Ezra Klein reminds us that Harry Reid apologized the other day about not changing the rules of the Senate when he had the chance to -- change the rules to abolish the ridiculous rules allowing abusive Republican filibusters to literally stand in the way of governing.
Reid’s comments came after Republicans filibustered his attempt to move a House-passed compromise reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. But the proximate cause of Reid’s ire hardly matters. The point is that he’s concluded he was wrong to oppose filibuster reform when Democrats had the chance.
Election wonks I know think that if President Obama wins re-election, Democrats have even odds -- and maybe even a bit better -- of retaining control of the Senate. Their margin will be slim. But a slim margin is all they’ll need for filibuster reform if they follow the Merkley/Udall plan, which uses a process called “the Constitutional option” to change the rules with 51 votes. ...Wonkblog
Of course, Republicans could use this very much to their advantage if they take control of the Senate.
Democrats damn well need to keep "control" of the Senate.
Klein, in an earlier post, noted that both parties are frustrated by the Senate rules changes over the years, and would love to see reform.
... Behind closed door[s], both Senate Democrats and members of the administration think that the nominations process is deeply broken, and that if they could somehow fix it, they would have done something important to help future administrations -- both Republican and Democrat -- govern more effectively.
I’m not saying this is the most likely outcome. And it’s certainly not my preferred outcome — as I’ve said many time, I’d like to see bipartisan rules reform that phases in. But given the level of frustration I hear on these issues, and the way the two parties are likely to react to something as high-stakes as changing the balance of power on the Supreme Court, I’m not sure it’s a particularly unlikely outcome, either.
To put it another way, imagine a historian looking back from that crisis. It would all seem so obvious as a historical narrative: Republicans almost did it in 2005. Then Democrats thought about doing it in 2011. Then Obama called for the Senate to do it in 2012. And then, in 2014, it just happened. We’re getting closer and closer to dramatic reforms in the Senate. The question, at this point, is less whether they’ll happen than when they’ll happen, and who will be in power when they do. ...Wonkblog
___
Meanwhile, the tea partyers are doing what they can to turn the Senate into a backwater of "deep-seated conservatives," according to the Times this morning.
Some say they have not decided whether they would support Mr. McConnell, who could find himself contending with the type of fractious rank and file that has vexed the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio.
“We need to shake up the Republicans,” said Sarah Steelman, the Missouri state treasurer, who is seeking her party’s nomination to run against Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat. Asked if that meant new leadership in the Senate, Ms. Steelman replied, “Possibly.” ...NYT
McConnell appears to be unconcerned.
But, the Times reports, "Mr. McConnell’s room to maneuver is shrinking with the rising calls against compromise and the diminishing ranks of Republican deal makers."
