"parliamentary tactics" for me but not for thee

A little consistency, please...

The C-J editorialists have taken two sides on the issue of legislative tactics.

They support the Democrats' pursuit of the "reconciliation" process on national health care legislation.

And in an editorial piece entitled "Enemies of the People", they oppose the Republican use of "floor amendments" at the state level. (Here are two articles from Deborah Yetter with the news angle-- today and yesterday.)

Why are "parliamentary tactics" praiseworthy in the one case and something to be condemned in the other? I'd be floored if they can reconcile these two opinions.

To be fair, I imagine that a number of Republicans have taken the opposite stand. In any case, the larger issue here is loudly assuming a "principled" position in both cases. Either such procedural moves are legitimate-- or the means justify the ends-- or there's some key distinction I haven't caught between the two examples.

It'll be interesting to see whether the C-J publishes my letter to the editor on this!