Nuke the Filibastards?

Never before has one party so tied up the business of government.  Up until 2006, the Senate operated on the principle that, because both parties placed the national well being over political advantage, they reserved using the filibuster for the most egregious situations only.  In 2006, that changed, as the Republican party threw the American people under the bus to score political points.  That despicable behavior continues to this day.  Something must be done, but what?

Back in February, I favored this:

But Harry “Leg Hound” Reid was too busy humping GOP legs to act on the nuclear option.  Now, we’re so deeply into election season that little more will happen this year, so I’m changing my position.  At this point, we’re better off with the Constitutional Option, as Ezra Klein explains.

“I do detect some momentum gathering behind Tom Udall’s constitutional option for curbing the filibuster in January of 2011,” writes Matthew Yglesias, who spent the weekend at Netroots Nation. I didn’t go to Las Vegas, but I’m getting the same thing: There’s an effort underway to convince people that a large and growing number of Senate Democrats are seriously considering changing the institution’s rules before the start of the next Congress.

I’d be lying if I said this seemed likely. Democrats are going to lose a lot of seats in the next election. A “win” would be losing only quite a few seats. A loss would be losing one — or two — houses of Congress. Either way, voters are not likely to dramatically reaffirm their desire to be governed by Democrats.

But because the Senate isn’t very democratic, only a third of its members are up for reelection, and that blunts the damage that any single election can do. So Democrats are likely to start the next Congress with a majority, even if they lose the election quite badly. With sufficient unity, they could change the rules before work begins again. But it’ll be a pretty raw move: Neutering the opposition after the voters favored them at the polls is a bit hard to defend on principle, and it’s even harder when the principle in question is that the Senate should be governed democratically.

We are, however, getting closer and closer to the day when someone does change the rules. Republicans tried to protect judges from the filibuster under Sen. Bill Frist. Democrats are talking about changing the rules at the start of the 112th Congress. And now that they’re talking about it, are they really confident that if Republicans take the Senate back in 2012 or 2014, that they won’t do what the Democrats couldn’t and change the rules in their favor?… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

I disagree on one point.  Ending the filibuster is not neutering the opposition.  It is stopping the minority from neutering the majority, which they have done for 1 1/2 years.

Ezra discussed the issue with Lawrence O’donnell.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I understand the concern that, ending the filibuster will make it hard to block Republican abuses, should they regain power.  However, you may rest assured that if they do, they will be the ones to end it.  The best way to keep them from regaining power is to allow ourselves the opportunity pass legistion this nation needs to help undo some of the damage Republicans left behind.