[Polybius]

Instead of simply getting rid of filibustering judicial appointments, how about getting rid of the filibuster altogether? That way, when the Republicans STILL aren't getting anything done, they can't blame it on those powerful minority Democrats.

What the republicans need to do is force the Democrats into a real filibuster as it carried out in the old days.

Back then, unlimited debate would mean that the Senator was forced to talk non-stop until he physically dropped. When he ran out of things to say, he could read names out of the phone book.

Such a spectacle would play great on TV but the Republicans can't seem to be bothered to bring their sleeping bags to the Senate floor to tough it out as long as it takes to be read to vote when Ted Kennedy keels over.

LONGEST FILIBUSTER, 24 HOURS IN U.S. SENATE

[Quick1]

What the republicans need to do is force the Democrats into a real filibuster as it carried out in the old days.

Also a good idea! The only thing stopping the Pubbies from bringing out the nominees for a vote is the THREAT of filibuster. It seems as if they're content to blame the Dems, instead of making the Dems actually work for it!

[CHARLITE]

"Back then, unlimited debate would mean that the Senator was forced to talk non-stop until he physically dropped. When he ran out of things to say, he could read names out of the phone book."

Exactly. Rush Limbaugh was talking about this last week. He said that this "filibuster" is really ridiculous. The Democrats merely announce that they "intend to filibuster" this or that Bush nominee, but they aren't forced to carry it out. These days, the announcement is sufficient, which produces an unrealistic picture to the average American........especially those who are too young to remember "the old days," when senators were filmed holding forth for hours on end.