Your bottom line is a fraud as well. As even you point out a couple paragraphs later regarding the option to go nuclear.
And about that so-called nuclear option:
First off, enough with the end-of-the-world hyperbole already.
I realize this misguided notion is now settled science among the establishment crowd. But it's not like the filibuster was in the constitution or even something the Founders or early Senate wanted.
For crying out loud, Harry Reid just nuked us a few years . So far, the only affects seem to be that they got what they wanted, we got more afraid than ever to use the option which already supposedly should have triggered unstoppable response-usages, the nation got some judges we'd rather not have and TV viewers perhaps got an increase in the number of mutant/zombie-based shows. But otherwise we are all still standing.
Answer me this:
If a relevant and legitimate usage (constitutional question) of the nuke option is now, according to party bosses, something so evil and politically apocalyptic...
...then what the hell do you call having Republicans, the only party even close to defenders of a Free Republic, proudly passing a bill everybody here would have called unconstitutional if passed by Nancy?
At a very bare minimum, it should be considered the biological attack option, directed at the body politic. Spreading the disease of central govt control to the party of Liberty herself after a session spent fisting Pandora's box.
While the filibuster is not mentioned in our founding documents or used till many years later, limited central govt was gospel from the git go.
Glorifying the later and somewhat accidentally added internal and evolving rule of one half of one branch of one level of govt at the expense of our party and of the constitution itself is a bit like subsidizing mall Santas with a tax on Jesus.
Does nobody in the establishment ever consider just being honest and hard working and advocates for Freedom rather than pathetically helpless passengers on the road to ruin?
In other words, put together a real Freedom-oriented bill (or two, whatever) to totally repeal and then get the feds out of the way of the market. Even if global warming style rhetoric has you afraid to use nukes, then just pass something based on what we actually believe in on the House side, get Trump to say he'll sign if the Dems would quit obstructing and bully pulpit away and if needed base campaign '18 on the need for more Senate seats. At least there would be a specific bill we'd be campaigning for instead of bait-and-switch phases and promises.
We have the Senate, the House, the Prez, soon the SC, the vast majority of Govs, the vast majority of statehouses, three wave elections...
...and instead of taking the historic opportunity to roll back power to the states, we are instead cowering in fear of perceptions and of a so-far entirely wrong predictions about potentially explosive usage of a rule within our power to leverage.
While there have been many books written that set forth the differences between the House and the Senate, the shorthand distinction has always been that the Senate is a “deliberative” body. Unlike the House, which often passes anything and everything in the heat of the current emotional climate, the Senate, wisely slows it down.
The filibuster rule (at least what’s left of it) is all that stands between the two bodies being legislatively identical. There’s still the 6 year vs 2 year term differences, as well as the state-wide vs legislative districts thing. But legislatively there would be no difference without the filibuster.
But what you are apparently failing to see (inasmuch as you are advocating a repeal of the filibuster rule), is that it is the ability for the minority to resist the majority rule that is our saving grace. As far as we’re concerned (and I’m putting all of us who despise the media in the same camp), is that “when” (not if) our side is in the minority at some future time, the future of this country as we know it will be over. Once any group gains absolute control over the two bodies and the presidency, they have the votes to make Friday Saturday if they so choose.
The difference between the two sides, which I’m sure you would agree, is that our side would not try to destroy this country––even if we were in absolute control––but their side would. Not simply because they’re Democrats, but because the other side is controlled by the media. And you must know that the media is totally against this country and everything that we believe it stands for. Yes, Obamacare must be repealed and replaced, but to destroy the Senate to make that happen is not only unwarranted, it is irresponsible.
Before 1789, the Senate was completely distinct from the House. That was how the Founding Fathers wisely set it up. Senators were “appointed” by the legislative bodies of each State House. they did not run for office. The media despised that provision. The Senators were beholding not to the citizens (at least not directly) but to the State governments, whose members, of course, were elected but the citizens.
But the media worked incessantly to change that Constitutional provision, and eventually did so with the passage of the 17th Amendment. As a result, the Senators are now beholding only to the media and the special interests groups who have the resources to influence a state-wide campaign. The media is now working on eliminating the filibuster rule to put them totally in control at some point in time in the not too distant future.
Many of the naysayers of this current health care plan are the same ones that criticized Trump on a regular basis during the primary and general election. I’m sure many of them sincerely believe that it should all be done at once. But the only way that can be accomplished is to eliminate the filibuster rule. The Democrats didn’t have to do that with Obamacare because they had 60 votes in the Senate. So think about what they would pass if they could do all that the media wants them to do and only need 50 votes! That alone should give you the shivers.
I supported Donald Trump for president. I did so because I believed he was a very intelligent and successful businessman who would bring this country back to its greatness––despite the opposition of the media. There were many times along the primary and general election road that I thought I would have done things much different than Trump. Nevertheless, I hung in there with him and often learned that what I thought was a mistake was simply Trump demonstrating how much further ahead of the media that he really is. Trump supports this approach, and if for no other reason, that’s one hell of an endorsement as far as I’m concerned.