both houses.
How is work going?
Point out where I've ever defended FDR's internment of Japanese Americans.
Why do you oppose the truth, Vic? Why is telling the truth about someone smearing, when you don't like what the truth is? Should we dress you down for bringing up Japanese internment? After all, it was politcally motivated.
The Dems have the majority in both houses, and they won the White House. That's two branches of government under Dem control. You don't get to move the goalposts and demand they have a "mandate" - a fuzzy enough concept that the goalposts would undoubtedly keep on moving.
You did say that FDR didn't harm his constituents....Didn't you?
Why do you oppose the truth, Vic? Why is telling the truth about someone smearing, when you don't like what the truth is? Should we dress you down for bringing up Japanese internment? After all, it was politcally motivated.
Actually I present truth around here. Aside from that - I'm not the topic Sandy . I went to the trouble of stating that in Post 1. Why don't I get the same considerations as other members would?
The Dems have the majority in both houses, and they won the White House. That's two branches of government under Dem control. You don't get to move the goalposts and demand they have a "mandate" - a fuzzy enough concept that the goalposts would undoubtedly keep on moving.
They have a very narrow majority in the House and a flat footed tie in the Senate. They are attempting to govern as if they had super majorities.
mandate: "the authority to carry out a policy or course of action, regarded as given by the electorate to a candidate or party that is victorious in an election."
Winning by the skin of one's teeth hardly constitutes a mandate.
I said his cheating on his wife didn't harm his constituents. Don't try to change my words, Vic. It's dishonest, and laughably so when my words are in black and white for all to see.
You object to the presentation of truth, and call it "smearing". Your words are also in black and white for all to see.
Quoting a definition of "mandate" doesn't make it any less of a fuzzy concept with regards to governance. It still allows "mandate" to be pretty much anything you require it to be.
The only wins that were by the skin of anybody's teeth were in the special elections in Georgia. The White House was won handily by the Dems.
Now you are trying to confuse the reader. You said those words to differentiate FDR from Manchin. That was your technical point. I countered with FDR's treatment of Japanese Americans did in fact harm his constituents and therefore he is in the same category for which you have attacked Manchin.
I think you are in a corner now.
I'll let our readers decide.
And I've decided that Sandy has you in the corner
No, I said what I meant. Straw men don't win debates, Vic. Everybody here can see you're reading into my words what you want them to have meant, rather than what they actually mean, and pinning your wishes on me. Take responsibility for what you say, and stop expecting me to take responsibility for what you want me to have said.
Sandy doesn't need help. She can speak for herself.
Check mate.
Sandy's the winner here. Good job Sandy!!!!!!!!!
Ya! She does!
Yes, I can, which is why you should stop trying to speak for me. I think we should both know by now that when my words are deliberately misinterpreted, I will not meekly accept that deliberate misinterpretation. I will call it out every time it happens.
She certainly can and she is making you look rather foolish.
Manchin is a RINO.
The alternative will be a Republican. Once he is gone, you'll have two fully functioning Republican Senators representing West Virginia.
Careful what you wish for!
A Democrat who is a Republican In Name Only? That's bizarre as hell>>>>>>>>>>
What's bizarre about it?
If you had typed DINO (Democrat In Name Only) it would have fit. But since Mr. Manchin ISN'T a Republican, it is bizarre in that it isn't even close to a descriptive that most people would use.
I made a fucking mistake. HE'S A FUCKING DINO!
Oh, now we get it!
People show their good character when they own up to their mistakes.
Are you the authority on character? I had no idea.
And it was such a gracious admission................/S
Good character indeed.
Oh for fucks' sake.
[deleted]
Perhaps if you had been a bit kinder she might have been a bit kinder back. The point is, Tessy admitted to her mistake. It's refreshing!
Yeah.......................
I'm glad you agree that I am of good character. . . .
I think McConnell changed the Senate forever (or until the filibuster is changed or eliminated) when he denied the Supreme Court nomination of Obama's selection Merrick Garland because it was an election year and then had his underlings confirm Amy Coney Barrett a few days before a presidential election.
You see, McConnell's decision to push Barrett through was based entirely on partisan considerations, and he even admitted as much, claiming that what he was doing was ok because the Senate majority and the president were members of the same political party.
If there is an institution in Washington that should be non partisan it should be the Supreme Court. Yet McConnell spit in the eye of non partisanship.
It doesnt bother me at all that the Democrats have woken up a little and want to fight fire with fire to a small extent. I hope they use as many reconciliations as they can and or need to.
Of course not.
For the record, McConnell's rejection of Garland was a huge longshot at the time. Despite claims to the contrary, Hillary Clinton was a huge favorite to win the 2016 election and she would have surely appointed a far more extreme AG than Garland. At least it appeared that way. It turns out that Garland was another trojan horse. We now see that he was another wolf in sheep's clothing.
Why dont you say something that is relevant to my comment?
The rejection of Garland and subsequent confirmation of ACB merely exposed the hypocrisy of McConnell's colleagues. Of course, I'm well aware that some folks are fine with hypocrisy, so long as the hypocrisy is their own side's.
Do you think Democrats would have let a Republican nominee through under the same circumstances?
Only a fool would believe that.
Garland has proved himself to be a political hack. Thank goodness he was not appointed to a position of trust.
Relevant to your belief that denying Obama an appointment is justification for totalitarian rule?
I leave that to our readers.
So, you're telling us that you're ok with Republicans breaking their own imaginary rules, when it suits their interests. Noted.
McConnell cited the "Biden rule" as I recall.
They forget things
Which is not codified.
I see you forget that they followed it when it suited them, and broke it when it suited them to break it.
So true Sandy.
In other words it's good for democrats, but not Republicans?
It's the alleged conservatives who want Totalitarian rule.
I never said it was good either way. I object to it being used as a defense, then abandoned. You're defending it being used, then abandoned when it's expedient for your side. It's a blatant double standard.
Vic, what I said was that McConnell pushed Barrett through the Senate entirely on partisan grounds. Entirely. Now he wants the Democratic majority in the Senate to be bi-partisan in their actions.
That is what I said, not what your opinions of Merrick Garland are.
And I recognized it: "Relevant to your belief that denying Obama an appointment is justification for totalitarian rule?"
It isn't about McConnell having a double standard, it's about democrats trying to change the nation and all the rules in two years.
That's the only standard the alleged conservatives have.
What Democratic majority in the Senate is that, when it is split 50/50? Only the VP gives the Democrats a one vote edge.
The left's idea of a majority is completely bonkers. The Democrats can't get anything done w/o Republican support; and are trying every trick they can to get around it. If they end the filibuster they will be the first ones screaming to reinstate it once they are out of power. Same as they did with Obama's judicial nominations using the nuclear option. Once they were out of power the Democrats wanted the rules to revert back.
There is no double standard. Republicans get to do what democrats do. It's fairly simple. You do away with the 60 vote standard for certain judges and we can apply it to all judges. You use ideology to be a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees and Republicans can do it as well. Try and remember this Sandy - When Donald Trump had control of both houses of congress he asked McConnell to end the filibuster. McConnell said NO. Senate democrats supported McConnell's NO!
So, who is guilty of a double standard?
Of course there is. Only on the alleged conservative side though.
You're changing the subject, Vic. We're talking about the "Biden Rule", to which Republicans adhered when it suited them, and ignored when it was expedient.
You're also forgetting that the filibuster was actually adopted by Congress. The "Biden Rule" never was. The "rule" you cited - it isn't actually part of our system of government. It was an excuse for obstruction, which, precisely because it isn't actually part of our system of government, could easily be abandoned. Dems will abide by the filibuster, because it's actually a rule.
They are hell bent to destroy it, That's the one of the reason's I wrote the article complimenting Manchin and his courage.
I think we are back to square 1.
And I don't think Manchin is courageous at all. He's a grifter. He's pandering to keep his job. His wishy-washiness got his wife another political appointment (the Appalachian Regional Commission, for which her qualifications are unclear) to tempt him to toe the Dem line. He's enjoying the power and perks of being a swing vote. But courageous? No, not really.
No, not at all. No courage at all in that spineless slimy prick.
McConnell was historically correct both times! In an election year when the President and senate majority are different parties the President s nominee is almost never confirmed. In an election year the President and senate majority are the same party the Presidents nominee is almost always confirmed. Garland and Barrett simply follows historical norms as did McConnell. The fact that democrats think they were cheated both times shows them for the hypocrites that they are.
Their whining never ends.
Ya! Exactly
At least one Democrat has some sense of financial responsibility.