MANCHIN: Breaking the rules. There’s no checks and balances in this process only for — the thing we have is the filibuster. And they think if you have a situation we have right now where we have the executive branch of government and you have Congress — the House, and the Senate — all the same, and there’s no check and balance because basically just sweep right through.
And the same thing could happen if Republicans had everything. And I just — the only thing I’ve ever said was this: The majority of my — of my colleagues in the caucus, Democratic caucus, they’ve changed. They’ve changed their mind. I respect that. You have a right to change your mind. I haven’t. I hope they respect that too. I’ve never changed my mind on the filibuster.
BUCK: I’ve got news for Manchin. I think he already knows it, though. Welcome back to the Clay and Buck show. They do not respect his position on this, and they do not care that they are the ones that the Democrats — other than Sinema and Manchin — are the ones who are engaged in what you could delicately call “situational ethics.” I talked about this a little bit on the Buck Sexton podcast this morning.
You should all check out the Buck Sexton Show podcast, available wherever you listen to podcasts. It’s in advance of the radio show, which you should also be listening to hopefully every day. I was listening to this and I’m saying to myself, “This is all so clear. We have the audio of what they used to say. How shameless can these Democrats really be?” The filibuster rules aren’t just in place and something they’ve rhetorically supported in the past.
That’s true, but they have used them — ruthlessly, even — to shut down Republicans in the majority who don’t have the 60-vote threshold. The original break in the filibuster of the nuclear option — so-called nuclear option — for judges, that was a Harry Reid maneuver. So it was Democrats who cracked away the first time, and they didn’t want it for Supreme Court justices, and then Mitch McConnell said, “Not so fast. You’re not gonna play that game.”
So, okay. So now it’s for all judges, right? And now they want to make it just for this one piece of legislation. Does anyone actually think if Democrats had gotten their way on this, they’d say, “It was just the one time, just this once?” Of course not. It’s laughable, right? This is intellectually flimsy stuff that they’re putting forward. Chuck Schumer is so shameless. He is so shameless that it is almost impressive.
And then again, so is Amy Klobuchar when she’s not eating her salad with a comb or throwing objects at staff members. Remember when that came out when she was running in the primary? You’re eating a salad with a comb? Was it a comb you would use? I don’t know. I would probably just use my hands. Here’s Amy Klobuchar who said there’s no mention of it in the Constitution, so what’s even the filibuster all about or something. Play 6.
KLOBUCHAR: I don’t think anyone in our states wants us to come here and hug an archaic tradition and then simply stop votes, stop debates — hug that tradition tight — and then throw voters under the desk and go home and raise money. What our Founding Fathers wanted when it became clear that this country was forming, they wanted to have a Senate that worked. And when you go back and look, there’s no mention of a filibuster in the Constitution! There’s no mention of 60 votes. There’s no mention of cloture. Rules developed over time.
BUCK: Oh, okay. So now if it’s not in the Constitution, it doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter? Is that essentially what the pitch is? Keep in mind, you could go back and listen to Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Schumer and others just a few years ago when they were in the minority going, “Oh, my gosh! If you get rid of the filibuster, it’s the tyranny of the majority!” (laughing) These people are so shameless.
But their base wants to see that, you have to remember. The Democrat mind-set is not one of… These people are commies at heart. They don’t actually want what’s fair. They don’t want principle. They want power. They want their way. It’s as though you have tyrant children in the government who are making demands and they’re screaming and pouting and kicking and they want their way, and all the rules that would stop them from doing that are bad.
And it doesn’t matter if they said yesterday, they were good. Now they’re bad because it stands in the way of the primary goal. The acquisition and utilization of power. If the Democrat Party could have one thing on the letterhead, one thing on the business card, it’s, “We acquire and wield power, and we do so pretty ruthlessly,” and they’re good at it.
They’re better at it in terms of staying together and united as a party, generally speaking, than Republicans are. But on this one Sinema wants to keep her seat, Manchin wants to keep his seat. And I think at some level, too, they realize that Democrats are a little bit like the guy in the bar here who, once the fight is over, are happy to yell, “Hold me back! Hold me back!”
Do they really want to crush the filibuster? Did all these Democrats really want to crush the filibuster? I saw Mark Kelly of Arizona. He was down. He voted in favor. Do they really want to do this, though? Hmm. Be careful what you wish for, Democrats, right? I think Sinema and Manchin may have actually bailed out the Democrat Party in some ways because people might recognize, “Hold on a second. There’s so much fraudulence at the heart of Democrat leadership, how could we trust them on anything? (laughing) If they’ll lie so shamelessly even about the structure and operations of our government, what else are they lying about?” I wish people would think that way.