Bravo to Senator Reid (for once in his sad sack life), who when the Pubs controlled, protected filibusters even more than his package from harm. The reason? Because it makes clear, that any party, at any time, can dump the filibuster, all of it, so at some point, when that party holds the trifecta. And so it will so go perhaps, and we can finally got some accountability in government, rather than one side, not holding all the cards, blames the other for poor results, because some of the agenda was filibustered. Let each party do its thing, and let the voters judge, and if they vote thumbs down, the other party with a majority rather than supra majority rule, can reverse it. Keep at it Harry!
I absolutely agree that eliminating the filibuster would be a great thing for government accountability. Reid should have nuked the filibuster in 2009 when Pelosi controlled a rather big majority in the House. The President would not only have had more legislation passed through Congress, but the legislation would have more left-leaning. The House bill on healthcare, which included a public option, probably would have been law. I think cap-and-trade and the EFCA would be law as well, not to mention a considerable number of other bills that passed the House and died due to the filibuster.
I don't think it would be wise for Reid to nuke the entire filibuster right now, as you suggest. There's no reason to, as legislation that lacks 60 votes in the Senate is pretty much DOA in the House. It doesn't make any sense to wipe out the filibuster entirely unless one party has the trifecta. As long as the Presidency and Senate are under the same party and not the House, the reform should be as Reid is suggesting (limited to presidential nominations). ItBut as much as I'd like to believe this, I'm not buying it right now. Reid has been a disastrous failure on filibuster reform with no excuse. I'll believe it only when I see it.
