Strange, filibustering is not so bad when the Republicans do it

Wasn't it just called the nuclear option?

Thers of Whiskey Fire reminds us:

Another bill on Iraq dies in the Senate: this time Webb's bill on limiting the duration of deployments for service members in Iraq. The reason the bill failed, as have all the other Iraq bills, despite the fact that the Democrats control the Senate and the country overwhelmingly wants them to pass, is that they were filibustered.

There was a time in this country when the concept of the filibuster was roundly decried as anti-democratic. It was a dim and misty and faraway time. 2004.

[snip]

Yes, it's legislation and not appointments that are now being filibustered, but that's a minor distinction in the face of rhetoric like "the tyranny of the minority." That's especially the case when the Senate political minority is an American political minority: "7 in 10 Americans say they favor a policy to remove most U.S. troops from Iraq by April of next year.... The July 6-8, 2007, poll finds 62% of Americans saying the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq; 36% say it was not a mistake. This is the first time Gallup has shown opposition to the war exceeding the 60% level."*

What's amusing is not so much the GOP hypocrisy, which long ago lost its capacity to shock or surprise. It's the rather odd fact that the filibustering is getting scanty media attention (as Kevin Drum observes) -- particularly in contrast to the siren-blaring obsession with the "nuclear option" (teh scary!) back in the day.