Joe Manchin Shoots Another Bill in New Campaign Ad

Joe Manchin West Virginia Shoots Bill Shotgun

courtesy youtube.com

You remember Joe Manchin. He’s the West Virginia Senator who became famous for demonstrating his pro-gun cred back in 2010 by running a campaign spot in which he shot a hole in a cap-and-trade bill that threatened his state’s coal industry.

Ol’ Tailgunner Joe made sure to superimpose an NRA insignia on that video to let all the Mountain State deplorables know their guns would be safe with him.

That all promptly went out the window, though, after Newtown. That’s when good ol’ Joe teamed up with Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey to push a background check bill that would have done precisely nothing to stop the Sandy Hook shooter. Or virtually any mass shooter in the history of mass shootings.

The good news for gun owners was the President Obama appointed Slow Joe Biden to champion the post-Newtown gun control effort. Manchin-Toomey promptly went down to defeat.

But now Manchin’s running for re-election in a state that voted for President Trump by over 40 points. So heeeeeere’s Joe, back again with another campaign commercial and he’s shooting up another proposed piece of legislation, this time with a shotgun.

Manchin’s opponent is West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and according to Real Clear Politics, Joe’s leading the Republican challenger by over eight percentage points in an average of the most recent polls.

Why should an old dog learn a new trick if the old ones seem to be working?

comments

  1. avatar Evey259 says:

    We really need to let certain industries die. Coal is clearly among them. The absolute pandering GOP politicians have been doing in coal country flies in the face of a free market economy. I suppose his pro-2A stance is somewhat better than the alternative.

    1. avatar John Boch says:

      Thanks for your opinion.

    2. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Pandering is one thing, handing out taxpayer-funded subsidies is something totally different. If it weren’t for subsidies, ethanol, wind energy, and solar would have died long ago.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        No they wouldn’t. Solar is still in development as a technology. But it’s getting better every year. Within ten years, it should be comparable to coal and oil.
        In a capitalist economy, industries don’t need to make a profit on solar this year for them to continue investing in it as a potential future source of profit. If they did, there would never be any innovation. In a socialist economy, there would be less (if any) innovation.

        1. avatar Felix says:

          Funny how solar and wind still need government subsidies to even get built, and how coal needs to be banned by governments to die off.

          How many eco freaks have ever wondered how renewables could provide 100% of electric power? Where does power come from when there’s no (or too much) wind, or when the sun don’t shine? Answer: fossil fuel or nuclear power. Can’t be batteries cause there ain’t enough rare-earth material to make all the batteries needed, and their manufacture would sure as heck pollute more than coal.

        2. avatar Dev says:

          Dude, solar power has been “in development” for something like 40 years now. The subsidies are slowing it down if anything. Why complete a project if you’re getting paid and no need to show results? Same thing with Tesla. They get government subsidies and other car makers are starting to leapfrog development.

        3. avatar Patrick Hall says:

          The petroleum industry gets a trillion dollar subsidy every time we have another war in the Middle East.

          I wonder how many carbon freaks are aware of that?

        4. avatar JasonM says:

          Funny how solar and wind still need government subsidies to even get built, and how coal needs to be banned by governments to die off.
          Solar doesn’t “need” government subsidies. It’s not profitable yet, but all new technology is unprofitable at first.

          How many eco freaks have ever wondered how renewables could provide 100% of electric power?
          Is somebody who wants cheaper electricity that doesn’t make the US look like Beijing an “eco freak”?

          Where does power come from when there’s no (or too much) wind, or when the sun don’t shine?
          I don’t live next to a dam, nuclear plant, coal plant, or other power plant, but I still get electricity. Have you heard of power lines?

          Answer: fossil fuel or nuclear power.
          Nuclear power is also good, but it’s still more expensive than fossil fuels, and is unlikely to drop in price like solar can.

          Dude, solar power has been “in development” for something like 40 years now.
          Getting solar cost effective requires advanced technology that didn’t exist 40 years ago. Dr. Porsche designed the first gas electric hybrid car more than a century ago, but the technology at the time couldn’t make it cost effective. Today, gas electric hybrids are leading both in the efficiency car segment and the hyper performance segment.

          The subsidies are slowing it down if anything. Why complete a project if you’re getting paid and no need to show results?
          I didn’t say I supported subsidies, or that they’re a good idea. I think they’re a waste of money. If an idea is good, the private firms will invest in it.

          Same thing with Tesla. They get government subsidies and other car makers are starting to leapfrog development.
          The first company to market with an innovative idea doesn’t always maintain dominance. Look at TiVo or the first few smart phone companies for examples.

        5. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Patrick Hall, you have no idea what you are talking about. Before you start bleating like a lamb about “No blood for oil!” why don’t you spend a few minutes educating yourself about hydrocarbons, the Middle East, and refining. If the U.S. wanted to go to war for oil, we would have invaded Canada and Venezuela long ago.

        6. avatar Matt says:

          Felix, installed wind capacity is price competitive to natural gas even taking in to account capacity factor. That is in most of the Midwest and Texas. Even outside of that it is darned close. It has the perk you can slap in a $10 mill turbine to add half a dozen megawatts of grid power rather than needing to come up with CAPEX of a few hundred million and a lot of NIMB to put in a whole natural gas power plant.

          So price competitive with the cheapest power source. The thing that has been driving coal in to extinction (and not regulation).

          That is WITHOUT subsidies. Besides, coal and oil fuels and industries have been getting subsides for decades. Why shouldn’t solar and wind? At least those don’t create acid rain, global warming, air pollution, etc.

        7. avatar Noamsaying says:

          Do you realize that the wind only blows about 30% of the time and the sunlight is available less than 50% of the time? The dirty little secret about solar and wind is that utility plants powered by coal, natural gas or nuclear have to always be running in the background when these stupi green alternatives are used.

        8. obama’s pet pocket money scam that we’re still paying for as he laughs at us. https://freebeacon.com/issues/report-solar-energy-subsidies-cost-39-billion-per-year/

      2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

        I am detecting a lot of “Granola munching and La Croix sipping ” in this part of the comment section…Only Liberals towing the party line would be heavily promoting “alternative energy sources” for replacing fossil fuels…None of which make any sense what so ever when it comes to cars, trucks, or motorcycles…Because no one is going to retrofit a gasoline powered vehicle with a giant battery, a massive wind turbine, or a [email protected]$#ing huge solar panel on them…It makes no sense in mass transit…And Exotic, expensive electric car maker TESLA was to busy in recent years wasting any “Corporate welfare” with THEIR publicity stunt…By launching that [email protected]$!ing foolish Roadster into Orbit !!! Now it’s floating around in geosynchronous low orbit with a crash test dummy sitting in the front seat! No one will be very happy if it survives a reentry, crashing into an Arbys or a Burger King 🍔🚀🚀🚀🚗🚗🚗🚘🚓⚠🌠🌠🌠✨🌟💢💥💥💥💥💥!!!

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          This is gonna take a bit to unpack, here –

          “And Exotic, expensive electric car maker TESLA was to busy in recent years wasting any “Corporate welfare” with THEIR publicity stunt…By launching that [email protected]$!ing foolish Roadster into Orbit !!!”

          No, Tesla did *not* launch a car into orbit, SpaceX launched the personal car of the CEO with a newly-developed rocket, the triple-core ‘Falcon Heavy’, on it’s maiden flight.

          They did so, because SpaceX offered a *Free* launch to the Air Force for whatever they wanted, as long as it fit in the nose fairing. The Air Force turned down a free launch.

          So, instead of a usual block of concrete as a ‘dummy’ mass, the CEO donated his personal car.

          “Now it’s floating around in geosynchronous low orbit with a crash test dummy sitting in the front seat!”

          Wrong again.

          It is in *solar* orbit, going around the Sun between Mars and the asteroid belt. And it has a standard clothing dummy used to model clothes in stores in the SpaceX-designed space suit strapped in the driver’s seat of the Tesla Roadster.

          Here it is, shortly before the second stage re-firing, sending it on its way to the planet Mars :

        2. avatar JasonM says:

          I am detecting a lot of “Granola munching and La Croix sipping ” in this part of the comment section…
          From the elementary school drop out level of spelling and grammar, I’m assuming you think anyone who wants to avoid the poisonous atmosphere of Beijing and other Chinese cities is a granola muncher.
          (Coincidentally, I did eat a granola bar while writing this response, but I’ve never had La Croix).

          Only Liberals towing the party line would be heavily promoting “alternative energy sources” for replacing fossil fuels…
          Or anyone who wants to breathe clean air (or have children who do).
          …or go hunting and fishing. (Hunters and anglers started the conservation movement in the US, because they were the ones making use of the environment).
          …or end our dependency on the muslim dictatorships in the Mideast. (Some people reading this site probably remember the oil embargo of the ’70s).
          …or just take the wind out of Al Gore and the watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) in the modern environmental movement.
          There are many good reasons for conservatives and libertarians to want to reduce pollution.

          None of which make any sense what so ever when it comes to cars, trucks, or motorcycles…Because no one is going to retrofit a gasoline powered vehicle with a giant battery, a massive wind turbine, or a [email protected]$#ing huge solar panel on them…
          It makes sense to people who understand science and economics. How many cars from the ’70s, ’80s, or even the ’90s are on the road today? If we pivot to electric cars over the next decade, which the industry seems to be doing, gasoline vehicles will become collectors items that people take out for nostalgia drives or to the monthly meeting of the local classic car club.
          Electric motors are superior for trucking, farming, construction, or other heavy vehicle dependent industries. They provide more torque and they provide that torque consistently throughout the engine’s range. The problem has always been powering the electric motors; a problem we might solve soon with higher density battery technology, faster recharging, and more plentiful charging stations.
          The modern diesel electric, like in many trains and ships, burns diesel as necessary to charge a battery, and that battery powers an electric motor that provides all the propulsion. With advances in battery tech, they could skip the diesel and use that space for more battery capacity.

          It makes no sense in mass transit…
          It makes even more sense for mass transit. There have been electric mass transit systems for decades now. Busses and trains follow defined paths. It’s easy to lay electric lines on those paths to power the mass transit. And see above for the argument of superior torque.

          And Exotic, expensive electric car maker TESLA was to busy in recent years wasting any “Corporate welfare” with THEIR publicity stunt…By launching that [email protected]$!ing foolish Roadster into Orbit !!! Now it’s floating around in geosynchronous low orbit with a crash test dummy sitting in the front seat! No one will be very happy if it survives a reentry, crashing into an Arbys or a Burger King
          SpaceX launched that rocket. It was a test of their reusable launch vehicle. They had to test launching a rocket with a payload and deploying that payload. So why not do it with a payload that shows some personality and gets some free publicity for the company?
          There are, and have been, much larger things in orbit (like all those non-reusable rockets). The probability of a piece of Tesla large enough to cause issues surviving reentry and impacting a populated area is so low as to effectively be zero.

        3. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

          “I’m assuming you think anyone who wants to avoid the poisonous atmosphere of Beijing and other Chinese cities is a granola muncher.”
          Are you saying you don’t care about China poisoning their own land, water and atmosphere with cadmium compounds, silicon tetrachloride, hexafluoroethane, lead, cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium diselenide, copper indium gallium diselenide, hexafluoroethane and polyvinyl fluoride as long as they keep producing solar panels for you, or you just don’t care?

        4. avatar Scoutino says:

          “…a problem we might solve soon with higher density battery technology, faster recharging, and more plentiful charging stations.”

          I have been hearing this for last 40 years, so I’m sure it gets solved any minute now. Hell, the Japanese are so sure of these promised higher energy density batteries which will recharge really quickly that they started turning to hydrogen as energy carrier.

    3. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      I have no problem if coal or any other industry goes away, but only when the business/economic climate is the cause, not because someone (especially the government) decided they don’t like it.

      When politicians make decision that effect business the outcome is usually not good for business in general. It usually is good for politicians and possibly specific companies who are willing to line politician pockets.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        Possibly?

        Individuals donate to candidates.

        Businesses, unions, PACs, and other ‘interest groups’ make investments.

    4. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      See USA Today reason for Test flight Falcon. Heavy lift rocket 🚀 launched Tesla Roadster into Space…*(P.S. : Elon Musk smoked 🚬 too much marijuana that day…)*

      https://youtu.be/n-qcarGmb2g

    5. The ONLY real ECO-usable science that came out of this Environmentalism…Was advancements in “LED lighting”. Now we have high powered LED flashlights that fit in your pocket that output 2000 lumens! House bulbs that last for a long time and use very little power 🔋! That’s about the only positive that I’ve seen….No more incandescent bulbs !

      1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        I’ll beg to disagree. I’d say that electronic ignition and the modern automotive ECU system and powertrains were a huge advance arguably that was spurred by CAFE and CARB requirements at some level. I think they would have gotten there eventually although somewhat slower. It made the mid 70s damn miserable for performance that started reappearing in the mid 80s.

        That said as a hot rodder I’d love to see an engine with today’s tech but yesteryears emissions requirements and a car with ~1967 safety regs. I’d think you’d see a first gen Camaro weighing in at 2500lbs or less with 4 digit power that was easier to drive and got better mpg than their “race” versions of 60s engines that made way less power, not to mention better traction, handling and less noise.

    6. Pro 2nd amendment Stance? Have you Been sleeping? I suggest you look into what Manchin and Toomey proposed for gun owners. Not exactly Pro 2nd amendment.

  2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Manchin Toomy bill they both need to be booted from their respective states.

  3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Ethanol additive in gasoline should be optional, then it would go away. Getting tired of having to pay extra for something that ruins gas mileage and then having to buy ethanol shield to protect carburetors from the ethanol. Also, we are still continuing a Jimmy Carter boondoggle by sending coal to natural gas states to run electricity power plants then sending natural gas to coal country. Trains get rich, cost of electricity doubles.

    1. avatar Nickel Plated says:

      Ethanol has it’s uses. Just not in those half-assed 10% blends. I wish the gas stations by me sold e85. I would really get my car moving quick.

      Corn juice has much higher octane rating than typical pump gas. About 105 compared to 93 octane gas which is usually the highest you can reliably find in the us.
      More octane means more compression. More compression means MOAH POWAAAHHH!!

      So sure not really the best choice for Suzy-soccer-mom’s minivan. But if you like to go fast, ethanol is the bee’s knees.

      1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        E85 is the real deal. I saw a guy I know made 690 to the tire on a 2JZ (3.0L) with 55% E, 27 PSI on a 66. Holy smokes man.

  4. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Time for this idiot to become unemployed.

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    Manchin should have flipped to the Republican party. The writing was on the wall.

  6. avatar Dan Fisher says:

    Coal provided the cheapest source of electricity from power plants. In order to foster wind, solar and biofuels, it had to be eliminated………..the EPA was used to destroy this industry by the Obama Administration. The notice of applications for rate increases per KWH to the Public Utilities Commission have come fast and furious in the last few years as the coal fired power plants have closed. Most people haven’t even read the notices. One friend said “it’s only a few cents” but failed to realize the increase was 22%……….and that translates directly to their monthly heating and cooling bills.

    1. avatar Adam says:

      I am all for “rah rah Republicans”, but this is just not true. Solar was steadily starting to kick the ass of coal and it was only through Trump’s tariffs and protectionism against solar panels that are keeping coal in business.

      What do you think is cheaper for business long term? Digging into the ground with a process that gives people black lung or building some panels in an air conditioned factory and letting the sun give us what is essentially free energy. I am no fan of the EPA but this one is a no brainer. Solar is the way of the future and we are idiots for giving coal unfair advantages due to tariffs/tax breaks under Trump. Let the market decide and we’ll get the best cheapest product available.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        You think those chinese factories are air conditioned. The US damages its economy and shuts down whole industries in the name of protecting earth mother.

        While china and india, with over 2 billion people, compared to our 350 million, rape mother earth. And that is just 2 countries. There are many more laughing at protecting the environment.

        It is the height of arrogance to believe that the US can make a difference in global warming or whatever other environmental issues crop up. The only way we can make a real effect is to subjugate the entire globe under one US .gov and enforce regs world wide. And that ain’t happening.

        1. avatar Adam says:

          I’m not saying we will fix the environment on our own. My argument is that long term, solar will be cheaper and that we should let the market decide which is best instead of using the FDA to regulate away coal or using tariffs to price out solar.

          Government is the problem in all facets of this situation and it would be best if we completely remove it from the equation.

  7. avatar Gralnok says:

    Wow, quite a large amount of back and forth about Alternative Energy and not much about the actual article itself. Strange how a topic completely unrelated to the given article can take over people’s attention. =P

    As for my contribution, I’ll just make the rather obvious statement that POTG don’t forget past wrongs and seldom forgive. Politicians should learn this before betraying our trust.

  8. avatar Big E says:

    “Joe’s leading the Republican challenger by over eight percentage points in an average of the most recent polls.” That is incredibly disappointing. Do better W. Virginia, sheesh.

  9. avatar Jon Q. Public says:

    An one else notice every time a Democrat uses a firearm as a prop to show their support for second amendment they always use a shotgun in a recreational or hunting setting?

    The right to keep and bear arms is about arms suitable for self defense, hunting and sport shooting are positive by products of individual right to posses and carry arms they are not the core of the right.

    The imagery is very telling of their view of our god given right.

    1. avatar BR says:

      Agreed. Until i see a candidate shooting SBRed belt fed bump stocked AR15s, Glocks in pistol braced chassis, and drum fed Saiga 12s at steel silhouette targets with gun control bill names on them i dont believe any “Pro-Gun” candidate.

  10. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    He’s pandering to the W Virginians by pretending to be one of them, but he’s still a D and will vote in lockstep with all of the other D’s when push comes to shove. For that reason only he should be rejected by the voters of that state. Who’s doing the most to get normal blue collar folks industries back up & running? Hint, it is not and never will be anyone affiliated with the D party.

  11. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    Coal today isn’t your great grandfathers coal. Gone are the days of acid rain. With the required scrubbers that are on all coal fired energy plants they’re just as clean as any other VIABLE energy sources. You see the key word in the last sentence? The word VIABLE? Which means possible in most cases. Solar, wind, and the whole gambit of other new age energy sources are not now or in the near future VIABLE. Just like electric isn’t a VIABLE source of energy for an Auto. Solar, which state do you want to live in constant shade to replace the current national needs this country needs every day? How about mount solar panels over the whole state of a state the size of Texas? That’s how many solar panels you’d need to replace Coal, NG, and Nuclear. As far as Senator Manchin goes, It’s kind of refreshing in my opinion to see a Senator vote for things by his and those he represents instead of some mandated bullshit that his political party dictates. Sure he isn’t perfect, but which of those criminals in DC are. Everyone is on the take to the highest bidder. COAL and fossil fuel are here to stay for long into the future because simply it works. When alternative energy becomes VIABLE and most importantly cost effective then it will replace King Coal and Natural gas. Not one millisecond sooner.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email