Mitch McConnell tries to explain why he's now open to filibustering President Obama's (currently unnamed) Supreme Court nominee, when under the Bush administration, McConnell vehemently opposed any such filibuster.
Transcript:
WALLACE: But are you ruling out a filibuster or are you leaving that possibility open?
MCCONNELL: Under the rules of the Senate, all things are possible.
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that, though, because back in 2005, when Democrats were blocking President Bush's nominees, you were prepared to impose the nuclear option which would block filibusters, and I want to put up what you said so eloquently at the time.
MCCONNELL: Yeah.
WALLACE: "Regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote." So if filibusters were wrong under President Bush, shouldn't they be wrong under President Obama?
MCCONNELL: Well, the Senate rejected my advice, and the Senate is a place that frequently operates on precedent. So I think the Senate deliberately decided not to take a position one way or the other.
Why doesn't McConnell cut the B.S. and just admit that unless President Obama nominates an anti-choice, pro-torture right-winger (preferably white and male) to the Supreme Court, he's going to use every procedural hurdle he can get his hands on if he thinks it will give him a shot at blocking the nomination?