The real filibuster

From the same Tumulty post I referenced below:

Tom Mann of the Brookings Institution calls this idea impractical. Given the fact that Republicans could muster 41 people on most things to hold the floor, a real filibuster could go on interminably....But Norm Ornstein at the American Enterprise Insitute thinks Reid should call the Republicans' bluff, starting with holding the Senate in session five long days a week. "You have a different Senate now. Frankly, they're soft," says Ornstein. "If they had the backbone and the discipline to do it, it would work."

To which Kevin Drum responds, "Crikey. Mann and Ornstein are (a) practically Siamese twins and (b) about as knowledgable on congressional rules and traditions as anyone this side of Robert Byrd. As one of Tumulty's emailers puts it, "Oh my God — Ornstein and Mann don't agree?! That's like a disagreement between Moses and Jesus. This is more complicated than I thought.""

Well, sort of. Mann is saying that forcing a filibuster might not yield the political outcomes the majority hopes for and Ornstein is saying that senators don't really have the discipline to sustain such a show, but both are implying that it's perfectly within the rules. And I think the Democrats probably ought to be throwing whatever rocks at the wall they can. It's not going to come down carrying on as they have been. So this sure seems worth a shot to me.