But government requires compromise, and when you say "No" then you're refusing to compromise. I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party mi

But government requires compromise, and when you say "No" then you're refusing to compromise. I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party might refuse to compromise on, and I believe that's a valid use of the filibuster to block progress. Are you trying to tell me that every single filibuster from 2009 and 2010 was because the issue was so deeply offensive to the Republicans and everything they stand for as a party and an ideological mindset that compromise was impossible? It might not be possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of any particular issue, but I believe it is possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of the criticality of a particular issue. When your job is to compromise and you agree a priori that whatever is suggested, you will refuse to consider, I think that's a clear abuse of your ability to say "No", even without needing to make a value judgement on any particular "No" that was said.