NY Times on the Filibuster: "That was then, this is now, wait! that was now and this is then and now is then, right?"

The NYT is so transparently partisan that one can hardly see them any more.

Two Papers in One!

• "The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes. . . . A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the 'nuclear option' in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it."--editorial, New York Times, March 29, 2005
• "Democrats scored a small but significant victory for the cause of progress in the Senate late last week when they voted to prohibit one of the many delaying tactics that keep the chamber tied up in pointless partisan arguments. It was a long way from desperately needed filibuster reform, but it showed that sufficiently frustrated senators can take action to prevent the Senate from being a total dead weight. . . . Fear of ending up in the minority makes majority parties in the Senate avoid sensible rules. But ending the abuse of the chamber's traditions--ultimately the far more significant abuse of the filibuster--would benefit both parties, and the country as a whole."--editorial, New York Times, Oct. 11, 2011