In the outrage du jour you've got the Harry Reid racist comments thing.
If, 8 years ago, a Republican Senator had said something similar, I bet Democrats would have demagogued it for all it's worth. Oh, wait, that's exactly what happened in 2002. Compare and contrast:
The Republican Party itself has to drive out Trent Lott. If they have to stand for something, they have to stand up and say this is not the person we want representing our party.
This is a good man who has always been on the right side of history.
And if I can invoke the suddenly forgotten Trent Lott a second time, let's recall the phrase he introduced in 2005: "Nuclear Option".
Back in 2005, those days of yesteryear which liberals have somehow forgotten, 1 in 5 of Bush's Appellate Court nominees were being filibustered. The Republicans had a majority of votes in the Senate but not the 60 needed to end debate on these nominees. The "Nuclear Option" would have changed the Senate rules so only a majority would be required to end debate.
Fast forward to 2010 and now those 2005-obstructionist-liberals are all howling about how awful the filibuster is.
Two weeks ago blogger Uncle Jimbo did a solid fisking of most of these liberal commentators. And after reading his piece, I thought liberals would get their heads back on straight, but apparently not. Today I stumbled upon a New York Times op-ed by Thomas Geoghegan, "Mr. Smith Rewrites the Constitution."
I didn't know much about Thomas Geoghegan prior to reading his op-ed. Googling him reveals him to be a lawyer, author, and failed political candidate.
Allow me to add an item to that bio: Moron.
I'm not wild about name calling, but it gets the point across. Here's why: Only a moron makes vast claims about something being unconstitutional without having an inkling of understanding of the Constitution.
Had Geoghegan ever read the Constitution, he would have read Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
That's as clear cut as it gets. If the Senate wants to have "Rules of its Proceedings" that dictate debate can only be cut off with a 60 (or 80! or 100!) vote super-majority, the Constitution gives that authority to the Senate. Period.
Here's the bottom line. Some of us remember 2001-2009. It really did happen. And the disconnect between then and now shows clearly that The Left doesn't care about racist remarks, they just demagogue them for political gain when it's convenient. And it shows they don't actually care about filibusters, they just want to get rid of whatever could possibly be in their way as they try to jam unpopular bills down the throats of the American people.