AmishDude, this is high-stakes poker! I just look at it this way: The Constitution does not require a supermajority to confirm judges. All it requires is a straight up-or-down vote decided by a simple majority. The fillibuster is designed to trump this constitutional requirement by means of simple senatorial rule-making. But there is absolutely "no-cost" to the "gentleman's agreement" of a fillibuster that the Dems are prosecuting against the President's judicial and executive nominees. We need to see the cost go up, maybe even to levels that hurt.
If someone were truly grievously ill, the Senate rules could be fashioned to exempt that person if his doctor recommends it. But all healthy people would have to show up. :^)
But I have to wonder: if someone were that grievously ill, what is he/she doing in the Senate?
Again, I agree with you that they ought to go back to the old fashioned filibuster.
I agree that the costs of a filibuster must go up. However, if the intent of the McCain 11 is to prevent a nominee from reaching the floor and not simply to prevent changing the filibuster rule, then they will not support a 24/7 filibuster either.