From the NY Times Editorial Board June 12, 2005:

Last month, 14 senators injected some sanity into the situation by signing on to an agreement to preserve the filibuster. Regrettably, Mr. Frist appears to be itching to undo the deal. He has declared that it allows senators to filibuster judicial nominees only "under extraordinary circumstances." If Democrats filibuster a nominee who does not meet his standard of "extraordinary," Mr. Frist has suggested, the Republican signatories should break their promise.

Paul Krugman today:

After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center. In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes. But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.

Now Wonks Anonymous remembers wondering about the whole Gang of 14 thing back in 2005 when all the right thinking folk inside the beltway were busy swooning over this latest example of constructive moderation. The last major use of the filibuster in his lifetime had been to further democracy by blocking civil rights legislation. He could not recall that anyone had tried to use it to stop the War in Iraq or block fiscally ruinous supply side tax cuts.

Why were these folks agreeing to not raise any opposition to future right wing Supreme Court nominees in order to preserve a tool that had mainly been used to block progressive legislation? Did they really expect that the Republicans would keep their promises of cooperation if the Democrats got a majority? Why not let the conservatives - in a fit of spleen - kill the filibuster and restore majority rule? Was this just another proof that these folks had smoked too much pot in their formative years?

Now Wonks Anonymous is not so sure about the whole naiveté thing. First because he notes that Ben Nelson, who was a key member in the gang of 14, has been playing the threat of filibuster for all that it is worth. Contrary to his custom Wonks Anonymous quotes extensively because this is an AP story posted in the NY Times and such links tend to die:

Maybe, Nelson says — if Reid can find a way to put tougher abortion restrictions in the bill and satisfy the legions of anti-abortion Nebraskans. Challenging his party is a role the moderate Nelson has played many times, most notably when he supported then-President George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

Now his ultimatum has produced a scramble from Obama's White House to the Capitol either to win over Nelson or find a Republican to vote for the bill. Reid, D-Nev., made Nelson one of 10 negotiators trying to find a compromise on government-run insurance in the bill, keeping him in the circle of influence.

''I'm not blockheaded and I'm not stubborn,'' Nelson said in an interview. To support the Democrats' bill, though, it must be changed to prevent taxpayer money from going to insurance plans that cover abortions. Reid tried to give him cover by putting the proposal to a vote; as expected, it failed.

''I've carved out what I can live with and what I can't live with,'' Nelson said, adding that he'd welcome a solution from the leaders. But without one, ''I can't get there.'' He said Sunday he was aware Democrats were still looking for a way to accommodate his concerns. ''That's a tall order for people,'' he said guardedly. ''I'm not prescribing ahead what they may be able to do.''

In nods to Nelson, a former insurance executive, Reid kept out of the Senate bill a provision to strip the insurance industry of its decades-old exemption from federal antitrust laws despite pressure from other Democrats. Reid also brought up Nelson's proposed abortion restrictions for a vote, knowing it would fail. And he's kept Nelson in the circle of influence by naming him one of 10 Democrats negotiating the bill in private.

The outlines of other obstacles became clearer Monday. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said Sunday he won't vote for their health care bill if, as proposed, it expands Medicare. Meanwhile, Obama was summoning Nelson's co-sponsor on the failed abortion amendment, Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., D-Pa., to the White House to discuss it.

Nelson could well be the 60th senator Reid needs to block Republican delaying tactics. But he could just as easily become the lone Democrat trying to lead a filibuster. That gives the former two-term governor, liked by his colleagues but little known outside Nebraska, an outsized role over the fate of Obama's top domestic initiative.

As he recalls Senator Lieberman was also a member of the gang as were Senators Snowe and Collins, also prominent in the negotiations to gut health care reform.  Wonks Anonymous also notes the McCain the maverick, Snowe and Collins and all of the other moderate Republicans on the gang are MIA now that it comes to a vote. Doubtless taken prisoner by their own party.

But why does the rest of the Democratic Party put up with these fools?

Well actually Wonks Anonymous is beginning to think that being a Democrat over the past 20 plus years has been a rather sweet deal. Here you have a serious base of voters - liberals peaceniks, union folks and other riff-raff - who will always return you to office because you are not a Republican. At the same time you have absolutely no power to do anything that might inconvenience the corporate lobbyists who give you campaign contributions.

You tell your constituents that your hands are tied while you tell your contributors not to worry. The real reds will never come back and you will never need to actually make any hard choices.

So last year the reds came back and voted in a majority of Democrats with a mandate for change. Which no doubt made Senators Reid and Feinstein et. al. most uncomfortable. But not to worry. We still have the filibuster and various moderates - that would be folks who are to the right of over 60% of the population - can be relied on to stop provisions in any health reform that would offend the insurance industry or the well funded Christians organized to keep women barefoot and pregnant.

Honest folks, we are better than the alternative but just remember that our hands are tied and will always be tied. Doesn't it feel nice to know that someone in DC thinks about you maybe once a day?