http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dole.html?oref=login

However, this is not the case. To wit, I’ve substituted Democrat for Republican, Times for Fox News and a couple of other switches to include swapping the paragraphs and look what I came up with below. Just in case anyone misses the impact, I’ve bolded the changed text. This is nothing but a pure political flip-flop.
=======================
A January 1, 1995, Fox News editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
The Democrats are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Republicans’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Clinton administration likes to call itself “progressive,” but there is nothing progressive about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.

A March 6, 2005, Fox News editorial on the same subject:
In the last session of Congress, the Democrat minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Bill Frist, a Republican from Tennesee, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

Obligatory New York Times Hypocrisy Item

A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:

In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:

The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House’s judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats’ weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/347aspyj.asp?pg=2

Sorry La Shawn. It was for emphasis because SS man (Darkstar) claimed only 2 blocked. Or at least he pointed out the Democrats “claim” of only 2 blocked.

In comment #41 I wrote:

If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?

Sigh…

My first comment was #6 in which I wrote:

Where were all of the people now complaining about “advise and consent” when the Republicans wouldn’t even give Clinton nominees a hearing in committee?

In comment #31, I responded to someone who mentioned that Republicans never fillibustered Clinton’s nominees by writing:

They just never brought up the judges for a hearing and vote IN COMMITTEE.

In #32, you said I was untruthful. I then provided support for what I wrote. I then provided the number of Clinton nominees who didn’t get a hearing. I was responding to you.

Do you have anymore argument left?

Yep, again:

For those who say this is a constitutional issue, where are committees and subcommittees spelled out in the Constitution?

For those who say that appointees deserve an up or down vote, what did they say when those 60 Clinton appointees never got a judicial hearing to get voted out of committee?

I know of more than 2 nominees who have been waiting for more than 4 years for a vote due to the threat of filibuster.

This is what I wrote in #47:

If you are going to mention numbers, then why the fuss over 10 blocked, while 124 have been passed?

I think that’s self evident.

Can’t name anyone in the last decade who employed SS

I mentioned Ellen Sauerbry. You are not being truthful.

Again with the smear….

thats all in your head. What i’ve said about bolton and WMD’s is that i’ve heard he mishandled intelligence.

I’ve told you that i’m not holding him up to the standard that he needs to be right. Can you imagine if we used that as a test for competence? the havoc!