A current diary atop the rec list asking:
Have we finally got a White House that "gets it"? Woo Whoooo!!
Folks, the filibuster wasn't meant as something to be brought in and out as the time requires. It is and remains a unique standard for cutting off debate, and temporary expediency is the WRONG reason to get rid of it.
Remember the Gang of 14, and how everyone here valued the filibuster so much at that moment that Kossacks decried the seven Democrats who made the compromise?
Remember the number of times a filibuster was praised here as the right action?
This isn't about the filibuster or precedent. It's about Kossacks wanting to get as much agenda passed as possible. Pretending otherwise is both disingenuous and dishonest. Democratic control of Congress will not be permanent, and when Republicans get in control and start passing their legislation sans filibuster, NOT ONE of you will have basis to complain.
Yes, there are many aspects of the legislative process that are broken. There are problems left and right in Washington; you need only look at the front page to see that. But changing a long-standing policy for the needs of the moment without adequate foresight is foolish.
If you want to get rid of it, get rid of it on procedural grounds, and think about ALL of the consequences. Democrats won't be on top forever; where will you stand when a ridiculous law comes down the pipe with 55 senators supporting?
Will you be consistent, or will you fit your ideas to the times?
I certainly hope it's the former.
UPDATE @ 8:43: The Filibuster can be valuable as a method of allowing increased debate. Under current rules, it's not working as originally intended. In fact, I might even support moving the 60 vote requirement to 50. I just want to do it because it's the right move when IGNORING partisan considerations. Otherwise, I'll set myself up for hypocrasy.