What I would view as Change

I've never been great about blogging, so I'm going to keep this short.

I would view real change as giving up short-term partisan gain for logic.

Back in 2005, there were nominations to federal courts that were not entirely palatable to Senate Democrats. The Republicans held a majority, but not a 60-seat majority. This meant that the Democrats could, seemingly, filibuster these candidates. And then, the nuclear option came out. As I Understand It (and I don't particularly care to understand it further), the nuclear option is, roughly: Yes, it takes 60 votes to end this filibuster, but it only take a majority to end the filibuster as a concept.

There was a compromise, as there often is, and the filibuster survived, and the judges were nominated.

But all through this process, roughly everyone acknowledged that this quirk was an unintended loophole.

I want the Democrats to close this loophole.

In the short term, it can only harm the Democrats: it takes an option off the table. But I expect more from my friends than from my opponents. And after all the bitching the Democrats put up, I'd like them to be consistent.

Change is honoring your past by slightly hurting your present.

Is this so crazy?