Jill Lawrence makes a nuanced, yet optimistic, assessment of the Senate:

Since President Barack Obama’s inauguration in January 2009, the Senate has confirmed two Supreme Court nominees, revamped the student loan system and removed obstacles to women and others pursuing equal pay. The Senate also has approved three laws – the economic recovery act, the health care overhaul and financial regulatory reform – that contain within them scores of achievements. Had the major items in these bills been passed separately, the last 18 months would have been crammed with one success after another (or one tough defeat after another, depending on your party). This fall the Senate appears poised to pass a bill to help small businesses, and another to boost clean energy jobs and respond to the BP oil spill.

It’s an impressive record, but it has not been treated that way. Part of the reason is that the journey has been ugly. McConnell and his crew are on track to match their 2007-08 record of forcing 139 cloture votes to end filibusters, while Democrats are taking the usual steps — compromises, cajoling, cringe-worthy deals — to forge onward.

The reason no one on the right is happy is because the Democrats have passed everything they’ve tried to pass in some form or another. That is, they passed everything until the met a brick wall on an energy and small business bill before recessing for the remainder of the summer. They’re on track to pass watered down versions of those last two bills in September.

The left is not happy because their bills have been badly weakened, or even eviscerated, in the necessary pursuit of sixty votes. In other areas, hysteria and obstruction on the Republicans part, and timidity from the Democrats, have slowed promised reforms. This is true of the closing of Guantanamo, the ending of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, the use of the States Secrets Privilege, the trying in court of al-Qaeda suspects, accountability for war criminals and torturers, and more.

But the biggest frustration has been the way Obama’s change agenda has been held hostage by the 60-vote requirement in the Senate. It’s true the Senate has passed a lot of legislation, but it hasn’t been in form that Obama’s supporters had a right to expect. What we’re looking for is a reason why it’s wise to have an institution that can let a president serve half of his term without dozens of his appointees even getting a confirmation vote. Why should it be impossible to tackle climate change or immigration reform because we only have 52-55 votes out of a hundred in support of the legislation? What’s the upside to this obstruction, and how does it balance out against the downside of an understaffed executive branch that isn’t allowed to even get a vote on some of our most pressing issues?

It’s not like the Republicans are being judicious or discriminating in their obstruction. There must be a punishment for his behavior.