The midterm elections may still be well over a year away, but MSNBC Live host Hallie Jackson is already inviting far-left Senate candidates on to her show to advocate for eliminating the filibuster in order to pursue progressive priorities. On Monday, Jackson welcomed Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman who is aiming to replace retiring Republican Pat Toomey in the Senate.
Pushing a 2022 run, Jackson offered that the filibuster prohibits Democrats from enacting their agenda and wondered whether Fetterman would support its repeal, "Let me start to get things through there is a discussion among some Democratic senators that you need to basically end the filibuster, which is sort of the long way of saying that 60 vote threshold to get things done. There's not unanimous agreement in your party in the Senate on what should happen. Do you agree? Would you support ending the filibuster if you are in the Senate?"
Fetterman said that he would and that if you disagree with him you're anti-truth and anti-democracy:
Yes, I would. And here is why, because these are some fundamental changes that are truths. Like if you don't support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour I want you to live and work for $7.25 an hour and show me how you can get by and feed your family quite frankly. In order to get those kind of important things passed, whether it's climate change or things like that, you need to get rid of the filibuster. This idea that some random senator from a state with 600,000 people can hold up the democratic will and the sense of urgency that these policies are coming from, I don't think that's very democratic at its core.
Later in the interview, Jackson would ask Fetterman if he, who is a supporter of Bernie Sanders, is too progressive to win, but she declined to point out the irony that Sanders is from a state with roughly 600,000 people who constantly threatens to filibuster various bills. Nor did she ask why the filibustering senator's state population even matters.
Instead, Jackson followed up by simply asking, "Would you vote as it stands right now in support of President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan?"
Fetterman affirmed his support for the plan, but lamented "that the $15 an hour minimum wage isn't part of that, which I think it absolutely must." He also regarded no raising the minimum wage as "immoral. It's outrageous" and curiously as "a mathematical impossibility."
Jackson did not call out or question this rhetoric and instead just moved on to other issues.
This segment was sponsored by T-Mobile.
Here is a transcript for the February 8 show:
MSNBC
MSNBC Live with Hallie Jackson10:47 AM ET
HALLIE JACKSON: So let me ask you about some of those issues because some of those will be things that of course a Senate will have to be thinking about in two and a half years from now, two years from now. Let me start to get things through there is a discussion among some Democratic senators that you need to basically end the filibuster, which is sort of the long way of saying that 60 vote threshold to get things done. There's not unanimous agreement in your party in the Senate on what should happen. Do you agree? Would you support ending the filibuster if you are in the Senate?
JOHN FETTERMAN: Yes, I would. And here is why, because these are some fundamental changes that are truths. Like if you don't support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour I want you to live and work for $7.25 an hour and show me how you can get by and feed your family quite frankly. In order to get those kind of important things passed, whether it's climate change or things like that, you need to get rid of the filibuster. This idea that some random senator from a state with 600,000 people can hold up the democratic will and the sense of urgency that these policies are coming from, I don't think that's very democratic at its core.
JACKSON: Would you vote as it stands right now in support of President Biden's $1.9 trillion COVID relief plan?
FETTERMAN: I would, but I was also deeply disappointed that it appears that the $15 an hour minimum wage isn't part of that, which I think it absolutely must. To me that's absolutely critical. I mean, you can send checks and we should because people are hurting, but what would that mean to millions of low-wage workers across Pennsylvania and the United States to say, hey, we've got a check for you now, but we have a giant pay raise for many of you in the pipeline because you deserve it. You know, we have a body of individuals making $175,000 a year saying thumbs down on raising the wage from $7.25 an hour. It's immoral. It's outrageous. And it's also a mathematical impossibility. We must raise the wage to $15 an hour and if that costs me votes, hey, so be it. But I'm always going to tell the truth because it's a mathematical certainty.
