Pulling back the curtain

Dems could have been...well, Dems...and quietly allowed Bunning to place his "objection" to the bill extending jobless benefits that will run out on Sunday. We would have seen the usual stories about how "Democrats fail to pass a jobless bill" -- in fact, early stories took just that lede. But they didn't. They stayed in session and forced Bunning to repeat his objection deep into the night. The result was putting a face on the Senate GOP's constant obstruction, and on a bill that everyone, everyone, knows simply has to be passed.

Democrats have been under pressure from their allies to be more aggressive and public in challenging Republican procedural tactics and to not quietly accept the fact that they have to consume days and produce 60 votes to move ahead on most subjects. Why not force all-night sessions? How about old-fashioned filibusters?

Despite ample frustrations, Democrats have been reluctant to embrace such ideas. From a practical standpoint, lawmakers have busy schedules, and forcing Republicans to stay around means Democrats must stay as well. They said the filibuster had been idealized in a Jimmy Stewart, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” fashion, when the rules make it easy for Republicans to sustain one without a single individual holding the floor for hours.

Then there is the fact that many senators are advanced in years and not eager to pull all-nighters.

But Democrats said they were finding that pulling back the Senate curtain a bit had its benefits. A few weeks ago, the leadership disclosed that Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, had placed holds preventing Senate votes on dozens of administration nominations to gain leverage for some home-state projects. The revelation generated significant media buzz, and Mr. Shelby backed off in a matter of days.

The situation with Mr. Bunning has yet to be resolved, but the showdown has already gotten plenty of attention. As they mixed it up on the Senate floor, Democrats said they found the airing of their grievances with Mr. Bunning cathartic and beneficial to the Senate.

“When Senator Bunning decided to do this, it came with a risk,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “And the risk was that there were going to be senators who were going to speak out about it.” She said that both parties had been at fault in the Senate, “but that it is time we try to make this place work better.”

“I think the Senate would be a healthier place if we did it more often,” she said.

About time. Bunning is generally despicable, but this is beyond the pale.