- No Term Limits: The parliamentarian does not serve a fixed term. They typically hold the position until they choose to resign, retire, or are dismissed.
- Apolitical Retention: Even though the position is appointed by the Senate majority leader (via the Senate secretary), the parliamentarian is a nonpartisan referee. Historically, they are regularly kept in their roles regardless of which political party wins the Senate majority.
- Dismissal is Rare: A Senate majority leader has the outright authority to fire the parliamentarian, but this has happened only once in modern history. In 2001, Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott dismissed Robert Dove after a dispute regarding budget reconciliation rules.
- Long Lifespans in Office: Because changes are rare, individuals usually serve for decades. For example, the first official parliamentarian, Charles Watkins, served from 1935 to 1964. The current parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has held the position since 2012, safely maintaining her role despite shifts in party control and calls for her removal.
Hootsbuddy's New Place is the successor to Hootsbuddy's Place (2004-2009) Still accessible via Web search.
Thursday, May 21, 2026
How frequently does the Senate parliamentarian get replaced?
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
America's Best Weapon is the Iranian People
Thinking of the dominant views among American policymakers on Iran, I am reminded of the great Persian poet Jalaledin Rumi's story about a group of people trying to describe an elephant exhibited in a dark room. One felt the elephant's back and claimed that it resembled a great throne. Another, touching its ear, declared it was in fact a huge fan. A third felt its leg and concluded it must be a large pillar.
The Islamic Republic has been with us for almost three decades, yet still it manages to amaze and confuse the experts. In the 1990s, Mohammed Khatami inspired the majority of Western commentators to believe that Iran was on the verge of upheaval. But, while Khatami may have distinguished himself from his predecessors by ushering in a milder version of the Islamic Republic, he was, and remains, very much a part of that system. Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has persuaded us that the same system is an imminent menace and must, therefore, be overthrown. Yet, while Ahmadinejad may be more repressive and violent than previous presidents, his reactionary tendencies are fundamentally a sign of the Iranian system's weakness--not its strength.
The problem is that Western pundits are only feeling part of the elephant--the political one--and ignoring the most important part: the Iranian people themselves. If you take the long view of Iranian history and focus on the country's people rather than its rulers, a very different picture emerges: that of an Iranian order in crisis.
Evidence for this proposition is everywhere. A cursory look at Iran's publications and blogs shows that, although some Iranians--for a variety of reasons--support their regime's nuclear ambitions, most are far more interested in trying to redress day-to-day problems like corruption, the struggling economy, rising unemployment, political and social repression, and a general lack of freedom. Few are well-informed about the nuclear program, and most are embarrassed and disturbed by the image of their country in the world. Indeed, Iran's new international isolation and pariah status is deeply unpopular at home, and the fact that the government is emptying its coffers to foment revolution abroad rather than to support the welfare of the Iranian people has turned many of Ahmadinejad's supporters against him. Workers' protests have lately escalated in at least ten cities. Angry union leaders have held the president responsible for the weakening of the economy. In the recent city council elections in Tehran, only two of 13 winners were supporters of Ahmadinejad.
Tuesday, May 19, 2026
Nick Kristoff column about Palestinian prisoner torture.
- Object-Assisted Assaults: Graphic firsthand accounts of detainees being beaten on their genitals or raped with metal and rubber batons.
- Weaponized Guard Dogs: Extreme claims from a Gaza journalist alleging that handlers encouraged military dogs to sexually abuse and penetrate him while prison staff filmed and laughed.
- A Culture of Silence: Kristof heavily criticizes the international community's moral silence regarding Palestinian abuse compared to the swift, rightful global condemnation of Hamas's weaponization of sexual violence on October 7, 2023.
- Defamation Threat: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar officially ordered legal advisers to prepare a defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. Sa'ar called the article "one of the most hideous and distorted lies ever published against the State of Israel".
- Source Credibility Critiques: Pro-Israel media watchdogs, such as HonestReporting, publicly challenged Kristof's sourcing. They alleged that key elements of the piece relied on highly biased individuals and organizations with undisclosed ties to Hamas networks, specifically calling out the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor. Critics also argued that the highly publicized "dog rape" claim is biologically impossible and functions as salacious war propaganda.
- Public Demonstrations: Scores of Jewish and pro-Israel protesters gathered outside The New York Times headquarters in Manhattan demanding that Kristof be fired.