Here I go writing about a subject about which I know little, so pardon any ignorances and please correct. It seems to me with a near "super"-majority in the Senate, the filibuster is a more important tool than ever. The last two years all the Republicans had to do was imply a filibuster and it was time to "compromise."
Undoubtedly the Republicans will continue this strategy even though they're almost in the "mega"-minority (I made that up). I think now is the time to allow the Republicans to make good on the threat. Put together an excellent stimulus package (for example) and get 56 or 57 Senators behind it and let the Republicans filibuster. Everyone loovvvves seeing our government get hung up by what would be seen as obstructionism. There's no better way to make an unpopular stance even more unpopular. Remember, a majority of 100 is just 51, not 60.
There is no reason for a continuation of the kind of BS that posed as compromise for the last 2 (or 8) years, basically giving in to all the Republicans' demands. Let them stop all the bills they don't like with filibusters. If nothing is getting done in the Senate, it will be overwhelmingly obvious who is at fault: the 41 Republicans and Joe Lieberman who won't let anything happen. If Republicans hope to return from the wilderness, filibustering would not be a wise move. The threat of the filibuster would no longer work because the reality of the filibuster would be so politically disastrous for the Republicans.
And maybe we could go back to a majority being a majority. That's what it takes to pass legislation.


Salon.com
Comments
Eliminating the filibuster and having all votes be by simple majority would be a disaster. The filibuster is a messy instrument, to be sure, but it is an important safeguard that works well if used sparingly and must be reserved for critical situations.
I wrote a longer comment on this but it was a little rough around the edges and I want to tidy it up before posting. I'll put it up as a blog hopefully sometime soon. I'll be curious in the interim to see others' responses to your post.
I do think the filibuster is often misunderstood.
See my article (offiste) on the use of the filibuster to block judicial appointments if you want a clue about the direction I'm headedwith this.
Dunno bout you all, but I'm pulling for the Whigs next time round...