"Modest" Filibuster Reform Deal Reached?

Give 'em. . .er. . .heck, Harry? Image from HuffPo.

When "filibuster reform" is discussed in the news or the blogosphere, it is usually characterized as, "ending the filibuster." That's not what has been proposed, by any authority I've seen, anyway. What rank-and-file Democrats have wanted is to make the filibuster more difficult. Not--as it has become--routine. We'd really like that if a Senator threatens a filibuster, he has to get down on the floor and filibuster. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-style. Barring that, we just want it to be tougher to do, and impossible to do in secret.

I can't figure out why this is even a problem for Democrats, who are in the majority. Just do it. I know that they're all squishy about what might happen if they one day find themselves in the minority, but why? You're not getting rid of the thing, you're making it tougher. It should be tougher. It's ludicrous how it is being abused. Harry Reid is working on a "deal" with Mitch McConnell? What on earth for? Just do it. Reid is going to have to put on quite the performance if he caved on this one, in order to not have liberals asking for his head.

[Excerpt]

Filibuster Reform: Senators Reportedly Close To Deal On Modest Limits

Senators may be nearing an end to their partisan dispute over curbing unlimited delays called filibusters. Whatever the resolution, it probably won't require filibustering senators to debate on the Senate floor until exhaustion, like the actor Jimmy Stewart did in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post