While he still thinks using the filibuster on presidential nominees is an abuse of Congressional power, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) contends that because the Democrats did it under President Bush, Republicans have no choice but to do it now.

The liberal blog Bleeding Heartland has been pressing Grassley’s office for weeks seeking comment about the senator’s vote against stopping a Republican filibuster of Chris Hill’s nomination to be ambassador to Iraq and his support of a filibuster of Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Their questions come in response to a quote from Grassley in a 2005 New Yorker article saying presidential nominations should get an up or down vote and not be held up by filibusters.

“Filibusters are designed so that the minority can bring about compromise on legislation,” Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told Toobin. “But you can’t compromise a Presidential nomination. It’s yes or no. So filibusters on nominations are an abuse of our function under the Constitution to advise and consent.”

After several unsuccessful attempts, one blogger managed to ask Grassley directly about his stance during a call-in segment of a local cable program.

Caller: “In 2005 you said that ‘filibusters on nominations are an abuse of our function under the Constitution to advise and consent.’ Do you still believe that’s true, and if so how do you justify your vote against cloture on Chris Hill last week, and will you support cloture on the nomination of Dawn Johnsen?”

Grassley: “I will not vote for Dawn Johnsen and I will support a filibuster because she is so extreme in her views on that point, and then on the first question you asked — if you go back to 2002, prior to that there was hardly any use on filibusters on judges, but since the Democrats started using that, we Republicans want a level playing field with the Democrats, so we are adopting their practice in order to make them responsible the same way they tried to make us responsible with an extraordinary majority to get judges approved.

“So, I still agree that it shouldn’t have been done, but people are going to think that Republicans are not doing their job the way the Democrats do it and we want to show that we can do just as well as they do, defending our point of view just like they did on their point of view.”

Here is video of the exchange:

When contacted by the Iowa Independent, Grassley’s office released the following statement:

“Prior to 2001-2002 there were little to no filibusters on judges.  At that time, the Democrats set a 60-vote precedent that I did not agree with.  I still don’t like filibustering judicial nominees, but a new and higher standard was set and we are now abiding by that standard.”