Begging for attention

Wow. The NyTimes has out-Molly'd Molly. It's not enough that they already wrote their column opposing Alito, a silly and short-sighted effort that stands in contrast to the resigned but reasonable effort from the Post.

Now they want a filibuster, dammit, even though they themselves say, "there is very little chance it would work."

So why do they want it? It's hard to tell from the editorial. On the one hand, they say, "Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination," which sounds good, a sort of, "Well, we'll lose, but we'll educate the public."

But they also say that the Dems "unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster." Er, okay, so they acknowledge at least the risk, if not the fact, that it wouldn't serve to educate the public, except insofar as it educates them that the Dems are knuckleheads.

So if they'll lose, and if they'll just earn the public's contempt, why do this radical thing? Just to howl in the night? The Timesfolk are unhinged.

(BTW: Ku Kluxer Robert "I've known white niggers" Byrd is going to vote for Alito? Geez, you'd think that whack-job was running for reelection or something.)