This missive by a TPM reader apparently impressed the hell out of Josh Marshall. Me? Not so much.

Democrats can talk until they are blue in the face about how "unprecedented" this wave of Republican filibusters in historical terms, and most Americans won't have any idea what they are talking about. If Democrats demanded an "up or down vote" on individual issues because "elections have consequences", however, Dems would be appealing to Americans' basic sense of fairness while breaking through the beltway spin about needing a "super majority" to pass bills in the Senate. (After all, the notion that Democrats need a "super majority" fundamentally confuses what actually happens with a filibuster, during which a small number of senators prevents the full senate from even voting on a bill that would otherwise pass.)

When the concept of a filibuster is properly framed as a procedural roadblock employed by a small number of malcontent senators to prevent their colleagues - who won the last election - from voting, the public strongly disapproves. Why? Because even partisans agree that our democratic system should not permit a minority from grinding the government to a halt.

To be fair, I've heard similar rhetoric from the right when the shoe was on the other foot, and all of them ignore a fundamental truth about politics and government--as soon as an election is over, a new one begins.

Republicans impotently whined about Democrat obstructionism in the last couple of years of their majorities as well, and then, just as now, the same argument was made and the same measures contemplated, albeit with different names (nuclear option then, 'reconciliation' now...).

It should come as no surprise at all that health care legislation has met a shield wall of Republican opposition. Look at how Democrats have been using public funds to try to buy off their skittish caucus members. Characterizing a filibuster as a 'small group of malcontents' may make Democrats feel better, but it's simply a delusion (one Republicans would do well to observe and contemplate...). Filibusters succeed of fail on the basis of their public support, not on the number of Congressional malcontents engaged in the activity.

The delusion persists:

no matter how much Obama struggles, it's hard to imagine the Republicans fielding a decent presidential candidate in 2012. In other words, even if the Democrats do find themselves in the minority some time in the next six years, the need to filibuster will be greatly reduced as long as a Democrat holds the White House, where the more socially accepted form of obstructionism - the veto pen - will protect cowardly Dems from having to filibuster most Republican bills.

The author suffers from both a failure of imagination and a belief in the fairy tale of political courage. Politicians follow the Preacher's adage:

For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Eccl 9:4)

Wise men (and women) pick their battles. Fools draw their swords at every provocation.

President's veto for the same reason minorities filibuster--because they believe their actions reflect popular opinion, or will be construed as such. Grover Cleveland vetoed an astonishing 414 bills, and only had 2 overridden. In the modern era, Ronald Reagan was particularly prolific in his vetos--78, with 12 overridden.

Both men took statesmanlike positions and rebuffed Congressional pandering towards the special interests of their day. Its an irony that while Cleveland was a Democrat and Reagan a Republican, both stood firmly for principles of limited government and low taxes.

If Obama finds himself stranded with a Republican Congress, he could potentially come out looking good if the Republicans go on an orgy of earmarking, and he stands in their way for principled (i.e. popular with Americans...) and statesmanlike reasons.

Not much sign of that happening...