Three From Powerline on Filibusters

Yes, this is a linky kind of day. Still getting the show together. Hope everyone understands.

The Powerline's Scott Johnson writes in The Daily Standard about the Minneanapolis Star-Tribune's unexplained flip-flopping on filibusters. Great headline-- "They Were Against It, Before They Were For It."

Lot of that going around these days.

Sample:

When we noted the Star Tribune's "that was then, this is now" approach to editorial judgment on Power Line, Jim Boyd--the deputy editor of the Star Tribune editorial page--irately denied any contradiction. Two days later, however, he wrote us: "I think you actually have caught us in a contradiction. We can change our mind . . . but in this case, we really didn't. We simply missed the precedent and, like a court, if we make such a shift, we owe readers an explanation for why we did it."

We're still waiting; the Star Tribune has yet to publish the explanation it acknowledges its readers are owed. But it has published another column condemning Republican efforts to roll back the filibuster in connection with judicial nominations. Last week the Star Tribune scraped bottom in a purported bipartisan column under the joint byline of Republican former Senator David Durenberger and Democratic party elder statesman Walter Mondale: "Preserve Senate rules, filibuster and all." (For present purposes, I'll ignore Durenberger except to say that when last seen in the Star Tribune, he endorsed John Kerry for president; that's bipartisanship a la the Star Tribune.)

Then they catch David Broder (David Broder!) making sense on filibusters-- he thinks the Democrats should accept Frist's compromise.

Not really a shock, but the Washington Post's editorial page is disingenuous and selectively misleading on this issue. I like their idea of a "compromise," too:

The Post waits until the end of the editorial to unveil its solution. If the rules are to be reformed, the reform shouldn't become effective until January 2009. This way, the Democrats will have a chance to regain power before a new Supreme Court Justice is confirmed (unless Bush nominates someone the Democrats like). And this way, the minority party similarly will have the power to veto President Bush's appellate nominees for essentially his entire second term. The Post can't be serious.

We may be The Stupid Party, but we're not The Sub-Moron Party, guys.

Even "Beth" from Riding the Bus With My Sister could see through that ruse.