Yes, but it was perfectly OK when Obama was a senator. Nobody minded much when the filibuster was used to block Bush nominees or GOP sponsored bills.

The difference is that Democrats only used the filibuster to block bad policy and people. How can anyone say that about health care reform?

This isn't just a problem for nominees; it's become a problem for legislating, too. Historically, the filibuster has been used as a way to try and reach a bipartisan compromise; now it's just a tactic used to gum up the works. The Senate has had to cast more votes to break filibusters last year than in the entire 1950s and '60s combined. This has prevented an honest debate from taking place, which has made it impossible to find agreement on important legislation that would benefit working families in this country.

What's clear from all of this is that we need to change the way business is done in this city. If we're going to have a government that works for the American people, then we need to focus on the things that actually matter to them, like jobs and health care. Every day we waste delaying votes on well-qualified public servants or obstructing progress on problems that need solving is a day we're not doing our jobs. It's time to put an end to these partisan political games and get back to work.

Actually, if Mr. Pfeiffer had turned and asked Senator Robert Byrd what the filibuster was for, I'm sure the former Kleagle for the Klu Klux Klan would have been happy to tell him about the time back in 1964 when he and his fellow southern Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act. The idea that the reason Byrd utilized the gambit to "try and reach bi-partisan consensus" would no doubt come as news to the West Virginia senator. They thought they were trying to kill bad legislation and keep Jim Crow alive.

So much for "focusing on things" that matter to the American people.

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky