Why do conservatives pretend Republicans aren't tough?

There's a bizarre conceit in conservative commentary that Republicans are weak-kneed wimps who are continually taken advantage of by Democrats. Given how ruthless the Congressional GOP has been since Newt Gingrich first took control of the caucus, it's laughable, but it still persists. Here's the Wall Street Journal repeating the trope in an editorial arguing that Republicans should unilaterally repeal the judicial filibuster (this is the so-called "nuclear option"):

One of the weakest objections offered by some Republicans is that Democrats will do the same thing in some future Senate. Well, yes, but we doubt Republicans would ever have the nerve or unity to filibuster a Democratic nominee, and Democrats have shown in their willingness to filibuster that they don't need a GOP precedent to do whatever they want. They'll "go nuclear" if it suits Ted Kennedy's purposes, whether Republicans do it first or not.

Given that Democrats have filibustered around ten of Bush's nominees, can anyone doubt that Republicans would do the same thing to a Democratic president in the future if the judicial filibuster still exists? The idea that the GOP is too weak or disorganized to pull it off is just ridiculous. In fact, the Republican caucus obstructed far more of President Clinton's judicial nominees than the Democrats have of Bush's, but they did it through delays at the committee level rather than filibusters.

Comments

[Winston Smith]

It’s not a pretense, though that’s not to say it’s true, either.

Strategically, conservatives say Republicans aren't tough to justify “taking off the gloves,” i.e., to excuse themselves from any ethical obligation to work collaboratively with Democrats (as here). But they aren’t being deliberately disingenuous in saying so, since they sincerely believe it.

Psychologically, projecting onto Democrats their own feelings of utter ruthlessness, serves to justify a paranoid world-view. (Incidentally, both the projection and others’ reactions to the behavior it spawns, further validate the paranoid world-view and complete a self-confirming loop.)

In its most extreme form—fascism—this world-view systemically rejects any explanation for defeat except one’s own “weakness,” which includes being over-dainty about using whatever tactics are necessary.

Cf. Nietzsche.

[RW]

You use the example that a few did it at the committee level, probably by the blue-card method a-la Ronnie White, to refute the notion that there is a lack of organization from the whole party via filibuster?

Why not point to all the examples of filibusters during Clinton's tenure instead of moving the goalposts and comparing apples to walnuts?