This is going to be a short diary, for which I apologize. However, what I have to say doesn't require a lot of words. Please follow mw for a second . . .
Instead of trying to change the Senate rules regarding the so called "filibuster" to lower the number of senators requred to block a bill, how about changing the rules to require blockage of cloture on a bill, at least one senator shall - to sustain a filibuster - must remain in active debate on the Senate floor. In other words, change the rules to require an actual filibuster as opposed to just having the number of votes to support a hypothetical filibuster that won't ever actually occur.
Do I need to say anymore because that seems like an obvious solution to the problem. I think that should receive bipartisan support. I mean think about it, put some teeth into what a filibuster actually is. The republicans/tea party want to get back to the "founding principles" then why ot support a rule that gets back to what a real filibuster was intended to be.
But what do I know?