Yesterday it was opposed to filibusters. Seven years ago, it was in favor of them. That`s when Clinton and a then-Democratic plurality in the Senate wanted a man named James Hormel to become the ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel, of the Spam and other meats Hormels, was gay, as the Senate minority bottled up Hormel`s nomination with filibusters and threats of filibusters, minority relative to cloture, to breaking up a filibuster.
They did that for a year and a half. The Family Research Council`s senior writer, Steven Schwartz, appeared on National Public Radio at the time and explained the value, even the necessity, of the filibuster.
"The Senate," he said, "is not a majoritarian institution, like the House of Representatives is. It is a deliberative body, and it`s got a number of checks and balances built into our government. The filibuster is one of those checks in which a majority cannot just sheerly force its will, even if they have a majority of votes in some cases. That`s why there are things like filibusters, and other things that give minorities in the Senate some power to slow things up, to hold things up, and let things be aired properly."
The Democrats could make an excellent argument against Dobson using FOF's own words.
Here's the transcript of the entire show
[Update] In the interest of accuracy, I have learned that Focus on the Family and Family Council Research are not the same thing. Because even the Fundies get them confused, Family Research Council has been nice enough to flesh out the differences. The following is from Family Research Council's FAQ page