Filibuster Reform Might Actually Happen: It always fails at the last minute.

[cali]

But here’s why the latest Democratic effort could succeed.



Anyone who’s been living in Washington for a while assumes he or she knows how the periodic fight over the filibuster ends. The majority party issues a threat of a nuclear option. The minority party threatens to respond by “blowing up the Senate.” (Notice a theme to these metaphors?) Then, like the wisecracking partner who was left for dead in the second act of the movie, a senator unexpectedly rides in and announces a deal that ends the crisis—while leaving the filibuster exactly the same.

The inevitability of the failure of reform is probably why Majority Leader Harry Reid has spent the past 72 hours trying to convince everyone that the filibuster will really, truly be changed when the Senate considers it Tuesday. Reid and other Democrats are pushing for a rule change that would bar the filibuster for most presidential nominees, though leave it intact for legislation and judicial nominations. On Monday morning Reid arrived at the small 10th-floor event space of the Center for American Progress to give a speech about the need to change Senate rules, and to snarl at reporters who doubted he’d really do that.

Questioners took their turns, attempting to get Reid to float a compromise or to at least admit that he used to defend the filibuster. He once called it “part of the fabric of this institution,” and “an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history,” and now he was saying that “the Founding Fathers wanted an up-or-down vote, and that's basically what we've been crying for years.” ABC News’ Jeff Zeleny politely asked him to explain the hypocrisy.

“What it is, is that you don’t understand the right question,” said Reid. “I wasn’t talking about changing the rules for nominees. I was talking about changing the rules for judges.

<snip>

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/07/harry_reid_s_filibuster_reform_why_it_might_succeed.html

[antiquie]

1. Same-old, same-old?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/nuclear-option-filibuster_n_3603570.html?utm_hp_ref=politics