I favor a push back to the “old school’ filibuster. This has also been called the "nostalgia option" or "Filibuster Classic". Pushing for this would, among other things, be a sort of political jujitsu in the war of labels. With the Republicans in essence acquiescing to the label “nuclear option” for the removal of the judicial nominee filibuster, the Democrats have the battle for public opinion half-won:

Nuclear = bad, like bombs and nuclear power.
Republicans for something nuclear = Republicans are bad.

Imagine the hay to be made in demanding a return to the days of wooden ships, iron men and real filibusters. The "real filibuster" option, in contrast to the "nuclear option" plays into the “democrats are weak” stereotype.

Real Filibusters are hard = not for the weak
Democrats are against something hard = Democrats are weak.

I see it as good tactics, as well as a reasonable long-term strategy, as it is less likely to blow up in the face of Republicans during a future Democrat majority.

They may break under the pressure of an old style filibuster in the end, but the problem with that is that we'd essentially be admitting that they are right - that having a filibuster of judges is perfectly legitimate, when this is more of a Constitutional issue which we are on the right side of, and as such shouldn't abandon.

Politics is about the possible. The "old school" option is politically feasible. At this point in the Bush Presidency, he has got to start winning some of these judge fights.

Democrats are emboldened in the current atmosphere. They intend to continue with this through his entire eight years, and currently they are not paying a price. If they were seen as holding up necessary legislation to prevent a simple up/down vote, they would cave. They remember the Fall of Newt. He who shuts down government gets blamed.

currently they are not paying a price

I wouldn't necessarily say that. They've lost the last three election cycles.

That's a great way to supplement the constitutional option, but not to replace it.

All it would take is a "Sense of the Senate" amendment to pretty much any bill that's being debated, and it would be easy enough to get a vote on it without having to get 60 votes beforehand. I'm sure it would pass, but it wouldn't get much more than an afternoon's worth of press coverage.

More than anything, it would serve as yet one more exhibit of the Democrats' obstructionism.

For the record, I deeply apologize for the presence of Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. I don't know who votes for them up here...

I blame Portland.

Interesting tactic. I think I'd like to see it attempted.

I don't pertend to know the rules of the senate, but it seems to me that the nanosecond we have the votes to launch the nuclear option it should be done. Qualms about whenever the Liberals get the vote they'll do the same to us are misguided: they'll do the same to us no matter what we do because they are Liberals. We should probably exhaust all other avenues first, but we should keep in mind the words of Iran's rep at the UN when he said that Iran would engage in talks about their nuke program though they shall be: "prolonged and fruitless."

Jesus, are you people just getting around to this? I've been agreeing with this for weeks -- I think I first heard it from a Townhall columnist. I would *love* to get CSPAN footage of, say, Teddy "Gin-tastic!" Kennedy reading the phonebook (guess the Bible is out?) to keep "debate" going. Get that for a few dozen Dems in concert, then play it as a campaign ad next year. Brilliant.

Hey m-u-t-h-a-f-u-k-a there's a war on, you know?

this blog sucks