all i'm really saying is don't hold your breath expecting the rules to change. my biggest issue with you on this and various subjects is that you actually believe in the democratic party. the reps let you down, so now you're pinning your hopes on the dems. guess what they're going to do?
one take on the filibuster being changed:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/D...0/01/id/372258
or this:
http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/Home/34969 note the last paragraph.
do i like a complete standstill? no. i didn't like it when dems filibustered every nominee back when they were the minority, and i don't like the reps hamstringing every thing coming down the pike either. on the other hand, trading an unemployment extension for continued tax breaks are the kinds of things that absolutely should occur. our first leaders came to agreement thru compromise on a bicameral legislation, with a house based on population, and a senate with two members per state. that didn't just happen out of thin air. the compromise on the first national debt (hamiltons baby) with a trade of having the capital in the 'south' rather than in new york or philly. i know most people probably think that all the founders were in absolute agreement on everything, and that ben franklins lightning rod created george washington and our form of govt. that we won the war, wrote and agreed on the constitution and evrything was just peachy. that's not the case. there have been big egos and bipartisan fights since the get-go. the only difference is how those arguments and wants/needs get ironed out.
why anyone thinks either party will vote for changes they'd have to live under in the future is beyond me.