So John, tell us how you got to write in the Left wing portion of the Boston Globe? This portion is only reserved for liberal writers and its far left readers.

It is great that John is given weekly space, as a counter to the hard left voices who usually dominate here. I enjoy the spiteful comments from his haters as much as I enjoy his columns. Of course, once again, he nailed it. The filibuster used by the GOP has been because of Harry Reid's tomfoolery in blocking GOP amendments and debate. Yes, there will be a GOP majority some day, and the Dems will have a tantrum when the minority rights are gone.

This column is a classic statement of the "do not change the status quo" position. It fails to acknowledge the shifts in group dynamics in the Senate over the past two decades, and the evolution of the negative impact of the filibuster in that process. It fails to acknowledge the lack of effectiveness that has overtaken the process in the Senate, and the growing antipathy the public has for that lack of effectiveness. And if fails to offer an alternative solution. What, exactly, is accomplished by sitting on the sidelines and saying "don't change" ?

Isn't democracy supposed to be about majority rule? Why should a minority be able to so easily thwart the will of the majority? It's true that sometimes the majority can be wrong, but it seems like more often than not the filibusterers have been on the wrong side of history. For a much more historically informative essay on the filibuster, follow this link. http://www.historynet.com/a-short-history-of-the-filibuster.htm

Is that the best Sununu can come up with - that "someday the show will be on the other foot?"

He ignores the filibuster abuse that has occurred since the Democrats gained control, but voters noticed - and reacted - not a single Democratic senator running for reelection lost, and the Republicans lost 2 seats to liberal women.

I want senators - from both parties - to defend their filibusters on the floor, in front of the public, on CSpan.  No more secret holds, either.  If any senator believes it's the right thing to do then they should be willing to defend it.

It is becoming clear that Mr Sununu has very little understanding of how government should operate.  He is also avoiding the truth of the matter, again.  Nodody wants to kill the filibuster.   If you want to get up and talk for 30 hours even after you run out of relevent information and have to start reading from the phone book, fine.   Your constituents will ge watching on TV.  They may realize that you are being counterproductive and remove you from office, but that is you prerogative as well as theirs.  Just like the good people of New Hampshire realized you were useless as a senator and removed you from office.

Another major difference and reality of modern times is that our communication systems are so much better. With the advent of the internet, people are much more able to access information and viewpoints from a variety of sources. We are heading straight towards an age where the people are not going to stand on the sidelines and hope that the patrons of corporate surrogacy will somehow vote for their interests over that of their corporate overlords. The Senate rules have to change. Enough of this already. Time to open every ideas up to full debate and in full view of the American people.

Sununu seems to ignore the fact that you do not have to engage in endless debate to stop legislation. You just have to declare that you will do that and everything stops. Reid wants to go back to the old method where you actually do have to engage in endless debate to stop legislation. Simply being able to declare the intent to filibuster is what Reid and others object to, not the traditional filibuster. Reid is not proposing a simple majority vote process in the Senate. He just wants the filibuster to be out in the open, on the floor of the Senate rather than just a statement from a minority member to the Majority Leader.

When will Sununu and all the other right-wing jerks learn to say "Democratic"? Every time I hear "Democrat president" I just want to slap their stupid right-wing heads. Tea party just CANNOT speak or spell properly. They wear it like a badge.

John sununu is a clown. Why would anyone listen to him. He always lies and will continue to do so.

Once again, John E. Sununu spouts rhetoric, and, despite the op ed headline, ignores history.  Cloture motions have tripled during the Obama years compared to the George W. Bush presidency.  This reflects perfectly Sen. Mitch McConnell's vow to obstruct Presdient Obama at every turn, made just after Obama's first election.

And, as always, Sununu does not offer any constructive solutions out of our political gridlock, short of caving in to the vagaries of Republican policy.  He says nothing about how HE would manage filibusters so that the Senate could actually accomplish something.  It's as if he was still in the U.S. Senate, right alongside McConnell.

I admire the Boston Globe for publishing a diversity of political views, but Mr. Sununu rarely adds anything positive to our political discourse.  Globe readership would be better served by a Republican op ed writer with more positive ideas.

Harry Reid is what is wrong with the Senate

Oh, Little John, it is so like you to support the Republican obstructionist blockade of anything the admisitration tries to pass. Cue up Groucho: "Whatever it is, I'm against it.."  

The rules adopted by the Senate in 1789 worked perfectly well (without a filibuster). Why not return to that? It should rank right up there with all the other 'original intent' arguments about the Constitution.

How much of the Republican national anthem to we have to listen to before the Globe realizes John sununu's insight is blinded by his right-wing zealotry.

Mr. Sununu's argument ignores an observable truth concerning the function of the Senate:  with either Republican or Democratic majorities, the rate at which legislation is passed has dropped dramatically over recent decades.  Deliberation and paralysis may be related, but they are not identical by any means. 

There are obviously questions as to whether the rise of the filibuster is a cause of the problem or an effect of something else.  However, in the absence of a clear explanation, I am hard pressed to say why a legislative "experiment" is so bad an idea. 

Especially when the experiment involves returning to a previous set of procedural rules whose value might now be more obvious, given the disrepute into which the Senate has recently fallen. 

Mr. Sununu,

As you know the frequent--almost chronic-- use of the filbuster is paralyzing the Senate. What ever happened to the fundamental democratic principle of majority rule, except in those special cases the Constitution specifies?Let me answer the question: that democractic principle has been trashed by your party.

As you know or should know, the filibuster procedure was not always structured in the present way or used with the same frequency. You do know that. Yes?

Let me break it to you. Your party has now lost two national elections. You are also in the minority in the Senate. How about a peaceful transfer of poewer and some democracy? Or is your party going to continue to paralyze the government until you can get your way?

People are sick of the paralysis in Washington induced by the ideological rigidity of the Republican Party. Perhaps your real agenda is to make people cyncical about government period. You were determined to bring the president down from Day 1.  You failed. After all that, he won re-election. So Republican senators. cast your vote and let the majority rule. And if you lose, be gracious enough to accept it. Then run your own candidate in the next election and try again. That is how it works.

Why would the globe allow a rogue extremist to have his say in an editorial column?   Didnt the editors read any of the nonsensical camapaign garbage he wrote?   Please  im not sure he would he even qualify for a Herald editorial.

It's very funny to hear the GOP defend the rights of "minorities" and unlimited debate in the Senate (when they're in the minority only), but not in the House (which they currently control). Pure BS.

The Senate rules are blatantly undemocratic. Wipe them out, and next time the GOP controls the Senate -- if ever -- they can bask in their new power. 

You know John I have a lot of respect for the institution of the Senate.  Sadly the McConnell's of the world don't.  Recall his 1st priority.  That wasn't an example of the dignity of the Senate.  It's time to change the rule by simply moving it back to what it was.  You want to filibuster?  Well then get up there and talk in front of the American people.  Let us see who you are and what your objection is.  No more hiding behind the hidden filibuster.  Grow some and stand there on your principle and see if your constituents agree with you. 

Changing the rule to what it was is a real conservative move.  Safeguarding what was best about the past.

Gonna lose your 'little' obstructionist tool. Wa Wa, Time to let someone where we voted to go......

Shame on you, Senator Sununu! As many posters mentioned, you dramatically misrepresented the current situation in the Senate, especially with regard to the way filibuster rules are observed. 

The Democrats love to change the rules when it suits them. Just look to the way the Mass legislature changed the Senate succession rules after Ted K died.

I'm pretty sick of Sununu and his withered intellect. Republicans have used the filibuster far more than Democrats in recent decades -- over 100 times in some years of this century. The Democrats have never come close. The figures are readily available on the web for those who are interested.

The bit at the end about the British losing the War of 1812 is a bit of a stretch.  I think that war is largely regarded as a bit of a stalemate. Moreover, I don't think you can say that the Brits ever suffered from any sort of stain on their reputation as a result of that war. They gloried in their defeat of Napoleon in the following decades and thought the War of 1812 was an insignificant side-show.