GEORGE WILL, HYPOCRITE, THE SECOND WAVE:

As Atrios reports, Edward Lazarus has an article on George Will's hypocritical attack on the filibuster here. Turns out that Will is on record defending the prerogatives of the Senate against earlier attacks on the filibuster. The difference? One important one: Dems are using it now, Reps were using it then. Lazarus uses Will's unfortunate strategic use of constitutional argument to make a broader point about the death of intellectual shame.

I also noted a few additional problems with Will's Estrada editorial here. To recap: Will told Senate Republicans to reject Bill Lan Lee for reasons of political "payback" (hardly consistent with Will's pompous defense of a limited definition of "advice and consent" in the Estrada editorial), and he also wondered aloud whether or not Clinton would seek out Hispanic judges for electoral reasons. The second quote is worth stating again, since, if you omit the antecedent and a knowledge of Will's partisan orientation, it's hard to know whom he is referring to:

Again the president is allowing the selection process to become so protracted that all the ideological, racial, ethnic and sexual lobbies can work up a robust sense of entitlement to the court seat. Given the importance of California - and Florida and Texas - to the president's re-election plans, he may be looking for someone with a Hispanic surname.

As Lazarus points out, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind over time. Just explain the difference.

[And it is also worth pointing out that it was the work of bloggers such as Atrios who helped to ferret out the differences in Will's positions here. Strong work, folks!]