People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

I Knew This Was Coming

When I read on the New York Times editorial page the other day a call for the end of the filibuster of judges and "high-ranking executive branch officials," I knew someone was going to go back and check on the paper's consistency on the issue.  And they did.  And just as I suspected, the really expansive-thinking editorialists there are about as serious in their convictions as I'd imagined.

Turns out, according to the incomparable James Taranto, not only did the Times change its position to fit Obama's needs, it was actually against the filibuster before it was for it before it was against it.  Turns out?
Yet amid its zigging and zagging, the Times has been consistent, in that its view on the filibuster has always been in line with the immediate interests of the Democratic Party.
The New York Times is against the filibuster if a Democrat is being stymied but in favor of it if a Republican's (nefarious!) intentions are blocked.

Now that's conviction!