If John Thune thought that restraining himself from eliminating the filibuster would preserve Senate norms or buy grace and reciprocity from the Democrats, he was sorely mistaken. 

 Perhaps, unbeknownst to the rest of us, he cut a deal with Chuck Schumer, but it's clear the deal wouldn't survive a successful leadership run by Chris Van Hollen, and Van Hollen has already announced he will challenge Schumer for the top job. 

So here we are: Van Hollen's pitch, aside from his promise to hug every illegal alien gang member in the United States and personally approve every Medicaid sex change surgery for 11-year-olds, is that he would eliminate the filibuster. 

Van Hollen, speaking to reporters in Denver, says the filibuster is "antidemocratic" https://t.co/yRLksu9SQR

Well, maybe he didn't exactly PROMISE the first two, but you get the idea. Van Hollen is far-left, and the far-left is out for blood and for money. Schumer is in trouble, if not exactly doomed yet. The Organized Crime Democrats may want to stick with him, and the Color Revolution Democrats are willing to cut a deal with either side. Elissa Slotkin, the ultimate CIA Democrat, has made clear that her vote (and, by implication, her allies') is up for grabs. 

A mile above much of the country, and leagues away from Washington, D.C., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is facing a progressive rebellion that threatens his grip on power.

The challenge is being led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who has served under Schumer since 2017. And he is willing to go further than Schumer ever has on one issue: terminating the filibuster.

Years ago, Schumer tried and failed to narrowly change the Senate’s rule to pass a sweeping voting rights package. Republicans have toyed with it over the last two years, but never pulled the trigger.

Van Hollen said, "We need democracy in the United States Senate, and that means allowing, ultimately, a majority of senators to answer the call of the American people.

"So, that means 51 votes. So, my personal view has been all along that the filibuster is an anti-democratic … provision. It's not in our Constitution," Van Hollen added. 

"It was put in there by senators to enhance their power over the power of the people."

Eliminating the filibuster is quite the sweetener for the leftists and the CIA-types, who want free rein to change the constitutional order to their liking. And while it's practical value over the next two years, with Trump in office, will be modest, the longer-term benefits to the Democrats could be huge. 

Caucus politics are famously opaque even when the insiders are talking, and not all of them are. I have witnessed more than a few leadership battles, some up close and personal, and the participants tend to lie, switch sides, make deals, break deals, and play coy, so until there is an actual vote or an obvious winner beforehand, we can't easily predict who will win the battle. 

I doubt the battle will take as long for the Senate Democrats as it did for the Republicans when they finally landed on Mike Johnson as their leader, but that battle gives you a flavor of how intense and unpredictable they can be. 

The filibuster will be a major issue in the fight. Some Democrats may remember that what goes around comes around, while others either will trust that they will be able to solidify their hold on the body by changing the rules in other ways, or they may be counting on the fact that Republicans are wimps compared to them. 

See: John Thune. Perfect example. 

For all the talk of Republicans being the radical norm-breakers, it is absurd to believe it. As Democrats talk openly about radical rewrites of the Constitution and centuries-old norms, they say they need to do so to preserve norms and our democratic order. 

Barf. And the media repeat that crap because they are Pravda. 

Will the filibuster be gone when the session rules are rewritten? I would wager that it will be dramatically changed, and perhaps the filibuster will get tossed entirely. Schumer will have to at least partially match Van Hollen, since I doubt many Democrats want to openly say they want a slower, more deliberative process. 

Because Van Hollen is right about one thing: the filibuster IS a block to "democracy" as he conceives it. For that matter, so is the entire Congressional process, which is supposed to filter the impulses and desires of the people through a process that distills those impulses into something rational, and then deliberates on the wisdom of temporary crazes and reactions. 

Read The Federalist Papers, and you will see why we have the Republican form of government that we do, and it ain't to look like Van Hollen wants it. 

Editor's Note: The Democrat Party has been infected by socialism, and it's spreading FAST. Democrats are claiming there's nothing to worry about, but we know the truth.

Help us continue to shine a light on the socialist takeover by joining HotAir VIP.  Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.