I need a synonym for "hypocrisy"

I have www.filibusterfrist.com practically saved on my web browser...

Princeton students protest threatened use of "Nuclear Option", which would end the 200-year-old Senate tradition.

For more than a week, students have been filibustering 'round-the-clock, taking shifts to cover all hours of day (and night), inviting elected officials, a Nobel prize-winning physicist, professors, and many students to participate. With the growing publicity, Frist's (the man behind the "nuclear option") supporters are more vocal in their criticism of filibusters.

Their reasoning boils down to the following points:

1. Filibuster is not a constitutional system, and when it hinders legislative work, it's unconstitutional.

Saying that an ethics impasse needed to be resolved to provide a chance for Representative Tom DeLay to clear his name, Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said this morning that Republicans were ready to relent on rules changes that have left the ethics committee unable to do any work. (April 27, New York Times)

A while back, when Tom DeLay was having some new scandals being uncovered, the GOP-controlled congress CHANGED its ethics rules to protect their Majority Leader. Since House Representatives are given strict time limits (precluding a filibuster), the House rules were changed and business in the ethics panel was stalled. Who's the unconstitutional one now?

I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable on the subject of the U.S. Constitution. The document, which was meant to provide the backbone of a new government as well as to remain flexible for the future, does NOT mention other integral parts of American politics today, like political parties or the use of committees in congressional work.

If filibusters ARE indeed "unconstitutional" (listen to one Princeton Republican smugly explain this illogical point) then so are political parties, congressional committes, and impeachment of a President for lying about his sex life.

2. Most Americans do not support the idea of a filibuster.

As the Senate moves toward a major confrontation over judicial appointments, a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. (April 26, Washington Post)

A filibuster is a risky political move, since it hinders actual business from being done. But getting rid of it once and for all is unacceptable. The Democrats are doing the GOP a HUGE favor by fighting for minority rights... so that when the Dems take back the Senate (which they will), we won't fuck the Repugs over.

Sen. John McCain has once again enraged Republicans by publicly opposing Majority Leader Bill Frist's plan to employ the so-called nuclear option for ending the filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees.

"Look, we won't always be in the majority," Mr. McCain told MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews Thursday night. "I say to my conservative friends, someday there will be a liberal Democrat president and a liberal Democrat Congress. Why? Because history shows it goes back and forth. I don't know if it's a hundred years from now, but it will happen. And do we want a bunch of liberal judges approved by the Senate of the United States with 51 votes if the Democrats are in the majority?" (April 16, The Washington Times)

Now, THAT my friends... is the only proof we have as of now that smart, reasonable Republicans exist. So, Senator Frist... Go ahead with your Nuclear Option. We'll see what happens to ya'll in a few years, when you guys are whining about "liberal activist judges" winning approval with no means to stop them.

3. The Democrats want to stop the Bush judicial nominees for no reason/Every nominee deserves an immediate yes/no vote.

Not only have filibusters been attempted against judicial nominees in the past, but Frist himself has even voted for one. In 2000, after Senate conservatives had held up Bill Clinton's nomination of Richard Paez to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for four years, Frist joined in an unsuccessful attempt to filibuster Paez -- a judge who was favored by a clear majority of the Senate and who won confirmation after the filibuster was broken by a vote of 59 to 39. (Januaray 31, Washington Post)

Maybe he wasn't aware of that when he said ""Never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote, until two years ago" (May 1, New York Times). If my math is correct (and despite my brain mathematically drained by an attempt to understand multi-variable calculus, it should be correct) 2000 was MORE than two years ago.

With these three central points disproven, the Republicans are back at where they started- making a conscientious protest into a partisan affair. And I've concluded that I need many, many more synonyms for "hypocrisy."