Both the Times and the Post have lengthy analysis stories today on how the filibustering fight is weakening the standing of the Senate. In the Post, Dick Meyer (correctly, I think) sees the filibuster as part of a broader decline in the Senate, caused by the elimination of Senate moderates, the 24/7 news cycle, and the tendency to ignore key issues in the name of a"permanent campaign." In the Times, Carl Hulse notes that the two sides seem to be disputing over which party has fallen the furthest in public esteem as a result of this battle.

Both stories are worth reading, especially Meyer's. The nuclear option fight was a needless one, indicative of Bill Frist's shortcomings as majority leader, and at this point, however it comes out, it will leave lasting damage to the institution.