Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
einbert had the same take but I think it's not quite correct. The Senate rules are obviously esoteric and largely a bunch of mumbo jumbo customs anyway so there's no reason to be too precious about them. But the Ex Officio members (which is what McCain, Reed are) -- they are allowed to do anything on the committee except vote, and "interrupting each other" isn't really a documented privilege for either full members or Ex Officio members.
Basically, it's one of the classic over-fitting/under-fitting scenarios. Ex Officio members can be whiny and bicker with the full members in committee hearings but it's not really clear trying to man-hush the black lady is a documented franchise enjoyed by anyone and it's a dick move in any context. We'd all still be complaining if it was Rubio or Cotton so I don't see what McCain's member status really matters.
Lawrence o donnell pointed out the guest thing but im sure there are two sides of it like you point out, i cant tell.
Regarding your last sentence on membership, it matters for the same reason that it matters in every social context you can think off. Your membership staus of any group decides what is concidered acceptable and what is not acceptable behaviour. Its about knowing your place in the world. An example would be an intern getting into arguments with the boss about the direction for the company or the new kid at the block that urges to be the captain of the football team. These are people we dont like.
A person like Rubio interrupting would be rude, but at least hes not an outsider. So we would dislike rubio but we would really dislike mccain. Thats why the difference here is subtle but vital.