I see lots of anti-Manchin stuff on the Kos, but it's by no means unanimous. Plenty of people on this site appreciate that Joe is a member of the Democratic caucus given that he represents a blood red state. Frankly, I've always thought of him as one of the country's better politicians and a genuinely good guy. I couldn't dig up the source of the quote, but one prominent Republican said of Joe Manchin recently that "he is always there when we don't need him."
So, then, without pausing to excoriate Sen. Manchin (knowing that there are commenters who will fill us in on his many transgressions), let's try to understand where he is coming from and where we might expect him to go from here. "Here" being the rather absurd spectacle of the Senate rejecting the 1/6 commission on a 54/35 vote (after RonJohn held up the vote for a day) whilst a number of the filibustering Republicans--Sen. John Kennedy included--caught their flights and were back home or in the air when the vote was being taken.
That will not be lost on Joe Manchin. The mechanics of this type of a filibuster do not put any burden on those in the minority, nor does it promote bipartisanship. And that, I think, is what matters to Joe Manchin.
The WSJ published a piece on Joe about a month ago which helped me understand where he is coming from. As a business-friendly Dem candidate for West Virginia governor in 1996, he supported a reduction of workers' comp injury awards. As a result, he faced bitter opposition from the coal miners' unions and lost the primary to a union-backed candidate.
But the defeat set off a course correction that helps to explain his political buoyancy today as the rare Democrat representing a solidly Republican state, as well as his insistence on bipartisan cooperation in the Senate, often to the frustration of his own party.
* * *
The outreach worked. By looking for common ground with former opponents, Mr. Manchin found that he could create a coalition that brought together occasional antagonists such as the AFL-CIO and the state Chamber of Commerce—building a three-legged stool of labor, business and social conservatives. It was a platform that helped boost him to the office of secretary of state, the governor’s mansion and eventually the U.S. Senate.
That coalition provided a political foundation when he moved as governor to cement a bond with voters by cutting taxes and tackling thorny issues such as privatizing the teetering workers’ compensation system that had long damped the state’s business climate.
Manchin said in April that he is against eliminating or weakening the filibuster. What does he mean?
I think he means that the strength of the filibuster is its ability to promote bipartisanship. And, right now, it is pretty clear that it is not serving that purpose. So, then, strengthening the filibuster should mean it has to be re-structured to serve its original purpose. Maybe that meant a 67-vote threshold in one era and a 60-vote threshold in another, but it is undoubtedly clear to Joe Manchin that a 60-vote threshold won't work in this era. The Republican caucus in the Senate just failed Joe's exam.
One approach would be to require 40 votes not to end cloture and proceed to a vote. But in this era, the right number looks to be about 45 or even 47 (how about 50?). And votes to end cloture could be called repeatedly by those seeking to pass the legislation, keeping the opposition locked-into its seats in Washington . . .
. . . unless and until compromise and bipartisanship prevail. That, I believe, would strengthen the filibuster. And I think Joe Manchin would agree. I expect to see him move in this direction.