CNSNews has a story about three Democratic senators who have recently changed their tunes on filibustering.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) on Wednesday planned to express support for the judicial filibusters taking place right now. But in the past, each man has expressed a different view on the topic of filibusters and judicial nominees. ...And Sen. Joseph Lieberman - speaking in January 1995, when Republicans were the majority party in the Senate - stood up for the "rights of the majority."
Lieberman called it unfair for Democrats to use the filibuster to "confuse and frustrate the will of the majority."
In January 1995, he and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) introduced a measure that would have eliminated filibusters designed to kill legislation or nominations that had majority support.
I don't have a problem with people changing their minds, but I really wish these senators would explicitly acknowledge their old positions and explain how and why they've changed. It's annoying to me that politicians in general think the public has no memory of the past, but now with the internet and blogs it'll eventually get harder to assume we've forgotten everything that's come before.
Not related... but I have to ask...
MW, why have I not seen anything about this on your site?
Mark: Because it's a non-issue. Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has much more publically and much more explicitly vowed to use Schiavo as a political pawn.
That part of the story is not my primary area of concern.
I was more interested in hearing your thoughts on how many conservative talking heads denounced the memo as a Democrat scheme... only to have to eat crow shortly thereafter.