David Frum defends the Senate as representing the popular will:

[M]any of the liberal blogs seem to take the view that once a president wins an election, his duty to persuade the country somehow adjourns for the next four years. That is not true, and it should not be true. If a president can mobilize the country behind an idea, it’s amazing how the filibusters will fade away.

I'd be interested in seeing Frum apply this analysis to events like this:

The office of the executive clerk of the Senate said the procedural move occurred as part of actions taken on nominees without debate before the chamber left for a summer break. Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, said he expects the White House will resubmit the nomination....
The Senate took no action yesterday on the other two nominees, including San Francisco Fed President Janet Yellen for vice chairman and Sarah Bloom Raskin for a governor slot, leaving them to await confirmation after senators return Sept. 13. That means that if Governor Donald Kohn, whose separate term as vice chairman ended in June, departs as planned on Sept. 1, the Fed may be down to four governors for an unknown time.
“It’s very hard for the Federal Reserve to operate with only five people,” said former Fed Governor H. Robert Heller, who served on the board from 1986 to 1989. “Four is the minimum for a quorum. To have the Fed at full strength with seven persons there is very important.”

So, I assume that the Senate is obstructing Peter Diamond's nomination to the Federal Reserve because the public is massively opposed to his ideas about monetary policy?