Pejman Yousefzadeh on Paul Krugman, then and now:
But the big step by extremists will be an attempt to eliminate the filibuster, so that the courts can be packed with judges less committed to upholding the law than Mr. Greer.
–Paul Krugman, back in 2005, decrying the “religious right’s” supposed motivation to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, so that Republican-appointed judges can strike down “conscience” or “refusal” legislation that may “allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient.”
. . . we need to take on the way the Senate works. The filibuster, and the need for 60 votes to end debate, aren’t in the Constitution. They’re a Senate tradition, and that same tradition said that the threat of filibusters should be used sparingly. Well, Republicans have already trashed the second part of the tradition: look at a list of cloture motions over time, and you’ll see that since the G.O.P. lost control of Congress it has pursued obstructionism on a literally unprecedented scale. So it’s time to revise the rules.
–Paul Krugman, today. Of course, he wasn’t as exercised when Senate Democrats “trashed the second part of the tradition” while in opposition to filibuster appellate court nominees from the Bush Administration.
I have written this before, but it bears emphasis: It appears that Paul Krugman is unaware of this thing called “Google” or “archives” that allow people to go back, examine past and present statements from particular pundits, and determine whether the pundit in question has been hypocritical in the past.