I dont understand your line of reasoning... you are complaining that they did nothing with their majorities and claim the only thing they would need a supermajority for is a constitutional ammenmendt and could get everything else done. When i point out the filibuster (which in case it was not clear, means you still need a supermajority for cloture and proceed to voting in the senate), you complain that they didnt put on a show? Do you thini they shouldve spent alot of effort trying to pass legislation that would never be passed anyway for show? Or am i not understanding you?

edit: ok i was not aware of the meaning of bully pulpit. You mean they shouldve used the opportinity to advocate for better policies even though they wouldnt get the policies through?