The Wall Street Journal has perhaps the nation's most conservative editorial page. Note that I use the term "conservative" and not "Republican." The Journal's editorial page is a principaled one, not a partisan one -- it often opposes actions by Republicans that betray conservative values, e.g. steel tariffs, overspending.

The New York Times editiorial page, on the other hand, is partisan, and today made a feeble, and convenient, attempt to reclaim its "principle."

In an editorial, the Times' liberal masters finally admit that they opposed filibusters when Democrats were in control of the Senate (a fact that Texas Sen. John Cornyn called them on), but now they claim to have seen the light.

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

The public might believe that your conversion was sincere if your new position wasn't so politically convenient.