The "historical importance" of filibusters...

The United States Senate has apologized. For what?

Lynchings.

Was the U.S. Senate responsible for lynchings? Not directly. Were U.S. Senators taking people out and stringing them up? Not that we know of. No, the U.S. Senate failed to enact laws making mob murder illegal. As the AP finally got around to explaining in the 8th paragraph.

But the Senate, with Southern conservatives wielding their filibuster powers, refused to act. With the enactment of civil rights laws in the 1960s and changes in national attitudes, the issue faded away.

But you know, that still doesn't seem quite right, does it? Let's see what happens if you re-write that to accurately reflect history.

But the Senate, with Southern conservatives Senate Democrats wielding their filibuster powers, refused to act. With the enactment of civil rights laws in the 1960s - over the filibusters of Senate Democrats - and changes in national attitudes, the issue faded away.

But when you put it like that, it makes it a little harder for the New York Times and Washington Post to gush over the historical importance of the filibuster, now, doesn't it?



Update:
Captain Ed has the same take:

The Times cheered when Senator Byrd and his co-signers of the MOU proclaimed that the "Republic is saved" after the filibuster survived its challenge a few weeks ago. Perhaps an honest recounting of how the filibuster had been applied in American history would have been more appropriate, as it would have shown that rhetoric to have been shallow and self-serving, at the very least.