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.
They still don't get it. It's not that they were wrong to oppose filibusters...it's that they're BIASED in when they notice the problems with filibusters. That hasn't changed.
There's maybe a subtle difference in this, but I think it's significant. When you're wrong and you admit it only when your error is being used against you, that's not being forthright. That's being tricky and manipulative. When you're wrong and you admit it at a time that exposes your error without any benefit to you, then there's some integrity involved. For example: if the NY Times were to come out, without qualification, and admit "we were wrong to spend the last 3+ years attacking Bush, especially on the war. He was right, we were wrong." But to admit to your own bias and then just say "well, now that it's working against us, we don't think it's right", that's just bullshit.