Ezra's most recent tab dump has a link which, in his blog, reads "How to reform the Senate without touching the filibuster." Unfortunately, none of the ideas are a fraction as useful as getting rid of the filibuster would be.
Mack McLarty urges an end to anonymous 'holds.' Holds, in and of themselves, are a consequence of the existing Senate rules, so if you're going to change the rules, you might as well kill the filibuster itself. But the anonymity of the hold is Senate custom which could be overturned by the Majority Leader at any time.
I'd be all for this; I just don't see what good it would do. The GOP isn't going to stop blocking nominations and whatnot just because a little more daylight is shed on the process; it's not like they feel any shame about their obstructionism. They'd still place holds; we'd just know who was doing it. BFD.
Norman Ornstein wants to change the Senate's culture by requiring them to spend 5 days a week in D.C., taking one week off out of every four to visit their 'home' state.
The resistance to this is obvious: Senators want to be seen as living in their home states, not in D.C. If they're maintaining their primary residence inside or near the Beltway, with their kids are in D.C.-area schools, the 'out of touch with (state)' arrow will never be absent from a challenger's quiver. So: not gonna happen.
And again, I doubt it would do much good if it did. Remember the Gang of Six from last summer? All the fraternizing in the world didn't change the willingness of a Grassley to savage the Democrats' health care reform proposals in ways that had little to do with the actual policy proposals. And Grassley's one of the better ones.
Mark Penn...oh, forget it. Why would anyone listen to Mark Penn?
OK, he proposes instituting Question Time, in the manner of the British PM and Parliament. That tradition would come to a quick end the next time we had a Republican President. Hell, even with this President, one can see that the GOP (and likely even 'centrist' Dems) wouldn't bother showing up and having Obama run circles around what passes for ideas in their tiny brains. So let's just forget it.
Warren Rudman wants publicly-financed elections. I've long supported this idea, but I've got no illusions about its limitations. GOP Senators support our plutocracy out of love, not for money; its main effect would be on 'centrist' pro-business, anti-estate tax Democrats. (Or 'would have been,' given Citizens United.) So it wouldn't change the underlying dynamic of a GOP hell-bent on doing what rich people and big corporations want it to do, and using the filibuster to block everything its true base doesn't want.
Two GWU poli-sci professors want a fast track for judicial nominations. I'm with Hilzoy here: judicial nominations, which are for life, are the one thing that should be filibusterable if anything is, since such nominations can't be undone. A fast track for the President's executive-branch nominees, on the other hand, would be beneficial.
But such a fast track would need to be established by statute or Senate rule, which can be filibustered. Similarly, which positions require Senate confirmation is defined by statute, and removal of names from the list can be filibustered. (Too bad the Senate didn't pare that list waaaaaay down before Scott Brown was elected.)
Dana Perino...why would anyone listen to her, either? Mark Penn is a worthless excuse for a human being, but he does have a brain cell or two to rub together. The same can't be said about Perino.
Her great idea is to elect more women. I'm all for this, but it's got nothing to do with the Senate's dysfunction. When GOP women who aren't from solidly blue states show an inclination to work across the aisle, I'll give this idea some credence.
Rob Richie of FairVote wants to redo the Senate's fundamental role: "As is the international norm for upper houses, the Senate should only be able to delay legislation, force reconsideration and propose amendments, not block final action." He acknowledges this would require a Constitutional amendment, but says we ought to think big.
Except that while ending the filibuster requires (at worst) a 2/3 majority of the Senate, revamping its role as he suggests would require 2/3 of the Senate, 2/3 of the House, and 38 state legislatures.
Let's just kill the filibuster, folks.
