Scenario #2 - Dems start a filibuster; it goes on for days and the only thing the press can show are videos of "Sheets" Byrd talking about his choice of kitty feed. Republicans hammer the Constitutional requirement for advice and consent (not super majority, filibuster never been used like this before, etc, etc.) The filibuster ends because the Dems finally see the reality of their obstructionist position and the up-down vote takes place.
Which of these is better for us in the long run?
Never gonna happen.
Good points well made.
"Which of these is better for us in the long run?"
And which is realistic??
No
That particular filibuster does not end until the next Democrat is elected President. Why don't you realize we are at war ?
"Scenario #1 - Republicans try to explain that the Constitution does not require a super majority for advice and consent, etc, etc. and the Republicans "pull the trigger" on the nuclear option, the up or down votes take place, and the press castigates the Republicans for "changing the traditions of the sacred Senate rules." Republicans are viewed as majority bullies.
Scenario #2 - Dems start a filibuster; it goes on for days and the only thing the press can show are videos of "Sheets" Byrd talking about his choice of kitty feed. Republicans hammer the Constitutional requirement for advice and consent (not super majority, filibuster never been used like this before, etc, etc.) The filibuster ends because the Dems finally see the reality of their obstructionist position and the up-down vote takes place.
Which of these is better for us in the long run?"
Doesn't matter because anyway you look at it, only 48% of the country is going to be upset with the Republicans and 52% of the country is going to say that this was a good thing.
The Republicans are the majority and the minority reads the NY Times and watches CNN.
So in the end, if a Dem Senator whines in the woods and only NARAL and MOVEON hears it, will anyone really care?