Instead of scrapping the rule on a simple majority vote, this time from the Democratic side, I propose that a supermajority of 67 senators amend the rule by including the Gang of 14's "extraordinary circumstances" language.

It's probably unlikely, but here's how it could happen in this Senate:

Start with all 59 members of the Democratic Caucus in the "yes" column. It's conceivable, given that Sens. Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson and Mark Pryor -- red-state Democrats all -- were members of the Gang of 14.

Four of the seven Republicans in the gang are still in the Senate: John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. They, too, have already shown a willingness to be reasonable on use of the filibuster.

That's 63 votes, four short of the 67 needed.

The good news is that there are six more votes available -- namely, the entire Republican Senate leadership: Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, John Thune, Lisa Murkowski and John Cornyn.

If Republicans believe their own rhetoric and think they can recapture the majority in November, I'm sure they don't want payback in the form of a standing filibuster from Democrats.

Here's an opportunity for GOP partisans to put their money where their mouth is.

Working with Democrats to help organize the Gang of 14 was probably the most fun I had in the Senate. All of us in one room, working together for the benefit of the entire Senate -- and the nation. It would do us all good to see that happen again.

In 2005, we addressed an anachronistic rule that has been the bane of both parties for a decade now. I remember a Republican caucus meeting in the Mansfield Room at which our leaders talked about using the nuclear option to prevent Democrats from filibustering George W. Bush's lower-court nominees. We all knew the fight was a tuneup for a future vote on his right-wing Supreme Court nominees.

But in the caucus that day, even the most conservative Republican senators said, "Be careful. Think about this. Someday we could be in the minority and Hillary Clinton could be president. Our worst nightmare! Do we want to not have the power of the filibuster then because it was to our advantage to take it away from the Democrats now?"

Let's see them show the same kind of forethought now, preserving the filibuster but banning its abuse. The alternative is for Democrats to do what Republicans threatened to do in 2005, when Vice President Dick Cheney was presiding over the Senate: Challenge the use of the filibuster, get a friendly ruling from Vice President Joe Biden, then uphold his ruling with a simple majority of 51 votes. End of story.

For the strongest case against tolerating abuse of the filibuster, consider this: It is theoretically possible for senators from our 21 least-populous states, home to only 11 percent of Americans, to obstruct every legislative proposal with a filibuster.

The 41 Republican senators abusing the filibuster today were not elected to set the agenda. They are using the filibuster to prevent the majority from setting one.

In resorting to the filibuster with unheard-of frequency, Republicans seem to be gambling that Democrats don't have the nerve to play Republican-style hardball and won't seriously threaten to take the filibuster away from them.

Let's see if Majority Leader Harry Reid schedules a vote on the nuclear option, as Frist did in 2005. That could be just the nudge that Republicans and Democrats need.

Lincoln D. Chafee served in the Senate from 1999 to 2006. He is the author of "Against the Tide: How a Compliant Congress Empowered a Reckless President" and is an independent candidate for governor of Rhode Island.

Click here for original article.