Mutatis Mutandis, Redux

Via TBogg and Norbizness comes the sad news of the very public (pages of the SF Chronicle) breakup of Keith Thompson and The Left.

I'll give you all a moment to compose yourselves.

Okay, these things always devolve into a He Said/She Said, and it's difficult for those of us caught in the middle, who love them both. So, just a quick synopsis of each side. Keith: "I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity." The Left: "Who the fug is Keith Thompson?"

This may be the only argument I have for professional journalists to pay attention to blogs: because then they, like you and me, would have heard this same story umpteen times and so might be able to recognize a con job when they see it.

To his credit, Mr. Thompson does not claim this insight into the mind of the Left came overnight. Which only makes sense, seeing how he appeared on Rush Limbaugh's show thirteen years ago. But as the poet said, breaking up can be hard to do, and today he's a free man. With a new blog.

This is what caught my eye. Thompson offers us the classic "What if the shoe were on the other foot?" routine on judicial filibustering, and lo and behold, he discovers The Left would be acting in a completely opposite manner:

...suppose cries of "Don't be greedy," "Let's compromise," "We'll vote yes on the 3 least liberal nominees" were to go up from: Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, John Kyle(sic), and Kay Bailey Hutchison — all of whom threatened to filibuster the nomination process, in the name of "simple fairness."

Given that scenario, do you think we could expect to hear ringing defenses of the filibuster from Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, and Carl Levin? Or do you suppose they would be leading the charge against the filibuster as a "procedural gimmick being used by obstructionists to deny the judicial candidates their right to an up or down vote?"

Just asking.

Well, funny thing there, Keith, and you probably missed it what with being blinded by those dazzling white robes that surround you now. We don't have to talk about this in hypotheticals. Way back in the 90s (the 1990s) when the Republicans were using procedural means including the filibuster to block Clinton appointees from up and down floor votes, the Democrats did not resort to the nuclear option, despite the little tapdance around Robert Byrd your new friends may be giving you. But in all a spirited attempt, and I do like the hypocrisy angle. Mind if I use it?