Jil ♥ Hypocrisy

As regular readers of Jil In Pattaya know, I love nothing more than pointing to — and laughing heartily at — hypocrisy. When somebody steps up and says, "Here is what I believe," and then at some point in the future does very much the opposite, I like to grab a big 'ol million-candle-power spotlight, and shine it right on the words versus the deeds.

"So Jil," you're saying, "Obviously you've found some new and fun hypocrisy that you are just dying to point out to me, your faithful reader."

Oh, you know I have.

(Stick with me... You know how it will end.)

About 18 months ago, when President Bush was sending federal judge nominees to the Congress for approval, the minority Democrats threatened to filibuster (kind of like driving the Congress around in circles until it runs out of gas) to stop the appointment of judicial nominees that they really disliked.

Stopping a filibuster takes 60 votes. The Republicans didn't have that many votes.

So what the Republicans threatened to do (essentially, but much more complicated) was to change the rules of Congress to eliminate the ability to filibuster. (This was the infamous "nuclear option.")

Changing the rules of Congress (essentially, but much more complicated) takes 51 votes. The Republicans had that many votes. This would essentially be cheating the system, but in the end, the threat worked, and the Democrats didn't (essentially, but much more complicated) filibuster any judicial nominees after the threat was made.

OK. Get it? 18 months ago, the Republicans were so angry at the prospect of a filibuster, that they would have done an end-run around Congressional rules to stop it. The effort to intimidate Democrats from filibustering by gathering up "yes votes" was made by Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, Republican Senator from Kentucky.

So what did Senate Minority Whip Mitch McConnell have to say about filibusters today? Of course he did. What did he say Republicans might do if the now-in-the-majority Democrats don't hold an "up-or-down vote" on President Bush's judicial nominees? Oh, You know.

All your hypocrisy are belong to us.

Nota bene folks and folkettes: I'm not saying Senator McConnell's first position on filibustering was wrong. I'm not saying Senator McConnell's second position on filibustering was wrong. I'm not saying having a change of heart was wrong. However, if you get up and say (or do) something that contradicts your previously-stated beliefs, you had better explain yourself and do it convincingly. Otherwise, Jil's Hypocrosniff Fullacrapometer™ will go off and you will suffer at the hands of my acerbic wit.

... and yes, what Senator McConnell is threatening to filibuster is not the same as what the Democrats were threatening to filibuster, and that is almost a salient point save for the fact that if Senator McConnell had gone ahead and used his "nuclear option" 18 months ago, it wouldn't have applied to only the Democratic filibuster against judicial nominess, but to Senator McConnell's filibuster for nominees as well.