Similar, but not the same. One only filibusters on a bill that is before them. If the bill is not allowed to come up, due to the control of the committees and the houses of Congress, there is no filibuster necessary. That would have to come from Senate Republicans on an actual bill.
Essentially, no bill may be allowed with the proper funding until assurances are made that Bush will cave on that issue or some other issue.
Bush can veto every bill before him, thus requiring the Democrats to compromise with House and Senate Republicans to then create a bill that could either have enough support to override a veto or that the President would pass without the need for Republican approval (because all the Democrats did pass it).
I seem to remember the rats filibustering and threatening to filibuster judicial nominees when the constitution requires a majority(51) not 60 to break a filibuster.
Remember the so called "nuclear option" to change the rules to get approvals with majority vote.
that was a scheme to get their way.
Why wouldn't they do that again expecially now that they have majorities.