Evan Bayh's retirement and the filibuster factor

I read two pieces in The Post last week about Sen. Evan Bayh citing the Senate's toxic level of partisanship as a factor in his decision to retire. But between the Feb. 17 news analysis by Dan Balz and the Feb. 18 op-ed column by David S. Broder, the subject of Senate filibusters was mentioned exactly once, and that was only in passing by Mr. Broder.

Filibusters are being used by the Republican minority not merely to delay action but to routinely thwart the majority's legislative agenda -- a misuse almost without precedent. Yes, the Democrats ratcheted up the use of the filibuster several years ago, but mostly only to delay action on nominations for judgeships. Virtually all of the Bush administration's nominees got votes. Now, we've seen every roadblock in the book thrown up to forestall action on, among other things, health-care reform.

This misuse of the filibuster is what underlies public dissatisfaction with Congress. How is it that Mr. Balz and Mr. Broder missed this?

Mike Maynard, Gaithersburg