Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Team Hammer points out an interesting editorial position by the usually liberal L.A. Times:
The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators.
It’s no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California’s Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support ?¢?? he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Some will see this as just another example of the hypocrisy of the left. Actually, the ability of the two parties to swap positions from administration to administration–Social Security reform is a prime example–proves that we essentially have a one-party system committed to the expansion of federal power at the expense of individual liberty.
Think about it. Conservatives rightly screamed bloody murder at abuses of federal power under the Clinton administration, and then rolled over like attention-starved puppies for even more invasive and unconstitutional policies from the Bush administration.
There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. People don’t see it because they’re distracted by hot button issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, and stem cell research. Talking heads like Hannity, Limbaugh, Franken, and Maher fan the flames so people pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.