Now and Then with E. J. Dionne

The WSJ's James Taranto compares E. J. Dionne's statement on the filibuster now and then:

Now:

"the Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president."[snip]

"The GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 [Senate] votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august 'upper' chamber works these days."
Then:
If the principle at stake is "majority rule," consider that the Senate is, by its very nature, an affront to majoritarian principles. The 52 senators from the nation's smallest states could command a Senate majority even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population. . . .

What does majority rule really mean in this context? . . . We could choose to institute a British-style parliamentary system in which majorities get almost everything they want. But advocates of such a radical departure should be honest enough to propose amending the Constitution first.
One of the best things about the internet is that readers can have a record of what a pundit said when his friends were out of power and compare that with what he says when they are in power. And readers do what pundits seem not to--check the record.

Thomas Lifson adds:

I have never thought of E.J. Dionne as stupid. Does he realize how devious or at least insincere this makes him appear? Is it possible that he doesn't remember taking such a diametrically opposed position?

How can he expect to be taken seriously?
The WSJ's James Taranto compares E. J. Dionne's statement on the filibuster now and then:

Now:

"the Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president."[snip]

"The GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 [Senate] votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august 'upper' chamber works these days."
Then:
If the principle at stake is "majority rule," consider that the Senate is, by its very nature, an affront to majoritarian principles. The 52 senators from the nation's smallest states could command a Senate majority even though they represent only 18 percent of the American population. . . .

What does majority rule really mean in this context? . . . We could choose to institute a British-style parliamentary system in which majorities get almost everything they want. But advocates of such a radical departure should be honest enough to propose amending the Constitution first.
One of the best things about the internet is that readers can have a record of what a pundit said when his friends were out of power and compare that with what he says when they are in power. And readers do what pundits seem not to--check the record.

Thomas Lifson adds:

I have never thought of E.J. Dionne as stupid. Does he realize how devious or at least insincere this makes him appear? Is it possible that he doesn't remember taking such a diametrically opposed position?

How can he expect to be taken seriously?