They Were For it Before They Were Against It--DOH

Thanks to Keith Olberman we have (at least) one example of how Christian wing-nuts have no moral fiber when it comes to accountability. He brings our attention to their whining about the necessity of filibusters when they blocked the Big Dog's nominations, judicial (60 as compared to just 10 for Bush) and otherwise:

"As a last measure of the defense of the minority, it has had many supporters over the years, like the very people of faith who sponsored yesterday`s Justice Sunday, the group Family Research Council.

Yesterday it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That`s when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam and other meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel`s nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.

They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Council`s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.

'The Senate,' he said, 'is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it`s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That`s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly.'"

Heh--wait until we're in control again, then the tears will really flow...heh heh.