[JBW]

What is telling is that the "no midstream rules change" argument is both new, slightly disingenuous, and gaining steam among the far left bloggers.

[Archidamus]

"you can't change the rules in mid-stream."

You want to bet? Just watch us. Let's git-r-done! Then we can listen to the libs tell us why it was a mistake to change the rules, but we will have clear sailing to put conservative judges on the appellate courts and the supreme court.

[Lord Basil]

Then tell them that the Senate rules are living and breathing--living Senate rules. They should understand that, right?

[John Valentine]

....slightly disingenuous...?

I'd say this specious argument is entirely disingenuous.

First of all the Senate rules are changed all the time, and every time a rule is changed it's "midstream".

Second, this isn't a rule change. It's an interpretation of existing rules.

Third, this is the Senate, not the NBA or a chess championship.

Fourth, comity or "fairness" is a concept Democrats invoke only when it is to their own benefit- at all other times they don't have the slightest grasp of the concept.