Over at Equitable Growth: Who Really Thinks Japan Is Argentina?: Daily Focus
Liveblogging World War II: November 6, 1944: Plutonium

Why Can't the Cato Institute Get Less Underbriefed Staff?: Live from Crows Coffee

NewImageRoger Pilon of the Cato Institute's article yesterday:

Roger Pilon: Harry Reid's Hubris: "How sweet it is....

...Less than a year ago—on November 21st, to be exact—Harry Reid went nuclear....He ended the availability of the filibuster for most executive branch nominations, not by the two-thirds vote that Senate rules had long required but by a simple majority.... The larger issue... is that there will be other nominations... a looming vacancy at the Department of Justice.... And where will those remaining Democratic senators who voted for Harry Reid’s nuclear option be sitting? Why on the minority side, watching Republicans enjoy their newly acquired power to block controversial Democratic nominees by the vote of a mere majority—all because of Harry’s hubris.

Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute's same article today:

Roger Pilon: Harry Reid’s Nuclear Implosion: "How sweet it is...

...Less than a year ago—on November 21st, to be exact—Harry Reid went nuclear.... He ended the availability of the filibuster for most executive branch nominations, not by the two-thirds vote that Senate rules had long required but by a simple majority.... The larger issue... is that there will be other nominations... a looming vacancy at the Department of Justice.... And where will those remaining Democratic senators who voted for Harry Reid’s nuclear option be sitting? Why on the minority side, watching Republicans enjoy their newly acquired power not only to hold and control hearings but, should a Republican win the White House in 2016, to confirm nominees by the vote of a mere majority—all because of Harry’s hubris.

The phrase "to block controversial Democratic nominees by the vote of a mere majority..." has been silently not corrected but amended to now read: "not only to hold and control hearings but, should a Republican win the White House in 2016, to confirm nominees by the vote of a mere majority..."

This isn't a simple mind-o--writing "up" where you mean "down" or "approve" where you mean "disapprove". The whole point of the article was that because Harry Reid broke the filibuster that he would now, somehow, be subject to more trials and tribulations in getting a new Attorney General confirmed. The crowing about how it is only because Harry Reid broke the filibuster that, now that they are in the majority, Republicans in the Senate can block Obama's executive-branch nominees demonstrates a deep and bizarre confusion over what "with the advice and consent of the Senate" could possibly mean.

And, of course, the silent correction does not correct--it simply renders the entire column incoherent.

And, of course, the silent correction speaks an organization that doesn't believe it can either stand behind or account for its words.

And, of course, why can't the Cato Institute get more intellectual value for its money?

Comments