A little late to break here, I suppose, but Yesterday on All Things Considered, Senator-Elect Dan Coats (R-IN) said he would support filibuster reform.
Link and Script below the fold.
SIEGEL: Republicans in the minority in the past couple of years have invoked the threat of filibuster a lot more often than was common when you were in the Senate in the 1990s. And I wonder: Do you think that it serves the institution well to require 60 votes for every issue of consequence since your party aspires to be in the majority within a couple of years? And wouldn't Democrats do the same thing to every bill that your party wants?
Mr. COATS: I think what we need is the opportunity to debate and have an up-or-down vote on every issue. Filibustering the motion to proceed - that is, we can't even go forward and talk about an issue without overcoming or without gaining a 60-vote majority for it - I would support removing that provision. I think the American people deserve to have the issues debated regardless of which side they're on, so that they are fully aware of what their representatives and senators are voting for and voting against.
SIEGEL: That would be a change of tactics from what's happened in the past couple of years.
Mr. COATS: It would be.
SIEGEL: And you would favor that change in the way business was done.
Mr. COATS: I would support that, yes.
That's good news for Tom Udall and progressives working to pass a rule change in January. While making the motion to proceed non-debatable doesn't get rid of the 60-vote threshold doesn't eliminate the filibuster, it does make it easier to end it, since it cuts the time the majority has to spend on ending debate on legislation and nominations in half.
If the president can at least have an administration that's confirmed by the senate, that will be a big improvement.
This is good news. Lets see what happens to it...
I hate to diary and run, but I have to head to work.