3 ms·
"Firing the Senate parliamentarian when he blocked the Senate from advancing Bush tax cuts" Not a great example. Democrats and Republicans have both switched u
by jibe 4y ago
"Firing the Senate parliamentarian when he blocked the Senate from advancing Bush tax cuts"
Not a great example. Democrats and Republicans have both switched up the parliamentarian when they've taken control of the Senate.
Democrats fired Alan Frumin in 1987 when they won a majority and appointed Robert Dove.
In 2001 (your example), four years after winning the majority back, Republicans fired Dove and reappointed Alan Frumin. Frumin went on to be a key figure in helping Obama with passage of elements of the ACA, so not exactly a hardcore partisan.
The parliamentarian has hardly been a nexus of cutthroat politics, just the normal ebb and flow of power and control in the Senate.
- jmyeet 4y agoTo be clear, my argument isn't firing him was right or wrong. My argument was that Republicans are willing to bend, change or just completely ignore rules when it suits them. Republicans talk about institutions when it suits them and don't when it doesn't. Democrats largely are LARPing in a world that doesn't exist of civilized debate. My argument more simply is that Democrats should be more like Republicans. Not in policy issues but in terms of effectiveness: whipping votes, advancing an agenda and punishing dissent.
- acheron 4y agoIf you talk to a Republican supporter they will say the same thing about their side, that the useless Republican politicians in Congress won’t stand up to the Democrats and actually accomplish anything, and the Democrats are full of dirty tricks that the Republicans just roll over for, and so on. For both parties it’s partially right and partially wrong, but what it’s not is anything unique or inherent to one side.