One thing Dems can do now - fire the Parliamentarian.

[TomDaisy]

This is a perfect example of Dems "playing by the rules" - even little nitty rules - and losing.

FIRE THE PARLIAMENTARIAN --- as the GOP did when they got an adverse ruling.

FFS!!! Paul Ryan fired the Congressional CHAPLAIN when he dared to speak about social justice! And they didn't give an F. NO ONE DID.

Forest for the trees!

[AZSkiffyGeek]

1. How will that get Manchin and Sinema to vote yes?

[TomDaisy]

3. it's optics and optics are important

[brooklynite]

22. What are the optics of firing an official the average voter knows nothing about?

[qazplm135]

16. It won't by itself

but it would remove cover.

If the next parliamentarian says, sure, you can add in immigration reform, then Manchin and Sinema at least have to vote yes or no on the substance and not on, well the parliamentarian said we can't do it.

[WA-03 Democrat]

2. Yes!

[Celerity]

4. Manchin will likely bolt the party, perhaps Sinema too, if we do that.

They have us trapped in a 2 person pincer movement of forced blockage of anything they think is 'too partisan' and/or their sponsors do not approve of.

King Coal and Queen Curtsy atm.

[themaguffin]

7. and be nobodies in the GOP who will salivate to primary them?

[Celerity]

12. they could go full indy and play the 2 parties against each other, perhaps get Murkowski and

Concern Collins to join them in a Diocletian-style 'Tetrarchy of The Senate'


'rule of four'

Tetrarchy

[themaguffin]

18. Highly doubtful. Their act requires a party

[Celerity]

21. If they pulled that off, they would have a form of de facto control of both.

[themaguffin]

23. They wouldn't pull it off.

[Amishman]

13. as I said in the other thread, they'd have 'owned the libs' and be forgiven

Get Trump to do a little press event and photo op, and they'll never pay for drinks again.

WV governor Justice flipped D to R, won his primary, and won re-election last year.

[themaguffin]

19. Nope. It's a party of grifters. Others will 100% primary them as purists and Manchin as

opportunist or countless other things.

Most importantly hang Manchin's votes against Trump around his neck.

[Hortensis]

5. That'd be "playing by the rules" as McConnell defines it.

Despicable and not going to happen. WE ARE NOT THEM.

We do have the right under the rules to accept and then put aside the parliamentarian's ruling, but that just isn't done when the rulings are valid and impartial -- as they have been.

Acting like McConnell would, big surprise, throw open the door to McConnell to do the same thing, accelerating the Republicans' destruction of the senate as an institution, and entirely possibly being used in their coup d'etat.

[Sugarcoated]

17. Doesn't matter if we do or don't do

McConnell will do despicable things to anyway.

[Hortensis]

26. The second part is correct, anyway. I missed pointing out

the obvious, that we could simply decide to not follow the parliamentarian's ruling, but that we would need to do it properly and honorably, giving clear, honest reasons, and of course expressing our genuine respect for the parliamentarian and the process.

With eyes wide open to the inevitable costs. You could as correctly have also said that what McConnell would do with this new license would be as devastating and destructive as anything he's done so far. He wouldn't fail expectations.

[awesomerwb1]

6. LOL Edit (the Chaplain part was funny)

Not laughing at you. The odds of that happening are less than the odds of me winning the lottery.

Dems acting tough and getting shit done? Hold my breath I shall not. I remember reading about how the qpublicans fired the Parliamentarian not too long ago. And I remember how they fired the Chaplain.

I feel like Dem leadership is like the kid who gets bullied at school everyday and he just lets them. He just lets them.

[HUAJIAO]

9. Yeah, it's a shame. It may well allow democracy to be destroyed here.

[Grasswire2]

14. okay

A major reason for this is something we likely cannot talk about here (DU rules)

I'll say it this way. Too many in Congressional leadership have been there during the heyday of COMITY and BIPARTISANSHIP and GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENTS. They are totally comfortable with traditions and expectations.

Meanwhile, those on the other side are knowingly, wittingly, aiding an authoritarian overthrow of the government and will do anything to gain all power and keep it forever.

Some Dems need to step aside and let others with fire and strength fight this. Look at those members who have to take a back seat. So much talent there.

[onenote]

8. You acknowledge that won't change anything

So how does doing something that fails to change anything get perceived as a "winning" move? (Answer: it doesn't).

[NewDayOranges]

10. THIS! So much THIS!

Fire the Parliamentarian and replace him/her with someone who will advocate for SEVERAL recon bills!

The republicans would have replaced this person months ago and gotten their evil $hit done already!

[TomDaisy]

11. exactly --- AND optics matter

[Grasswire2]

15. OPTICS MATTER.

And it is messaging that carries the day and wins.

Message crafting and message discipline.

Talking points, shared every day. Republicans have done this since the Bush years.

[tritsofme]

20. Fire the parliamentarian for doing her job? Brilliant idea!

A new parliamentarian would rule the same way, because she just interprets the rules, it’s up to senators to change them if they don’t like them.

Not to force the parliamentarian to lie and do bad work.

[awesomerwb1]

24. Fine. Just ignore her

Parliamentarians can be ignored as has been done in the past.

[tritsofme]

28. If we had the votes, that would be an option.

Many senators consider this to be the equivalent of the nuclear option.

[madville]

25. Sounds like something the previous guy would do

Fire people until he gets to someone who will break the rules/laws.

[SCantiGOP]

27. That's like trying to fire the umpire in the 9th inning

I haven’t seen anything out of line from the Parliamentarian this term.
The position is supposed to be an objective, fact-based person who enforces the rules regardless of which party is in charge.

[NurseJackie]

29. Yes. Let's cheat!

I wonder how long it would take before the whole thing is before the Supreme Court on a procedural technicality (rather than having it challenged in bits and pieces).