Krugman and the Senate Filibuster

For most of the time from 1995 to 2007, Republicans controlled the U.S. Senate. For most of the same period (since 1999), Paul Krugman was writing columns for the New York Times. I have not read all of his columns, obviously, but I think I safely can say that he never wrote a column attacking the Democrats for using the filibuster to block legislation.

In other words, when his party was in the minority, the filibuster was (and is) a good thing because it could block legislation he did not like. However, now that Democrats have worked for more than a year with a filibuster-proof majority only to lose that advantage in the stunning win last week by Scott Brown in Massachusetts, suddenly the filibuster is turning this country into a "banana republic."

Why, Krugman even points out that the filibuster is not in the Constitution! Wow! A "Progressive" who has discovered the U.S. Constitution! What next? Will Krugman ask where in the Constitution can we find the authorization for all of the power that is controlled by the executive branch? Maybe, just maybe, he will start asking where the Constitution authorizes Social Security, Medicare, and a whole host of other things he supports.

What truly is pathetic is that he resort so the "Goldstein" accusations. For the past year, Republicans have been toothless, falling before Democrat supermajorities in the House and Senate and a president who has done what he darn well pleases, yet any lack of "progress" is due to those Republicans! Goldstein lives!