On filibusters
Matthew Yglesias, writing in The American Prospect, claims that the filibuster is bad for liberals, and that the Democrats should just get rid of it.
« There is, however, a better way. Democrats should counter loose talk of going nuclear with a proposal of their own: The Senate as a whole could vote, through proper procedures, to end filibusters on votes of all kind, allowing passage of any bill (or nominee) that can secure a majority vote. Republicans may reject the offer, of course. But if they do so, that will only strengthen the Democrats' hand politically in combating the nuclear option -- by demonstrating a fair-minded commitment to principle over short-term partisan advantage.»
I can see one teeny tiny problem here. The quoted paragraph assumes that the government is run by people of principle, which is something that the Evil Party has proven again and again they don't have. Dumping the filibuster while the Evil Party controls the government is like handing your alcoholic cousin the keys to the liquor cabinet just before you head out of town on a two-week vacation.
The scenario I'd see coming out of just giving up the filibuster is that the Evil Party would run completely wild (their so-called moderates in the Senate are terrified sheep who wouldn't break with the party even while bills are being passed to strip statehood from the states where they came from), and then when they lost the Senate because vote fraud couldn't make up for the electorate's disgust at their despicable tactics, why, they'd just put the filibuster back on their way out the door.
And, sure, the Democratic Party would have the moral high ground, but that and 25¢ won't even give you a copy of the local paper.
(link via Here's What's Left)