(Day one's roundup can be found here)

With all of the hubub going on within the Senate these days, The New York Times Robin Toner notes that at least a few Senators are whistful for days of yore.

The bitter struggle in the Senate over restricting filibusters is the culmination of years of growing partisanship and ideological warfare that have transformed this 18th-century institution. Many senators entered the battle with a grim sense of inevitability, saddened but not surprised that it had come to this.

Older senators talk wistfully of a more civil era that they say has now largely vanished. The few remaining centrists say the fierce partisan currents make it very hard to build the bipartisan coalitions necessary to do something big - like changing Social Security - or to defuse internal disputes like the present one over judges.

Senators in both parties complain about the increasingly aggressive demands of outside advocacy groups on issues like judicial nominations, and their unwillingness to settle for anything less than victory.

At the root of this trend towards partisanship: Toner suggests an increasing number of former Representatives now occupying seats in the upper chamber.

Increasingly, Democrats complain (and some Republicans privately agree) that their chamber is taking on the characteristics of the House - where the majority has substantially more power, and where redistricting has driven both parties to their ideological bases.

That should not be surprising; more than half of the current Senate has come from the House. Twenty years ago, fewer than a third did. These transplants from the House now account for some of the most powerful, and most partisan, members of the Senate, like Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the third-ranking Republican in the chamber.

As Toner notes, Santorum is a particularly interesting case, as the former Congressman is now at the forefront of the debate over the attempt to abolish judicial filibusters. As The Raw Story's John Byrne notes in an exclusive, Santorum's blatant partisanship and loose lips were in full force today.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) compared Democrats' attempts to keep the filibuster to Hitler's moves in 1942 in a floor speech in the Senate Thursday afternoon, RAW STORY has learned.

[...]

"What the Democrats are doing is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster."

Oy.

While Rick Santorum offended millions of people and disgraced himself and the chamber, about a dozen Senators from both sides of the aisle worked hard to avert crisis. Dan Balz has the story for The Washington Post:

At times they have appeared agonizingly close to a deal. At other times their cause has seemed hopeless. But what is most remarkable about the dozen or so senators working to avert a historic showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees is their potential to control the Senate's destiny without the explicit blessing of their leadership or their party's most important constituencies.

In an era of polarized politics, in which party and congressional leaders have been increasingly responsive to their most ideologically driven activists, the bipartisan band of senators has attempted to steer a different course. Behind closed doors, they have tested whether it is possible to find language to codify the principles of trust and goodwill at a time when little of either is left in the political system.

The senators involved have found it difficult to overcome deep-seated differences and suspicions that now govern the relationship between Republicans and Democrats. But they have acted with the knowledge that, if they strike a compromise, they alone have the power to control events from here forward in the battle over judicial nominees and the change in Senate rules that has come to be known as the "nuclear option." That, in the estimation of congressional analysts, has made their efforts almost without precedent in the legislative branch.

Not only are the Senators working long hours to ensure that their desired outcome occurs; dozens of staffers have also gotten into the act. The New York Times Sheryl Gay Stolberg details the actions of two -- Republican Martin B. Gold and Democrat Kevin Kayes -- before offering this choice quote:

"The Senate is three-dimensional chess," said Ron Weich, another of Mr. Reid's strategists. "All of this involves a detailed understanding of not just the rules of the Senate, but also the rhythm and culture of the Senate, an understanding of what needs to be explicit and what members can signal with their body language."

All the meanwhile, the Senate is grinding to a halt, as promised by the Democrats. For this story, we turn to Carl Hulse of The New York Times.

As the filibuster fight roiled the Senate for the second day, Republicans lashed out at Democrats on Thursday for disrupting the Senate's legislative business in what both sides acknowledged was a preview of the hostile Senate atmosphere that could follow the looming showdown on judicial nominees.

"Our friends on the other side of the aisle are shutting down the business of the Senate by making it impossible for committees to do the work of the American people on everything from intelligence matters to passing an energy bill when gas prices are at record highs," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican.

Democrats argued that the magnitude of the filibuster debate merited the full attention of lawmakers. They refused to agree to what is usually a routine request to extend committee work beyond the two hours allotted daily under the rules, contending that work would still get done.

The Republican Party has made a clear decision that destroying Senate rules to approve extreme conservatives to the federal bench is the most important legislative action to take. Not lowering gas prices. Not decreasing the deficit. Not improving homeland security. No. The Republican Party believes that getting rid of protections of the minority is more important than all of these pressing problems.

These are not the priorities shared by most Americans. The Republican Party did get a mandate in 2004 to strengthen America. What has the GOP done in six months controlling all levers of government? Defend Tom DeLay against ethical charges. Try to override marital vows to force a woman in a persistent vegitative state to stay alive. Break the Senate rules to further empower the President. Attempt to partially privatize Social Security.

This is not why the Republican Party was given the reins of power last November. And until the GOP actually starts to listen to the American people, it will continue to slide in the polls. Of course they do not believe in polling (or so they say), so this might not bother them. Just the same, they might be surprised come the fall of 2006 that the American people have been paying attention all along and they are not happy with the direction in which the Republicans are leading us.