Nick Coleman Earns a Treat

Brown-nose party hack Nick Coleman is the latest to carry water for the Democrats, employing his usual, overblown, "sky is falling," self-righteous tantrum:

Americans want Iraq over with, but the war is getting larger and we can't even talk about it. Debate is stifled, Congress is muzzled and peaceful protest is ignored. History predicts the rest of this equation. It's not pretty.

He is referring, of course, to the Republican filibuster of the Warner/Levin resolution that Democrats decided to just let die rather than debate openly in session. Coleman - this is the carrying water part - twists the entire episode into a "muzzling" of debate.

Of course, he may have just taken a cue from his editorial board, which passed on the same tripe. (Which was, in itself, a total turnaround from its position in 2005, which was a total turnaround from 1994.)

We turn to Uncle Walter, writing in Coleman's own paper in 2005, to explain the finer points of the filibuster:

Today, as it has been for 200 years, an individual senator may talk without limit on an issue; and others may join in, and they may continue to press those issues until or unless the Senate by 60 votes ends that debate and a vote occurs. No other legislative body has such a rule.

Here is more on the sacred nature of the filibuster from Coleman's own editorial board:

To end debate in the Senate and force a vote requires a successful motion for "cloture," which takes 60 yeas to pass.

See Nick? As long as the 60 votes aren't reached, debate can and must continue.

The fact is that the opportunity to debate Iraq was staring the Democrats right in the face and they ran for cover because they want to pass a meaningless resolution rather than have their war stance debated openly.

But, since "muzzled" is what the party handed Nick, muzzled is what he barked.

What a good doggy.

(It is only through Power Line's tireless policing and archiving of the Star Tribune's rapidly changing position on the filibuster, which reverses depending on what party is using it, that this post is possible. -Ed.)