[tptacek]

James Fallows, the last of the old guard at The Atlantic, has this as part of his beat: he calls it "false equivalence watch". A lot of the coverage of this fiasco succumbs to it, for instance blaming the failure of the bill to clear the Senate on lack of grassroots support, as if that was going to get it votes from senators elected by rural conservatives.

On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority. Were it not for the filibuster, Social Security might be a block grant to NY financial firms by now.

[graeme]

>On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority.

Maybe. The republicans seem far better at parliamentary procedure and press management. Once there's a Republican president, I can imagine there will be loud outcries against "Democratic obstructionism" if the democrats attempt to block votes with a filibuster.

As Hario's comment above pointed out, the reverse happened in 2006 then 2008. I could see them successfully switching the narrative back.

These past several years I've been very surprised that the Democrats simply acquiesced to 60, and didn't even try to make Republicans actually filibuster bills by talking.

As this article points out, actual filibustering is a gruelling process. The speaker can't leave the podium:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/49360/5-famous-filibusters

I looked up any more recent filibusters. I came across Rand Paul's filibuster from 2013. He lasted 13 hours, and failed to block the appointment of John Brennan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-fili...

Anyone have insight on the Democrat's (lack of) response to the threat of filibustering?

[DennisP]

It seems odd to me that rural conservatives support surveillance, given that for many of them, the justification for strong gun rights is to preserve the ability to rebel against the government.