http://scriptamus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/solutions-gimme-that-old-time-fillibuster/
If I understand this correctly, all that Reid would have to do to break a filibuster, is insist on the rules *as they already stand* (in much the same way as the Republicans insisted on having Sanders's bill read in its entirety), and have 51 people stay in Washington. And voila, *any bill you wanted* would become a 51 person vote. And you wouldn't be trampling tradition -- you would be insisting on it. Breaking a filibuster the hard way is just as much a tradition as sustaining one the hard way. If the minority can't sustain it, then it wasn't important enough to stop the majority.
Plus of course in the days of 24 hour, TV it would make the minority look like morons and the filibuster rule look even worse -- great publicity for canning it, and great election publicity for the majority side, esp. if you pick your test cases well.
Am I missing anything?
This also gives a much simpler explanation of how filibusters got suddenly so numerous. Polarization is part of it. But we rarely had filibusters even during the run up to the civil war! The main reason we have a million now is that Senators recently made it so easy on themselves at the expense of the citizens. That's why everything now takes 60 votes.
Michael