The Biden Presidency is underway.

[CraigM]

There was plenty of that towards anyone who dared understand/ explain or especially support the progressive caucus at the time. A few quite belligerent voices about it even.

@JoshL 's comment is pretty mild really. Hardly a pointed comment directed at a community member.

@Calelari

Given this was patently false at the time of the ruling* I’m not sure why “more recent evidence” would make a difference.

Sure. So pass it, and when the court threatens to rule against it use that as pretext to pack the court.

There is good justification that there should be 13 justices anyhow, given their responsibilities over district courts and there are 13 of those. Plus the downright shady situation that denied rightful judicial appointments by McConnel and co. It should be done regardless, this just gives justification to do so.

[Calelari]

@CraigM

So pass it, and when the court threatens to rule against it use that as pretext to pack the court.

A new VRA is unlikely to pass so it wouldn’t get to that point anyway, but packing the court has the same problem doing anything else of merit does - Joe Manchin. The mans got Maserati SUVs to buy, y’know.

[CraigM]

@Calelari

@CraigM

So pass it, and when the court threatens to rule against it use that as pretext to pack the court.

A new VRA is unlikely to pass so it wouldn’t get to that point anyway, but packing the court has the same problem doing anything else of merit does - Joe Manchin.

For sure. But there is a difference between what can be done, and what should be done.

This should be done, but won’t. Much to our loss.

[Timex]

@JoshL

To all the people who said “the progressives should just vote to pass the infrastructure bill, why wouldn’t they?”, well now you know. Thanks for your wonderful and helpful input.

All you got was…a huge bill containing a bunch of new spending that you wanted.

Yeah man, sounds like you got a terrible deal…?

[CraigM]

In a world where one could not block any legislation from coming for a vote while simply drinking scotch on your couch with your lobbyist buddies, that would be valid.

But it is a pyhrric victory. One where the victory was achieved in a manner that loses the war. The bill has good things, but in the current political and media climate, insufficient things. The wrong things. And poor timing and optics for them. And so it is a victory that cuts momentum and will lead to defeats later.

[Timex]

Yeah, I mean, you could have gotten nothing instead. That would have shown 'em!

[scottagibson]

@CraigM

So the idea is that by revising the statute to modern standards and based on current examples of malfeasance would placate this reading.

Color me skeptical.

@CraigM

And if the court threatens to throw it out? Use that as the basis to increase the size of the court by appointing 4+ new justices.

They don’t have the votes.

[SadleyBradley]

Everything I want to say has already been covered, so I’ll just say I’m looking forward to seeing how the progressives will get blamed when Manchin and Sinema scuttle voting rights legislation too.

[scottagibson]

It was always smart for the progressives to try to link the two bills and try to force Manchinema to support the one in order to get the other, and people who pretended they didn’t understand that were in fact pretending not to understand it. It didn’t work for progressives because they didn’t have enough numbers to hold the line. They were right to try it, and they were right to support the bipartisan bill and vote for it when their play ran out.

[rrmorton]

@CraigM

@JoshL 's comment is pretty mild really. Hardly a pointed comment directed at a community member.

I realize it was mild. I realize it was not directed at any one individual. It did seem aimed at folks around here who may have discussed the issue. I stand by the general sentiment I was trying to express which is that we should avoid saying ‘I told you so’ any time we feel the urge. Tact and diplomacy seem to be in short supply and I am a staunch advocate! :)

[Timex]

Saying “I told you so” in this case is kind of misplaced, because it suggests that there’s some alternate path that would have been better. There isn’t.

The idea that the progressives were going to be able to bully anyone into anything was just stupid from the get go. They weren’t holding any cards. They were bargaining with the threat of fucking themselves over. It was a bad play. It was never good.

Let’s imagine that they continued to refuse to support the infrastructure bill (a bill containing pretty much only things they want).

Ok… So how does that play out? Who gets hurt in that situation?

Manchin? Sinema? Nope. Those guys are dealing with conservative and moderate constituents. They wouldn’t have lost their seat if the others scuttled the infrastructure bill. Hell, it might have strengthened their hand.

The main people who would have been hurt by scuttling the infrastructure bill would have been core Democrats who want to run on the infrastructure bill’s contents, and the progressives themselves who actually want all the stuff in the infrastructure bill.

The alternative here wasn’t that progressives get everything they want. It’d be that they got nothing. It would have been worse. At least now they’ve got something, and can work on getting more later.

[CraigM]

@scottagibson

Color me skeptical.

Reasonable. I know that current courts would likely not give two shits about prior rulings to do what they want. Hence why the threat of packing.

@scottagibson

They don’t have the votes.

Sure. That is a problem. Hence why I am in the same mindset as @Sharpe . There are things that could resolve the issues we see, but systemic problems prevent those from happening.

Like I said, these are things that should be done, but acknowledge they won’t. But that’s the problem, every single problem we see has a solution, but for reasons, usually bad ones, they can’t or won’t happen.

So we’re fucked.

@scottagibson

It was always smart for the progressives to try to link the two bills and try to force Manchinema to support the one in order to get the other, and people who pretended they didn’t understand that were in fact pretending not to understand it. It didn’t work for progressives because they didn’t have enough numbers to hold the line. They were right to try it, and they were right to support the bipartisan bill and vote for it when their play ran out.

Agreed.

It was the right thing to do. Ultimately supporting the infrastructure bill is a good thing, but the progressives have every right and justification to feel aggrieved by the process.

@rrmorton

I realize it was mild. I realize it was not directed at any one individual. It did seem aimed at folks around here who may have discussed the issue. I stand by the general sentiment I was trying to express which is that we should avoid saying ‘I told you so’ any time we feel the urge. Tact and diplomacy seem to be in short supply and I am a staunch advocate! :)

Just like ‘turn the other cheek’ it is a nice sentiment.

But context is important. And if you aren’t going to point the same directive at those going hard against progressives for advocating their play during negotiations, understand why it got an eye roll. We’re all big boys and girls here. We can disagree, strongly even. And even though I felt @Timex was dead wrong about the negotiation process, and being to reductivist and seeing it in black and white terms, I never took personal issue with it. And I tried to keep things friendly, even in disagreement.

I’m all for keeping things civil. But nothing said was uncivil. It is merely expressed frustration about how previously strongly expressed positions were wrong, and wrong in a way that had been predicted at the time.

[scottagibson]

Is anyone here suggesting that the progressives should have scuttled the bipartisan deal? Anyone? Buehler?

[Alstein]

NO one said it. At most I said threaten and delay it, not scuttle it.

[Siphon9r]

@scottagibson

It was always smart for the progressives to try to link the two bills and try to force Manchinema to support the one in order to get the other, and people who pretended they didn’t understand that were in fact pretending not to understand it. It didn’t work for progressives because they didn’t have enough numbers to hold the line. They were right to try it, and they were right to support the bipartisan bill and vote for it when their play ran out.

I agree with this take. I don’t think that getting the infrastructure bill passed a bit sooner would have made a difference in VA, for example - people voted for other reasons like CRT, the candidates, the schools. Progressives basically had a crappy hand and could only draw an inside straight. I don’t begrudge them hoping to get lucky even if the odds were very against them.

[rrmorton]

@CraigM

But nothing said was uncivil. It is merely expressed frustration about how previously strongly expressed positions were wrong, and wrong in a way that had been predicted at the time.

It’s that frustration and resentment coming through that causes the conflict. I could point out that the anger expressed in Josh’s initial sarcastic remark did in fact lead to some old-wounds snark and even a deleted post… but I don’t want to say I told you so. ;)

(I will also cop to the fact that my first comment on this tangent was sarcastic also.)

[CraigM]

@CraigM

And if you aren’t going to point the same directive at those going hard against progressives for advocating their play during negotiations, understand why it got an eye roll.

Reiterated, and the final comment on the subject I will make as there is no constructive purpose to responding further as I would intend to.

[rrmorton]

Oh, Craig, I can assure you, I would have absolutely said the same comment to anyone dropping that kind of “I told you so” post on any subject. My (perhaps annoying, sorry!) tangent had nothing to do with the debate itself. I’m talking about the nature of online discourse, not allying myself with either side of this complicated, frustrating debate… one which I’m reading through the general lens of “we’re all on the same side.” We all want the same outcome.

Also, just for added detail on me, yesterday I spent five minutes in my writing class discussing how the word “disagree” doesn’t really have any place in the context of supportive, constructive criticism.

[Timex]

@Alstein

NO one said it. At most I said threaten and delay it, not scuttle it.

But this doesn’t even make sense, man.
So you don’t want to scuttle the deal… Ok, so there’s no real threat you are making. You only want to delay it? Why? All the same rationales apply… You are only hurting yourself, and the core Democratic party, rather than Manchin and Sinema.

That’s the thing here, I just don’t see how any of your plans here actually play out in a way that works for you.

Since the only thing you have to negotiate with here, is the threat to delay or destroy stuff you actually want, your entire negotiation is essentially based on the idea that you care about that stuff less than the people you are trying to threaten.

[SadleyBradley]

@Timex

So you don’t want to scuttle the deal… Ok, so there’s no real threat you are making. You only want to delay it? Why? All the same rationales apply… You are only hurting yourself, and the core Democratic party, rather than Manchin and Sinema.

You play to your outs, however slim they might be. If the progressives delay, they can make noise about how Manchin and Sinema are keeping help from coming to the citizens at a time when they really need it and maybe, just maybe, you pressure them into dealing. Slim odds, yeah, but that’s your play when you don’t have the numbers to brute force it.

There’s basically no downside to the progressives delaying, either. They were always going to pass what got put in front of them.